Topic selection and writing process in academic research

¶ … Aristotle states that there is a difference between intellectual and moral virtues. The purpose of the present paper is to discuss his view regarding moral virtue and moderation, insisting upon issues such as the reasons which could prevent people from respecting their own behavior standards, or why both those who practice and who do not practice virtue are part of the same category. The analysis is based on the Nicomachean Ethics, namely on the Books 2 to 5 which deal with the selected argument. Virtue and moderation are directly connected to the concept of good, the definition of which renders the discussion even more difficult.

One of the first issues which come into mind when discussing the relationship between virtues ad goodness is the separation that the author makes between the possession of this quality and its manifestation. In other word, if a an individual is endowed with virtue, but does not apply in his actions, does not perform it, can we still speak of a really virtuous person? Is there a difference between the situations in which one practices virtue and one in which he does not? The philosopher suggests that there is no substantial difference and that both action and mere possession can act as solid proof to the existence of virtue.

The question which naturally arises at this point is why would some persons endowed with justice choose to perform it while others would refrain from action ?Aristotle suggests that people are tempted to act in a virtuous manner because this brings happiness to them and also to the other people. Therefore the value of virtuousness is intrinsic. Still, I fail to understand why some people would refrain from practicing virtue under the circumstances in which this is a factor which triggers happiness (and it is safe to say that all people are looking for happiness). The debate remains open as far as this aspect is concerned.

A further point that must be taken into consideration is the nature of virtue. Aristotle declares that a person is not born with moral virtues, but these must be acquired. It is through the repetition of the virtues that the virtuousness is consolidated. I think that this passage is also confusing if we are to take into consideration the matter discussed in the paragraph above. If everything is a matter of habit, then how can the people who are not constantly involved in this kind of exercise become really virtuous? A more complex question regards the very nature of the individual: are people good by nature and therefore inclined towards virtuos acts (which would explain why it is through virtuous acts that people achieve happiness) or is it something that can be acquired through constant practice? Are people divided into virtuous and non-virtuous, from a moral point-of-view, or are there degrees of virtuosity that we can speak about with some being more virtuous than others (yet everyone belonging to the same category)?

A further aspect that the philosopher underlines is the freedom of decision that the individual benefits from and which he uses in order to construct his behavior. In other words people are endowed with personal interests and feelings which not always correspond to the actions which are generally accepted as being virtuous. They are free to decide whether to go through with these actions or refrain from them. In this context, those who choose not to perform the virtuous actions because they do not correspond to the personal feelings can be considered as not virtuous (or not as virtuous as the others who do). Yet, the action is not a necessary proof for the existence of virtue. If action (practice) is directly connected with the strengthening of the moral character, the only way to solve the conflict is to accept that people can be virtuous to various degree -- this explaining the responsibility that a person has towards both his actions and inactions. It is interesting to acknowledge the fact that a person still bears moral responsibility even in the case in which he chose not to become involved in a certain situation.

Speaking of justice and its connection to moral virtue, it must be stated that Aristotle makes the distinction between universal justice that would be lawfulness and particular justice that is fairness. The opposite of these is what defines injustice (unfairness and unlawfulness). Injustice however may occur from both intentional and unintentional circumstances- whether incidental or accidental.

Speaking of injustice we can also discuss the issue of moral vice. This occurs only when the actions have a strong intentional basis. Therefore when somebody commits an action which is not morally valid, we must always search the circumstances which led to it before evaluating the moral value of the performer. Aristotle believes that when the immoral action occurs without intention then we can speak about moral incontinence. The discourse is apparently simple, but we must bear in mind the other aspects analyzed so far. If I am responsible for both my action and inaction, how is it then that the presence or lack of intention regarding action and inaction can decide upon my moral character? Let us consider the situation in which I do not have the intention to harm anyone, yet I choose not to perform a virtuous deed. The outcome of my non-participation being of immoral, unjust nature, this ought to make me non-virtuous as well. But it doesn't, I am regarded as a mere incontinent from a moral point-of-view. The people who are in possession of moral virtue, but choose not to practice it, do they also fall in the category of moral incontinence examples through the implications of their inactions?

The philosopher tries to explain this dilemma in the following manner: all the people know what is virtuous and not what is not. They know whether their own feelings and interests are moral or not. In addition, since happiness is directly connected to the realization of moral virtue through virtuous actions, it results that everybody knows what the virtuous standards of behavior are. Not only that. Aristotle's work seems to imply the fact that all people have the same behavior standards. But, not all people have the capacity to adhere to their own behavior standards. This is how we come to make a distinction between those who are morally incontinent and those who are morally continent.

This might sound strange because in theory one ought to establish his conduct rules according to his values (which are at their turn strictly connected to the achievement of happiness). Why should we then not be able to attain to these standards if they come from the inside. The answer seems to suggest that people are not virtuous by nature and that indeed moral virtue is something that we need to learn. How about the view according to which happiness derives from the accomplishments of virtuous actions? Is this a conviction that comes from inside or something that people are taught? Obviously it is something that can be taught, which could explain why some people would have trouble respecting the behavior patterns they have decided upon on their own.

It is worth wondering why people would establish behavior codes which they know they are likely not to be able to respect. Why should we associate happiness with the practice of things which do not always suit our feelings and interests? Why should there be a difference if substance between the things that we believe in and the ones which we feel. One might suggest that Aristotle's view is an idealistic one which people not always achieve. I agree to the fact that virtue is an ideal, but I do not think that is one impossible to attain. It might be difficult to obtain, because regardless of the extent to which one is dedicated to his virtues, he can not entirely escape his passions. This is why exercise is needed. I believe that practice is fundamental for the solidification of a virtuous character. I still fail to see how people could still be considered possessors of virtue if they do not apply it (the intentionality factor is a key one here).