Virtue is a word often associated with the highest honor and integrity. Everyone has a slightly different definition of virtue. I would like to examine: how has the definition of virtue changed over the years? I will analyze Nicomachean Ethics, by Aristotle, and The Prince, by Machiavelli. Aristotle wrote the Nicomachean Ethics around 350 BC, while The Prince was written in the early 1500s. With a period of almost 2,000 years between these two great works, how did the idea of ​​virtue come to be? has she changed? In Nicomachean ethics, virtue is defined as the achievement of good. Virtue is a state of character that, according to Aristotle, is unnecessary to examine. All that matters is the achievement of good. He says that there are two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral. Moral virtue is a disposition to behave in a correct manner. Virtue must be taught from an early age. It is about establishing a balance between lack and excess, which are vices. Aristotle claims that there are two types of virtue: intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues must be taught, so this requires experience and time. On the other hand, “none of the moral virtues are born in us by nature; for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. (Aristotle 23) He says that when we are born, we all have the potential to be morally virtuous; it simply depends on our education and habits that determine who actually becomes virtuous. He confirms this with a government metaphor, when he says: “legislators make citizens good by giving them habits.” (23) This shows that at all levels, virtue is something that must be taught. Aristotle says that there are three ways to know if a person is truly virtuous. The person must “first of all...... middle of paper......more practical with their definition. He argues that it is useless to define virtue in a metaphysical sense, because it will never apply to the real world. He defines virtue as actions that elicit praise from others. However, he does not encourage leaders to always pursue virtue. Sometimes vices can be more beneficial to govern, and in these cases it is okay to accept these vices; however, vices should not be pursued for their own sake. Both authors agree that it is important to find a balance between extreme vices. It seems that in Aristotle's time, philosophy was much more idealized when it came to determining what the greatest possible definition of virtue was. In Machiavelli's time, thinking was more practical and product-oriented than ideal. Machiavelli gives much more functional advice on how to govern, and his definition of virtue therefore makes more sense..