Virtue Is Inherently Acquired and Can Be Taught - Essay Example

Virtue Is Inherently Acquired and Can Be Taught Thesis Virtue is of two kinds, the moral and the intellectual. Moral virtue is as a result of a habit acquired with repeated behavior of a certain trait whereas intellectual virtue is inherent from birth and is developed by teaching that require experience and time. Moral virtues are not inherited as compared to intellectual virtues. However, none of the moral virtues may in whichever way arise from nature because nothing in nature can exist without a form of habit opposite to its nature. For instance, a river cannot flow up the stream because it naturally flows downwards due to its nature and no power or practice can force it either way. Therefore, it is by nature that virtues arise in human beings as human beings are adapted by nature to get them and are made naturally by nature. In nature, human beings acquire the potential and later exhibit the activity. On the other hand, we had the sense of hearing seeing and smelling before we used them, but these virtues are acquired by exercise and practice. For the things that we have to learn before they are done, one must practice good deeds in order to be good. Virtue is a quality of character and is expressed by how a person behaves. Analysis of Thesis Virtue can be taught only if it is the knowledge of something. Virtue is a good value. Anybody possessing something of good character can only benefit from it rather than acquire it. Therefore, any quality of virtue not guided by understanding can be harmful and of no use to anybody. For example, a person’s beauty can harm him or her physically if the beauty is used foolishly; it is of no benefit to that person. Virtue being a quality of character benefits the person who possesses it and it can be argued that knowledge is part of virtue. In accordance with age, children do not act out of virtue as compared to adults and this explains further that virtue does not emerge from that part of our character rather than nature itself. Knowledge therefore, is not a natural innate but is an acquired trait. Those who acquire virtue get it from learning and exercising its values. If virtue can be acquired by learning, then people can be taught virtue by trained professionals. Sophists are teachers of virtue who teach arts of persuasions and rhetoric and on the other hand, they are not concerned with the result of what they teach regardless of the skills. People who are virtuous such as elders are best skilled and experienced to teach virtue to others by examples, advice, and explanations as they were taught by other elders during their time. These traits are passed on from generation to generation. On the other hand, sons of elders are not as virtuous as their fathers and elders. Virtuous men teach their sons important skills such as hunting, fishing, and how to be capable horsemen. Virtue is more important than any other skills. Therefore, men of virtue make sure their sons acquire the best qualities, skills and knowledge of virtues to be more virtuous. However, virtue can simply be described as a state of character of excellence that brings forth good states or conditions in excellence that makes it function properly according to its functions. Argument of Thesis True believe seems to be a surface of success and therefore a virtue need not be knowledge; it is a mere belief. Virtuous people might have good qualities of virtue not because they have knowledge of some sort but simply because they have beliefs about it. They might also lack a sum of knowledge but are similarly thought to have true beliefs. People of virtue are merely virtuous upon their true beliefs but not out of the knowledge. This as well illustrates why virtuous men are not able to teach virtue to their own sons and daughters because they have no record or account to teach their sons that their own believe is true. This brings in picture questions such: how did the virtuous acquire the virtue if it was not taught? Did they acquire virtue by mistake? Some argue that it could be through luck that virtuous people acquired these important beliefs while others say that it is not out of sheer luck that the virtuous are virtuous. Objections to Thesis The advantage of knowledge over true believes is that a person who believe but has no knowledge can easily lose it. He might misinterpret issue wrongly as evidence against his own belief, therefore changing his mind upon the basis on others opinions. Knowledge therefore have anchor ones true belief and we should expect virtuous people to be virtuous through true belief rather than knowledge that they might not lose their virtue. Through hardships, a virtuous man remains virtuous in the face of false opinion even when the majority has the false opinion. Another question that puzzles is how do the virtuous maintain their virtue among the false majority and through hardships while their virtue is simply true and not be interfered by an account? The gods known by people are virtuous implying that their true beliefs are anchored by a certain account that the wisdom, knowledge or understanding of the gods encompasses virtue. Through inspirations, virtuous people are virtuous as their virtue is a gift from the gods who have