Part 4. Further analyses and discussion. Right, let's jump on board the further analysis bandwagon and we'll kick off

with a few criticisms. We've built up for theory. Let's rip it to shreds in everyone's favorite part of

the show. Okay, so let's start off with the virtues. Now, obviously, we've been talking about the

virtues, this idea of excellence. So the criticism I want to kind of put out

there is, okay, that's fine, the idea of courage, you know, I would say courage is a good thing,

loyalty is a good thing, etc, etc. But what happens if these virtues clash with each other?

So let's take the example we looked at before with the car. So let's say Andy and Jack are in the car.

What if the virtue of courage is conflicting with Andrew's loyalty to Jack as a friend?

So, you know, maybe as his friend, he wants to defend him more than he should courageously just, you know, drive away.

How does that work? It seems very vague. And if the

virtues clash, how do you ultimately justify your action? I mean, that's only two virtues.

Imagine if you're in a situation where you've got three or four conflicting virtues. How are you

supposed to behave? There doesn't seem to be any real guidance here on what you should actually do. What is the correct decision to make? Can I just give a... I was going to jump in as well, but after you. Yeah, well, I was just, I was going to say, like, I guess the answer that Aristotle would give with that is that the truly virtuous person would actually know what is the best, like, I guess if there was to have to pick a choice,

they would know what was best to do in that situation because they had habitually

ingrained, like, just a practical sense of, you know, what can I get out of this situation?

Because, yeah, you're not going to be able to please everybody,

but you would know practically what is the best result to get.

But again, we have to be this virtuous person already, And it seems like this vague tortology with Aristotle, i.e. that if Ollie isn't virtuous already, then he won't know what to do in the situation. So we've read this book of ethics and we don't seem to have got anywhere. No, I mean, that's the thing. Well, I mean, this wasn't the criticism I was directly going to give, but I might as well say it on the top of this, which is that this is not a guide of like how to act. This is a guide of like how it would be good to train you to act. Like you, you're not going to get much from this. If you're reading this as an adult, it's

far as a far as often, it might be too late. Yeah. And which is what? That leads to another

criticism. Okay, well, what's the point then? Most people, yeah, is it just educating the

young people who have time to develop these virtues? If you're already, if you're sitting in your

60s, you know, are you able to actually have the time to embed these virtues?

...