system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
In Virtue ethics how are the virtues themselves decided?

In Aristotle's Ethics he assumes from the start what his virtues are, and they seem quite relative to Athenian society. He denounces adultery, cowardice, and shame from the start but on what grounds is this the case? These virtues seem relative to what is acceptable in that society, rather than being canonical. For example, adultery was seen as somewhat normal in Sparta, and even shame/humility is an essential part of Christian ethics, so how are we to accept these virtues as real rather than relative? On what grounds does Virtue ethics assume that its virtues are good and conducive for happiness? Couldn't being intemperate make me happy in many situations?
gpt
> On what grounds does Virtue ethics assume that its virtues are good and conducive for happiness? Couldn't being intemperate make me happy in many situations?

This is a confusion about what is meant by happiness in virtue ethics - it seems like you are just imagining utilitarian happiness, but what the virtue ethicist means is something more like "flourishing" or, for Aristotle, 'a total and balanced actualization of your function.'

> so how are we to accept these virtues as real rather than relative?

Check out Martha Nussbaum's argument in "Non-Relative Virtues."  Roughly, she argues, that some of this stuff presents itself through natural language.  So, while we do find that some of Aristotle's *emphases* are cultural artifacts, we can still do analysis past that.