What Is the Main Difference between Aristotle's Account of Virtue and Socrates' Account of Virtue - Essay Example

What is the main difference between Aristotles account of virtue and Socrates account of virtue? Who has the more plausible view? What is the main difference between Aristotles account of virtue and Socrates account of virtue? Who has the more plausible view? Traditionally, the motives of human behaviour attracts are among the key issues discussed in philosophy. Efforts have been made to identify the values and ethics on which human actions are based. Virtue is one of these values. The views of philosophers, like Socrates and Aristotle on virtue have attracted the interest of academics worldwide. At a first level, both Socrates and Aristotle refer to virtue as a general term – i.e. they do not explain particularly each aspect of virtue, as a value of human behaviour (Simpson 2002, p.68). However, Socrates considers virtue related to courage, while for Aristotle the context of virtue can be vague (Matthews 2003) – as explained below. In this way, Aristotle has accepted the Socrate’s account of virtue as related to courage but he is differentiated from Socrates to the following point: courage, which, in the form of knowledge, is for Socrates the basis of virtue (Kahn 1998, p.85), is considered for Aristotle just an element of virtue; the latter, in accordance with Aristotle, is likely to be influenced from other elements and values, such as eudaimonia (Klosko 2006). The differences regarding the views of Socrates and Aristotle on virtue are analytically presented below; explanations are given, as possible by referring to the relevant texts. Also, suggestions are made regarding the potential limitation of the distance between the views of Socrates and Aristotle on virtue and its elements. The key difference between Aristotle’s account of virtue and Socrates’ account of virtue is highlighted in the study of Achtenberg (2002); in accordance with the above researchers, Socrates emphasized on virtue as knowledge, while Aristotle considered virtue as related to the behavioural characteristics of each individual; in the context of Aristotle’s account of virtue, virtue is an element of human behaviour which requires the emotional development of the person involved (Achtenberg 2002, p.24). From this point of view, minors cannot have virtue – at least not in its full form – since their emotional development is still in progress. The importance of knowledge as a criterion for virtue has been the key characteristic of Socrates’ account of virtue. Curren (2000) noted that Plato accepted the view of Socrates that ‘wisdom is a key element of virtue’ (Curren 2000, p.48). It is on this basis that the suggestions of Plato on education have been based. Taking into consideration the fact that virtue can be taught, as Socrates supported, Plato developed the framework of moral education, a system of rules/ principles in which morals – including virtue – would be promoted. Through the above approach, virtue can be considered as strongly depended on education, meaning not only the curriculum but also the rules/ principles taught within the family. The view of Aristotle on virtue is differentiated from that of Socrates in another point: Socrates supported that virtue should be followed by certain goods, named as external goods; however, the non-existence of these goods would not affect virtue, in terms that virtue could exist independently and that these goods would be considered just as tools for achieving virtue (Cooper 1999, p.306). On the other hand, Aristotle noted that the value of virtue cannot be made clear unless it is combined with external goods, which can be either part of the virtue or just be used for achieving virtue; in other words, Aristotle does not accept a potential independency of virtue from external goods (Cooper 1999, p.306). In order to understand the differences in the views of Socrates and Aristotle on virtue it would be necessary to refer to their views on other concepts (or else psychological conditions) such as happiness and eudaimonism. Regarding eudaimonism Socrates accepts its close relation to human behaviour, criticizing Anaxagoras for ‘trying explaining human action by using materialistic explanations’ (Heinaman 2003, p.57) – in Phaedo 99a5-b2. The Psychological Eudaimonism, i.e. the view of each individual on good, is, in accordance to Socrates, an indispensable part of human behaviour, being similar to the Rational Eudaimonism, the ‘need of every human to be happy’ (Heinaman 2003, p.57). However, Eudaimonism can oppose to virtue; this fact can be made clear by referring to the relationship between happiness (a concept similar to eudaimonism) and virtue, as explained by Socrates. Virtue results to happiness, a condition related to doing good; on the contrary, doing the evil results to unhappiness (Socrates, Apology 29b6-7 in Heinaman 2003, p.58). From