Verified answer

1. One lives the good life, which for Aristotle is "an entire and happy life", by developing and then practicing excellent habits, a.k.a. virtues, provided that one has both the opportunity and luck to not be hindered in pursuing excellent habits (virtues).

Q. HOW DOES DEVELOPING A VIRTUOUS CHARACTER HELP one live a good life?

A. Being excellent/virtuous at anything "helps". The problem, of course, is that some people want to EXCEL at being VICIOUS (the opposite/contrary of virtuous). The difference between VICES and VIRTUES is that vicious pleasures are attractive in the short term, but almost inevitably have equally vicious/bad consequences in the long run. With virtues, there may be some difficulties and displeasures involved in the short term, but in the long term they tend to give more pleasure and more pleasant benefits leading to long term happiness.

2. WHAT are virtues and how are they characterized (by Aristotle):

Virtues are characterized as middle grounds or "means" between CONTRARY VICES for the most part, although Aristotle mentions that there are certain acts (e.g. murder, adultery, theft) which are always VICES or vicious acts.

ARISTOTLE:

For men are good in but one way, but bad in many.

Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean RELATIVE TO US, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a MEAN between two VICES, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue both finds and chooses that which is intermediate.

Hence in respect of its SUBSTANCE and the DEFINITION which states its essence VIRTUE is a MEAN, with regard to what is BEST and RIGHT an EXTREME.

But not every action nor every passion admits of a mean; for some have names that already imply badness, e.g. spite, shamelessness, envy, and in the case of actions adultery, theft, murder; for all of these and suchlike things imply by their names that they are themselves bad, and not the excesses or deficiencies of them. It is not possible, then, ever to be right with regard to them; one must always be wrong.

Nor does goodness or badness with regard to such things depend on committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way, but simply to do any of them is to go wrong. It would be equally ABSURD, then, to expect that in unjust, cowardly, and voluptuous action there should be a mean, an excess, and a deficiency; for at that rate there would be a mean of excess and of deficiency, an excess of excess, and a deficiency of deficiency." [N.E. BK 2; Ch. 6.]

EXAMPLES: 1. Courage is a virtue and the "mean" or "intermediate" between the contrary vices of cowardice [excess of fear and defect of reason and confidence] and rashness [excess of confidence and defect of reason and fear]. Liberality/generousness is the virtuous mean or intermediate between the contrary vices of mizerliness/stinginess and prodigality/wastefulness.

Q. HOW?:

One becomes virtuous by doing virtuous acts and vicious by doing vicious acts --- just like one becomes a good or a bad musician by actually playing a musical instrument and practicing it or not.

IS IT ENOUGH?:

No. As Aristotle says above "the mean has to be RELATIVE to us.", for some of us have a tendency toward, for example, "rashness" (an excessive vice), rather than the mean of courage, but others of us have a tendency toward "cowardliness" (a defective vice). So in practicing a virtue, we have to understand both (1) our vicious tendencies and (2) our strengths.

DESCRIBE a scenario:

Let your professor describe such a "scenario", for virtues do NOT "compete with one another". Virtues and vices are analogical "competitors". There is no "conflict of virtues", for how could the intelligence (a mental virtue) of Aristotle be in "conflict" with the courage (a moral virtue) of Hector or of Achilles. 2 virtuous persons may be in conflict (Hector vs. Achilles), but not 2 virtues.

CAN VIRTUE THEORY TELL etc.

NO! Because that would take away "choice" and virtue is a 3rd choice between opposed vices. Most "moral dilemmas" are "choices" between 2 contrary VICES. No virtuous person will ever "choose" either vice.

Aristotle's theory "stands alone" and is rationally based on the thesis of "truth in agreement with right desire" for oneself [Nicomachean Ethics; BK VI, Ch. 2.]. In other words "Everyone ought to desire that which IS truly good for her/himself." No theory can determine the virtues of individuals.

Kevin