Second Aristolte Reading

Aristotle finds it hard to simply and straightforwardly state: This is what makes a virtue a virtue. I think that this isn't because he wants to make future college students confused, but rather because what he is trying to state in words is something that is incredibly hard to express, but I will do my best. For Aristotle, a virtue is something that is preformed that benefits another person, without compromising the benefactor. However, it cannot be preformed for this reason only - the benefactor must genuinely want to preform the action. Thus, whether society views the benefactor as honorable or distinguished, shouldn't effect, positively or negatively, the action that is being preformed. An action shouldn't be preformed because it is considered honorable, rather, an action is considered honorable due to the consequences brings about. A vice, conversely, is an action which a person does to appear honorable or appears distinguished, but really only benefits the person doing it, and normally is an example of extremity, rather than moderation.

I agree with Aristotle to an extent, but I don't think that some of the examples he gives are practical. For example, giving money. It strikes me odd that Aristotle would support giving money to beggars and the weakened class, yet support the system of slavery in Athens. A guess what I am getting at is that he has no specific ideology or belief system that clearly states this kind of action of right, this kind is wrong. In my opinion, ethics are either subjective, or they are universal. There is no middle ground. It seems like Aristotle is trying to use a subjective ethical system based around so called universal ideas and characteristics. His ideas and evidence are fine, but his system and conclusions are what I am having trouble understanding.