Aristotle and Doris

Both Aristotle and Doris have opinions of what makes a person virtuous and what makes a person vicious. These arguments have some overlap, but I think that they are arguing different ideas for the most part. I believe that Aristotle has a more pleasant view of society than does Doris. Aristotle believes that anyone can achieve virtuosity by following his tenets. It sounded to me that Doris had a more gray view of people, believing that people would only choose a virtuous act if the person benefit from the action in some other way as well. I may be wrong on what Doris was trying to say there but that is the feeling I got.

Aristotle just about over does the opinion that virtuous people use moderation. He expresses the idea that there is always a correct level action for every situation. When a person is knowledgeable enough to see the correct level of action, then that person is virtuous. That statement needs refinement as it is not only the knowledge of what is right that makes a person virtuous because the person also has to act according to what they know is right.

I think what Doris is trying to say is that there is no such thing as a person who is wholly virtuous or a person who is wholly vicious. He explains that many people will only act virtuously if the situation is one where a virtuous act does not hurt the person making the action. What I am trying to say is that Doris does not believe in altruism. I think he sees humans as self serving and will only make a virtuous decision if it serves them in some other way.