Is there a definite answer? If so, how can it be justified to all? Aristotle felt as though he could by giving a direct example and answer to his puzzle. He understood and compared it to certain crafts, but then he went into more depth and showed how crafts differ from virtues. By doing so he brings about his ultimate answer, one that clearly states that to be just one has to be through as well.

Aristotle says that to be just one cannot be just by accident. If someone was to come across a wallet and then give it to someone who said it was his or hers, for example. If by chance it was his or hers then that wouldn't be just because it was done unknowingly. For it to be just the person would have had to have proof of the ownership. Though the person was instructed to return the wallet this still would not be just. Aristotle used the example of a grammarian, who must "both produce something grammatical and produce it in the way in which a grammarian produces it...." (C&C 238) For the return of the wallet to be just, one would have to do

The only problem with the above example is that it was paralleled with a craft. Aristotle says that there are different standards for crafts and virtues. He says that there are rules for virtues that must be followed. He says that you have to be just throughout the action, not just in the beginning or at the end. It has to be done in a way that you had to choose between doing it and not doing it. I disagree with Aristotle in some aspects of his statements. He may be a little smarter than me, but his whole thought process does not work. If the person "must know he is doing a virtuous action", (C&C 238), then I feel that it cannot truly be just. The human mind often thinks of rewards when doing virtuous and just things. If you knowingly do something, then you are doing it for a reason. Now what other reason would one have for being just? They do it for the reward of course, something in their life that they want and feel he or she deserves. Now the idea of doing something for something else is very unjust. The whole idea is rotten to the core. Therefore his idea of non-selfish virtue is a big wash. There is no such thing and never will be.

as the law states. This can be difficult as the exact wording of law is not common knowledge.

Another problem with Aristotle's statement is that what if you do something just and don't know it? Now in someone's eyes you are just and you didn't even know it. Say for example you were a taxi driver, and a woman, late at night, flags you down. She jumps in the car and you take her to her destination. Now this woman flagged you down cause she was getting chased by someone. The only reason you picked her up though was to make money. In her eyes you are very virtuous. In your eyes, you just made a buck. This totally ruins Aristotle's first component of virtue. So once again he is wrong, cause you can be just and virtuous in someone's eyes and not even know it, but yet you are virtuous all the same.

Aristotle's statement also seems quite vague. Is Aristotle implying that one must see if the action would be just or not? If so this in itself brings about my first point of doing something to get something. You cannot think about an action

Some common words found in the essay are:
, c&c 238, aristotle's statement, component virtue, crafts virtues, aristotle's component virtue, doing virtuous, people world, someone's eyes, return wallet, aristotle's component, eyes virtuous,
Approximate Word count = 1491
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)