Discussion Of Virtue In Aristotle's Nichomachean Politics

Throughout Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, he discusses how a person can become virtuous, and how that relates to the implementation of politics in Athenian society. Aristotle argues that the only way a person can develop a virtuous character is by a process of forcing himself to do virtuous activities. Just like any other skill, virtue has to be learned over time. Aristotle believes that eventually doing virtuous actions will become habit, giving you a virtuous character. Aristotle states that nobody is born having virtue, and as a result, the process of habituation is a long and difficult one. Aristotle believes that not that many people will endure the process due to its difficulty, so they need some type of push. According to him, politicians could act as this needed push, by making it law for their constituents to do …show more content…
Both believe that becoming good is a lengthy and tedious process which requires an external force. For Aristotle, the force should come from politicians and lawmakers who make laws requiring citizens to do virtuous things. Plato, on the other hand, believes that the force should come from philosophers who drag individuals into the light, revealing the truth and beauty of reality. Based on both of their ideas, I believe that Plato has the better argument. In Aristotle’s argument, politicians would physically force citizens to do virtuous actions, eventually making them become virtuous. Instead of making the person virtuous, laws would just make its constituents hate virtuous actions, as they would be seen as a requirement, rather than something good. Plato, on the other hand, describes a way on how an outside force can genuinely help individual reach the “good.” In Plato’s argument, philosophers would help individuals on the intellectual search for reality by pointing them in the right direction. This way, the individual will be able to find the truth of reality on their