Aristotle, according to me, has a rather satisfactory counter-argument to Glaucon’s opinions in the Ring of Gyges Story. It is true that what is good for one might not be necessarily good for another and if doing something evil makes one feel good then that particular individual is essentially very immoral. An individual who is not as deep into immorality as this particular person would feel a level of guilt if they did something evil. Glaucon’s proposal that good people lack the good things evil behavior brings is, therefore, nullified. Secondly, it makes a lot of sense to think of ethics in relation to character as compared to actions or even intentions. Thinking of ethics in relation to character is sensible since an ethical person can best be defined by their tendency to consistently repeat a good behavior. Aristotle is, therefore, right to say for instance that a courageous individual is consistently courageous. One particular action of good behavior, therefore, cannot make an individual be defined as ethical neither can a particular intention. I think the example of tennis is a good one. Serena is identified as virtuous because of her consistent excellence in playing tennis. Although not all virtuous actions are moral, the example can be applied to ethics. …show more content…
Choosing to do the right thing over and over again eventually makes it natural for the individual. It is also true that for a particular behavior to be moral, it has to exist in moderation. Consequently, while I may choose not to quit in the middle of a hotly contested race because I have developed the habit of being courageous if I suffer an injury to my head, and the doctors warned me against it, it would be reckless to