In the part of his sermon known as The Beatitudes, he discusses different individual virtues that contribute to a morally good person. These values include being “poor in spirit,” “meek,” “merciful,” “clean of heart;” as well as being a person who “mourn(s),” “hunger(s) and thirst(s) for righteousness,” is a “peacemaker,” or is “persecuted for the sake of righteousness” (Book of Matthew, 13). All of the beatitudes listed go hand-in-hand one with another and point toward an individual who is teachable, humble, and has pure intentions. If one believes themselves to already have perfect virtue and in no need to improve, their pride gets in the way and there is no room to help them; oppositely, someone who reflects even just a few of the beatitudes is able to be perfected in virtue, because their humility will allow …show more content…
Is it by their good acts and sincere efforts, as Jesus teaches? Or is it by material assets? It may be easier be generous if one has wealth, but it doesn’t make that individual more virtuous than the poor person reaching out to help another. Aristotle implies that moral virtue is bought with money and social influence, but Jesus preaches that virtue is bought with the soul. While Aristotle’s view of how virtue is exercised completely excludes all but the elite, Jesus invites even the poorest of the poor to strive for the virtues that The Beatitudes introduces. Jesus’ philosophy is one that is accepting of imperfections as long as the individual is teachable and open to correction, while Aristotle renounces less than perfection with disgust, claiming that one cannot be happy if they “look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary, or childless” (Aristotle 1099b). On the contrary, these are the type of people that Jesus would welcome with open arms; after all, he did heal the multitudes that were “sick