Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the ability to function according to reason and

to perform an activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is called virtue or arete by the
Greek. Aristotle is quick to add that virtue is something that one strives for in time. One does not become
an excellent person overnight: “For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too
one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy...” This means that being virtuous
cannot be accomplished by a single act. It is commendable if a minor participant in a crime becomes a
whistle-blower, exposing all the grave acts that were committed by his cohorts. But one should be careful
in judgement of calling immediate that individuals as being a “person of virtue.” Being an excellent
individual works on doing well in her day-to-day existence.

What exactly makes a human being excellent? Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human
soul and therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s soul which must be directed
by her rational activity in an excellent way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into to parts: the
irrational element and rational faculty. The irrational element of man consists of the vegetative and
appetitive aspects. The vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the activity of
physical growth in a person. As an irrational element, this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is
exercised because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason. The vegetative aspect of the
soul follows the natural processes involved in the physical activities and growth of a person. Whereas, the
appetitive aspect works as a desiring faculty of man. The act of desiring in itself is an impulse that
naturally runs counter to reason and most of the time refuses to go along with reason. Thus, this aspect
belongs to the irrational part of the soul. Sexual impulse, for example, is so strong in a person that one
tends to ignore reasonable demands to control such impulse. However, unlike the vegetative aspect, the
desiring faculty of man can be subjected to reason. Aristotle says, “Now, even this seems to have a share
in the rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man it obeys the rational principle.”
Desires are subject to reason even though these do not arise from the rational part of the soul.

In contrast, the rational faculty of man exercises excellence in him. One can rightly or wrongly apply the
use of reason in this part. This faculty is further divided into two aspects: moral, which concerns the act of
doing, and intellectual, which concerns the act of knowing. These two aspects are basically where the
function of reason is exercised.

One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the intellectual faculty of the soul. As
stated by Aristotle, this excellence is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns from the vast
experiences in life where she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and gains wisdom by being
taught or by learning. There are two ways by which one can attain intellectual excellence: philosophic and
practical. Philosophic wisdom deals with attaining knowledge about the fundamental principles and truths
that govern the universe. It helps one understand in general the meaning of life. Practical wisdom, on the
other hand, is an excellence in knowing the right conduct in carrying out a particular act. In other word,
one can attain a wisdom that can provide us with a guide on how to behave in our daily lives.

Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person through the intellectual aspect of
the soul, this situation does not make her into a morally good individual. However, Aristotle suggests that
although the rational functions of a person (moral and intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is
necessary for humans to attain the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to accomplish a morally
virtuous act.

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide of practical wisdom in steering the
self toward the right choices and actions. Aristotle is careful in making a sharp distinction between moral
and intellectual virtue. In itself, having practical wisdom or the excellence in knowing what to act upon
does not make someone already morally virtuous. Knowing the good is different from determining and
acting on what is good. But a morally good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue of practical
wisdom to perform the task of being moral. This distinction draws a sharp contrast between Aristotle’s
understanding of the dynamics of knowledge and action from that of Socrates’s view that knowledge
already contains the ability or choice or action.
It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the realm of intellectual excellence. Knowing
the good implies the ability to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having intellectual
excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the
good that needs to be done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish. Therefore,
rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of achieving two kinds of virtue: moral and
intellectual. In discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by means of habit. A morally
virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually determines the good and does the right actions.
Moral virtue is acquired through habit. Being morally good is a process of getting used to doing the proper
act. The saying “practice makes perfect” can be applied to this aspect of a person.

Any craft that one does can be perfected by habitually doing the right actions necessary to be good in a
particular craft. Being a good basketball player, for example, involves constant training and endless hours
of shooting and dribbling the ball in the right way until one habitually does the right stroke in shooting the
ball and the right tempo in dribbling the ball. It is only when she properly plays basketball consistently that
she will be recognized as a good basketball player.

The same is true with moral virtue. A moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does
good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing the good that a person is able to form her
character, It is through one’s character that others know a person. Character then becomes the
identification mark of the person. For instance, when one habitually opts to be courteous to others and
regularly shows politeness in the way she relates to other, others would start recognizing her as a well-
mannered person. On the other hand, when one habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly
demonstrates vulgar and foul act, she develops an image of an ill-mannered person. The filipino term
pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of moral character. One can have mabuting pag-uugali (good
character) or masamang pag-uugali (bad character).

How does the continuous exposure to violence on television affect the kind of character that children will
develop? One can surmise that if we rely on the above-mentioned study, children tend to mimic the
violence they watch on television and such habit could develop into a character that can tolerate
behaviours that are hostile in nature.