Growing up my mother has always told me that a person should never have to convince you what kind of person they are, but instead their actions alone will prove to you who they really are. A person that feels the need to constantly state "I am an honest person", is the person you have to be skeptical of, whereas a person who simply displays his honesty is the one to be trusted. Aristotle's ideals of a virtuous person or virtues alone, seem to capture what I've always been told as a child. Your actions or phronesis (practical wisdom) should reflect your reason or character in general. If there is a true balance or a "Golden mean" then there is no need to voice who you perceive yourself as being or the virtues you believe you possess, your actions should be the sole representation.
In class many of us provided different examples or scenarios in which some one may perform a virtuous act, but the act alone did not make the person virtuous. I personally asked, how do we draw the line in deeming an act versus the person as virtuous when it is the person's job or duty such as a firefighter, soldier, or whoever? As I mentioned in the opening paragraph, there are many people in our society that are automatically deemed as honest or courageous simply because of their position or title; however, these people sometimes fall short of this expectation. Should we credit this to Aristotle's view that they simply were partaking in virtuous acts or could we say they once possessed a particular virtue but became unbalanced? Also how do you personally define the character of a person?
I believe that there are scenarios for both cases here. The first, and most simple, would be that some job positions require individuals to mechanically perform their task without thought, making their acts virtuous. The second, I can describe best through example. Certain individuals have a special “virtue” that makes them an automatically able to use their talents to the fullest. Take for instance, a politician; politicians initially start off wanting to make the world a better place through their uncanny ability to inspire people through speech. Initially, these individuals were probably once highly respected individuals who were engaging in virtuous acts; however, many politicians fall into the trap of being “too good for the laws they create,” thus becoming unbalanced. I think that when evaluating an individual’s personality based on their actions, people need to understand that humans have the ability to change. Therefore, when defining the character of this person and all other individuals, I would characterize them through reevaluation of their actions over the course of their lifetime.
ReplyDeleteI can agree with that. Thanks for commenting.
ReplyDeleteThe first statement of the original post claims that “we place a high sense of prestige on those that consider themselves as people of courage, honor, fairness, and etc.” I disagree with this on the grounds that the primary reason people select these occupations is because they feel a desire or obligation to serve others, not because they wish to be known as virtuous, though this does often come to pass if they do their jobs well. As we discussed in class, the fact that their actions are courageous, honest and fair is established only after they make it a habit to act in such a manner. According to Plato, it is impossible to truly be courageous or possess any other virtue merely through intent or theoretical knowledge – only consistently acting in accord with that virtue makes one virtuous. As such, the firemen, police officers, etc. who do their jobs courageously and consistently are virtuous, whereas politicians who devote most of their time to talking about what they intend to do or why they could not do something – i.e., “campaigning” or “standing by their promises” – are the antithesis of virtuous.
ReplyDeleteI am not fully convinced that someone has to complete multiple courageous acts in order to be considered courageous. I think with honesty, you have to observe a person over time. Being honest or dishonest once or twice is not enough to determine if someone is truly honest. With courage, though, I do not think it takes as long. Personally, if I see someone put their life on the line once to save someone else, I would call them courageous. I would not have to see them do that multiple times to consider them a courageous person. Large actions can really say a lot about a person. If someone kills one person, we would consider them a bad person (unless it is self defense or something like that) so why can't we consider someone courageous through just one act as well?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't convinced of that either Michelle. I felt as a class we didn't really agree that multiple acts had to prove anything. When you said that, as random as it may be, I immediately thought of someone that donates an organ. In this case it would be unwise to continuously donate because it would be deadly but it would be completely selfish not to help at least one person if it was a dire situation or even someone you really cared about. The one donation would be the happy medium, making that one act courageous in my opinion. As I said this is a pretty random example but I hope you can see my point: All acts should not have to be replicated to mean something.
ReplyDeletepersonally define the character of a person based off their relationship with me. I think we tend to judge other from outside opinions too often. If I see a stranger doing a courageous act, I firstly, do not know if this is his only courageous act he has ever done. Secondly, I cannot tell whether he is afraid, and lastly I may never see him again. Therefore , I will view him as a courageous person, and not rely on the thoughts of others.
ReplyDelete