Aristotle's Explanation Of Moral Virtue

Aristotle firstly argues that virtue consists of intellectual and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue is teachable and can be obtained through time and experience; while moral virtue forms through habituation and constant practice. Aristotle states that moral virtue cannot form in man by nature since everything made by nature fails to change to another side by habituation. He concludes that rather than born to be moral or immoral, people have the capacity to be potentially virtue through habituation, which means that they are already able to exploit aptitude beforehand and they only have to practice to have moral virtue. Aristotle also believes that by exercising the same thing, virtue distinguishes people moral and immoral. Therefore, being …show more content…
Aristotle also denies predispositions because people are not praised or blamed for having capacity or tendency to feeling things; besides, people become predisposed by nature, but virtue does not form by nature. As a result, Aristotle concludes that virtue is active conditions. He believes that virtue not only creates good in itself, but also enables people to function well. He mentions that everything has two extremes and one middle state; the mean is relatively stable but it differs among people because they all have their perception and act accordingly. Since virtue is concerned with actions and feelings; either acting and feeling towards two extremes, which are excess and deficiency would lead people to go astray. People easily go to bad way because they have no limitations. Instead, being virtuous is very difficult because it hit the mean, which proves that things are good with limitation but also are hard to obtain. People perceive virtue as a mean when thinking of its definition and nature; while virtue is the an extreme when comparing other options and