What I found most interesting in Aristotle’s second chapter in Ethics was his take on the foundation of moral virtues. He splits it into two different types of virtue — intellectual and moral. The former comes out of teaching and the latter out of habit. Aristotle points out he doesn’t believe that these virtues come by nature. He explains,
From this it is also plain that none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. For instance, the stone which by nature moves downwards cannot be habituated to move upwards, not even if one tries to train it by throwing it up ten thousand times; nor can fire be habituated to move downwards, nor can anything else that by nature behaves in one way be trained to behave in another. Neither by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them and are made perfect by habit (NE, II, 1).
Aristotle’s argument against what one may call natural virtues is that moral virtues can be changed. It’s apparent that many people who were once bad have become good and vice versa. If moral virtues are ingrained in our human nature, how are we able to change our moral behaviors? Aristotle concludes that moral intuitions are not grounded in human nature but the result of upbringing and moral pruning. If we were to put these into modern terms, we would probably say one is due to nature and the other to nurture. I don’t think this issue is quite as simple as Aristotle has made it out to be. I think moral intuitions are the axioms by which we make these decisions. There is a difference between the behaviors and the intuitions. The intuitions are the axioms and the behaviors are the conclusions reached from those axioms. One can compare it to mathematics. An awareness of mathematical truths like knowing your numbers like any kindergartener would be compared to our intuitions. The conclusions of the intuitions can be compared to the results we get from adding two numbers together, like adding two and two and getting four. We have the ability to add two intuitions together and get a conclusion. And like math, these conclusions can be difficult and controversial like abortion or euthanasia. And other times, people can outright deny their moral intuitions to get a conclusion they prefer, like Adolf Hitler in his book Mien Kompf. This could be compared to a banker intentionally judging the numbers and thereby lying to their customers to pocket the money for personal gain.
