Aristotle Virtue Analysis

Aristotle compares virtue to craft. People become virtuous in the same way they become craftsmen—through practice. Virtue originates from virtuous acts but is destroyed by doing unvirtuous acts. Thus, children have to first participate in virtuous acts to be virtuous people as they would have to start playing lyre before they become good or bad musicians.
Aristotle says that the act of playing the lyre—or conducting virtuous actions—are analogous. As an inexperienced man is not considered a good or bad lyre player in his first few try handling the lyre, a child should not be classified as a noble or shameful even before he has become habituated with the acts themselves. Every virtue arises from (e0k) virtuous acts. Thus, a child has to be made to do virtuous acts, even before he knows about the goodness or the vileness of his deeds if he is to be (ethically) virtuous.
Aristotle states virtue also has its origin through (dia) virtuous acts. Therefore, the teacher, who forces his pupils to act nobly, is not the means of pupils attaining virtue. It the actions …show more content…
The latter implies, however, noblemen can be made shameful. Similar to becoming virtuous, we can destroy our virtue without any ill-intention. Again, both the “e0k” and “dia” are the key determinants. A virtuous person is virtuous because he has been habituated to do such acts. It would pain him to go against his habits and be shameful, but this pain is not one of conscience; it’s from doing things contrary to habit. Likewise, an unvirtuous man is not shameful because he wishes to be so, but from being habituated so. Furthermore, as an unvirtuous have to be improved by being forced to conduct virtuous acts, a virtuous man can be made unvirtuous. Both without necessarily having their good or ill thought altered. This is further supported by Aristotle latter remark: men become good or bad house-builders by building well or badly