instilled those true beliefs. On the other hand, the gods would not take away the gifts in order to maintain the virtuous beliefs they have given to the people. How the virtuous are virtuous is that they are blessed by their gods. This explains why both the origin of virtue in people and that virtuous people do not lose their virtue in hard times to test their faith. Although ancient value of virtue differs from the modern ones, am in doubt that this has to do with what I am expressing in the puzzle. In my opinion, no reason whatsoever try to scrutinize people’s character from the ancient evaluative perception rather than contemplating on overall judgment s of their goodness or badness. Response to Thesis In response to this thesis, virtue is a true belief among people. As a result, true belief is not acquired through teaching, mentorship or anchored by an account but they are maintained and instilled by the virtuous gods. Is the argument true in response to the thesis? For us to know, we must work extra hard to understand all values of virtue whether virtue is honesty, courage, justice and moderation differ from name or aspect of one thing or another. Is virtue knowledge or is it a true belief? Virtue is concerned with actions and passions and it is better than any art compared to nature. Virtue is therefore a state character that concern ones choices related to people and is determined by a rational principle that men of wisdom would determine its course. According to Greeks, although the thesis is not empirical, supported by empirical evidence, it is neither a direct thesis on its normative rather it falls away from a larger normative seen as a corollary. The argument seems to me as quite conceivable. The former argument in favor is a well eligible form of thesis that is strong thereby presents this argument by making a case for a competent form of thesis of how virtue is inherent and can be taught. The eligible form of the thesis can be defended in a modest way so as to withdraw the thesis of much importance. In defence of the thesis, there is no empirical reason to hesitate in its interest because of two reasons, one it calls for attention to the diverse view that thesis is connected asking us to support and incorporate it with behaviour and ethical judgment at the right moment. Secondly, it serves as a functional case study of the activity of moral philosophy, an area in which the expressive and regulatory, normative, and empirical are intensely tangled. By presenting my argument, virtue is inherent and can be taught; the support inspired by Aristotle. As I refer to Aristotle’s views on virtue, the upcoming question is; Do Aristotle’s views on virtue affect the strength of my argument or the splendor of the position I will present later? Why then can one think that virtue is inherent rather than be taught? This claim is as a result of further inner normative claim about the close relationship between knowledge and virtue. The crucial idea of this argument to whether virtue is inherent and can be taught is correlated with Aristotle’s findings. According to Aristotle’s, being virtuous is a character that exposes one to the right way, at the right time, in the right way, to the right person and for the right purpose (Curtler 46). Anyone can acquire certain virtues if only they are exposed to the right thing for the right reason. For example, a person who is courageous will face danger to protect himself and not out of fun or curiosity. These sorts of actions do and are not regarded as courageous because they are very risky thus physical risks are not termed particularly good to face them by wish but are for defense. On the contrary, some would argue that facing certain risks of this kind is primitive, bad, and out of order but, according to Aristotle, these brings out courageous form of acts that disposes one to face appropriate danger readily and bravely. On the other hand, a person who fears danger and cannot dare to defend himself is perhaps regarded as a coward. A courageous person recognizes that some goals, desires, and wishes are worth fighting for regardless of the challenges that are bound to be encountered (Curtler 48). Does virtue require knowledge? Every virtue requires knowledge, specifically evaluative knowledge of that which is important.ni regard with Aristotle knowledge, the possession of any virtue is a true virtue and involves an accompaniment of two types of qualities that is, natural virtue and intelligent virtues. Natural virtues are dispositions to feel and behave in certain ways and these kind of trait are said not to be taught rather than been acquired by genetic make up, they are restricted to character of heritage. In my final argument, virtue is inherent and can be taught, we should not let empirical findings studies or observations hold us captive or dominate philosophically motivated ethical stands. Our philosophical knowledge are well advanced a disproved and they should be reconciled to the observations of normal social life to consider the challenges that prop from ethical and other philosophical argument (Strawson 17). Works Cited Curtler, Hugh. Can virtue be taught? Humanitas 7.1(1994): 43-50. Strawson, Peter. Social Morality and the Individual Ideal. New York, Prentice Hall. Read More