In Moral Virtue, How Produced, Aristotle discusses his view on virtue. He says that there are two kinds of virtue and that these two kinds of virtue come about in two different ways, neither of them through nature. Aristotle says that there exists intellectual virtue, which comes about by birth, experience, and time. This seems plausible because when someone is born, they do not know everything making it so nothing can be learned throughout the rest of their lives. In contrast, people learn, acquire knowledge, and develop intellect as time passes, and as they experience new things. Thus, it seems that nature and intellectual virtue are separate. In addition, there exists moral virtue according to Aristotle that of which comes about through habit since “nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature.” He offers the example of fire. One cannot habituate fire to move downwards -as it naturally moves upwards. Thus, since moral virtue comes from doing things over and over, then it is also separate from nature. For Aristotle, the relationship between human nature and morality then, lies in that people are adapted by nature to receive virtues. In other words, we get morals by exercising them, and so it is important to form good habits from youth- as habit will form good moral virtue in a person.
Mencius has a view in opposition to Aristotle’s. Mencius argues that human nature and morality are intertwined. He says that human nature is naturally good similarly to how water naturally moves downward. Essentially, things like humanity, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom are not drilled into us from the outside or adapted; rather, we originally are born with these feelings already inside of us. As Mencius explicitly says “they are within our original nature”. Consequentially, by this view if people just follow their original nature and the feelings that they are born with, then they will do good. However, it seems that Mencius isn’t too confident that this is how things actually work. He explains that the proper goodness of the mind is disturbed by everyday life; and that the natural good slowly fades. This is similar to what deforestation does to a mountain, he says. While at first it is naturally beautiful, if it is not properly taken care of, it looses its natural beauty. Although, this does not mean that it is not naturally beautiful. Mencius mentions that with proper nourishment and care everything grows, but without it everything decays. This is the relationship between nature and morality for Mencius. Essentially they are synonymous, but for morality to flourish in a person it must be taken care of and preserved. Otherwise it will decay.
Rousseau believes that human nature is naturally “more good” than it is bad. While he acknowledges that people have both vices and virtues, he says that people have more virtues than vices. Further, Rousseau advises against coming to the same conclusions as Hobbes who says that men are naturally wicked. Rousseau believes that pity is a naturally occurring feeling and so this feeling is a part of human nature. He argues that pity is what moderates a person’s selfishness and thus contributes to the overall well being of human kind. It seems that for Rousseau, it is pity which beings about morality in humans. It seems that in this view, morality is inherently a part of human nature because if humans naturally feel pity, then they will act out of this feeling. This feeling then, is what causes people to act morally in instances where they are compelled to do so.