this point of view, ‘virtue guarantees happiness while vice guarantees unhappiness’ (Gorgias 507b8-c5 in Heinaman 2003, p.58). On the other hand, happiness cannot result only by virtue (Apology 29d9-30a3 in Heinaman 2003, p.58). Under these terms, Socrates suggest that each individual should choose virtue which could offer him a protection in case that bad things could happen to him; this protection is explained as a rewarding with good things – which could follow the bad things – ‘either in this life or in the afterlife’ (Apology 29a5-6, in Heinaman 2003, p.63). As for Aristotle, a different approach of Eudaimonia can be identified; in accordance with Aristotle, eudaimonia should be defined as ‘an activity of soul in accordance with complete or perfect virtue’ (Nicomachean Ethics Book I, 1102a2-6 in Burger 2009, p.48). Moreover, eudaimonia is considered as a major principle on which every human action or decision needs to be based. At this point, Aristotle is differentiated from Socrates, who recognized the value of eudaimonia but criticized its role in virtue. For Socrates, eudaimonia is not a criterion for action for virtuous people. Regarding happiness and its involvement in virtue, again the view of Aristotle is different from that of Socrates. Aristotle accepts the key role of happiness in virtue but not through the same point as Socrates (Burger 2009, p.48). As noted above, Socrates emphasized happiness as a result of virtue. Aristotle, relates happiness to virtue but without making clear whether happiness is a criterion of action or whether it results from virtue (Burger 2009, p.48) From the same point of view, in accordance with Aristotle neutral concepts cannot be used for developing moral descriptions (Heinaman 2003, p.12). Instead, ethics and morality would be related to specific practices; for instance, when having to describe the characteristics of a brave action reference should be made to the conditions under which this action was initiated, the criteria on which the relevant decisions were made – meaning especially the logos, the tools used and so on. In this context the Moral Good is not set at the priority of virtue; rather eudaimonia is considered as ‘the ultimate good and the source of the goodness’ (Heinaman 2003, p.12). In this way, virtue is not considered as an independent concept/ condition; rather it is regarded as depended on eudaimonia, which is set as the principle with the highest value for reaching virtue. In accordance with the issues discussed above it is made clear that the relation of virtue to knowledge and to eudaimonia are the key differences between Aristotle and Socrates. However, these differences would be possibly interpreted positively, resulting to the development of virtue as a multi-dimensional value. Socrates supported that knowledge is sufficient in order for virtue to exists (Tenenbaum 2007, p.37). The view of Aristotle that knowledge is not the only prerequisite of virtue could be regarded not, purely, as an opposition to the view of Socrates but rather as an effort to make the context of virtue clearer. A similar approach could be also used for explaining the differences between the views of Socrates and Aristotle regarding the role of eudaimonia in virtue: eudaimonia would be considered as partially related to happiness; in this way, eudaimonia could result from virtue – following the view of Socrates that happiness results from virtue. In this way, the differences in the account of virtue between Socrates and Aristotle should be limited, without alternating the key framework of virtue as developed by the above philosophers. References Achtenberg, D. (2002). Cognition of value in Aristotles ethics: promise of enrichment, threat of destruction. Albany: SUNY Press. Burger, R. (2009). Aristotles Dialogue with Socrates: On the "Nicomachean Ethics". London: University of Chicago Press. Cooper, J. (1999). Reason and emotion: essays on ancient moral psychology and ethical theory. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Curren, R. (2000). Aristotle on the necessity of public education. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Gerson, L. (2002). Aristotle: critical assessments. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Heinaman, R. (2003). Plato and Aristotles ethics. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing. Kahn, C. (1998). Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophical Use of a Literary Form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Klosko, G. (2006). The development of Platos political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matthews, G. (2003). Socratic Perplexity: And the Nature of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simpson, P. (2002). A philosophical commentary on the Politics of Aristotle. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books. Tenenbaum, S. (2007). Moral psychology. New York: Rodopi. Read More