Virtue Ethics and Aristotle
A virtuous person by definition performs virtuous acts -- therefore, if virtuous person A performs acts B, then act B. must be virtuous, and all resulting acts of person A thereof. Hardly true, one might exclaim -- even in theoretical logic as well as practice. Not every action performed by a person labeled virtuous will contain the essence of virtue. Surely, no one is perfect But can one avoid this tautological form of reasoning, and still embrace some of Aristotle's ethical reasoning?
Saying that a virtuous person performs virtuous acts, and therefore all acts performed by the virtuous person are virtuous, and virtuous people perform virtuous acts by definition. Remember that such statements are not the same thing as saying a courageous person performs courageous acts, and that an act performed by a person of courage must be courageous. It is important to remember that Aristotle equated virtue with happiness, and happiness...
A politician might perform good actions to gain reelection, and provide a healthier environment for the community, but this person's actions are not virtuous unless they are done regardless of what the personal reward for the individual might be. Thus a politician might begin striving for honor, but towards the end of her career become virtuous more often, by performing more virtuous actions, as she cares less for society, and more for the legacy of doing good. An ordinary person can become a virtuous person by risking his life to rescue a stray dog from a burning building, even though no one will reward him afterwards…
