Book 3: Part 1
Much of Book 3 concerns with how we can measure and define virtue. Aristotle states that virtue is concerned with feelings and actions, and we must distinguish between what is a willing act and an unwilling act in order to define these acts as virtuous. Obviously, a shameful willing act is not virtuous, but at the beginning of Book 3, Aristotle states that for “unwilling actions there is forgiveness and sometimes even pity”. Unwilling acts are those that happen through ignorance or from the result of some external force. However, if we are responsible for our own ignorance than the act is deemed willful. Aristotle also states that bad people are merely ignorant people who wish and choose for what is apparently good but is actually bad. However, in Book II Aristotle says that moral virtue is acquired through habit and constant practice. If there is no one to instruct someone to what good moral virtue is, than it is impossible for these people to develop virtuous habits because they do not know how to practice them. I might disagree with Aristotle’s definition of ignorant people as being “bad” people because it’s not necessarily they’re fault that they’re bad; if in their mind they’re doing what is good, how can we speak of them as being bad? Without an established code of morals within a society, “good” and “bad” people is incredibly open for interpretation. An example in our present society is abortion. Some view people who get abortions as bad people, and others don’t find it significant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think we can say that our society has established that certain acts are "bad." I have never met someone who says abortion is good, but rather people (who are pro-choice) are for abortion by means of justifcation of it, not because it is simply "good."
ReplyDelete"Bad" people are really just decieved people, however, that doesn't justify their actions. What is immoral (unjust, bad, etc.) is immoral. Nothing can change that. People can only attempt to justify their actions, but not the thing itself.
I agree with miss byerley in that "bad" people are decieved people and that doesn't justify their actions. Moreover, we call them "bad" because of the social order/morality we have established. There is only one good, no matter how much people feel they are reaching for what they believe to be good. In some ways it seems like a cut and dry distinction. If it's not THE good and only what one believes to be good, it isn't necessarily good.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading this book, I kept thinking of how many Christians view people in third world countries. Technically they "sin" because they are not worshiping Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, but they are forgiven (so many Christians believe) because they are ignorant of the "truth." They are unwillingly ignorant because they have never been exposed to what Christians consider the ultimate truth. I think it's an interesting example because it really brings about our pity as opposed to middle-class Americans in less serious situations who just "didn't know."
ReplyDeleteI agree with the statement above and thought of the same things as I read this book. Those in third world countries have never had the opportunity to come to know Jesus Christ. So many people don't even take the time to understand or acknowledge the situation.
ReplyDelete