" In other words, he philosopher advocates temperance, especially as far as emotion is concerned. This is combined with actions or "habits," as Aristotle terms them. A person who is temperate while also engaging in "good" activities or habits can then be said to be virtuous. It appears that this definition fits well with what could constitute "good" even in today's terms. A person who would disagree with the above might argue that both my and Aristotle's definition of "good" and "virtue" is far too vague to have any valid application. Neither definition, for example, acknowledges cultural variation in terms of what might constitute "virtue." A person from the Far East, for example, might consider it virtuous to obey one's parents in everything, including one's choice of a bride. In Western culture, on the other hand, and by the above definition, it is decidedly "bad" to make one's children miserable by choosing a life partner for them. Such a choice would not be based upon love, but rather on social or financial status, which is considered to be less noble than making a choice for love. In this argument, therefore, the entire concept of virtue is flexible, even when consisting of the requirement that others must not be harmed. The same action could, for example, be considered harmful or virtuous, depending upon one's viewpoint. How could one therefore argue that there is any single definition of virtue, and especially one that is thousands of years old? The answer is that there is not, because cultures and individuals have their own individual...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now