Both have obvious flaws and virtues; in terms of temperament, style and structure, they're worlds apart.
A different approach is to characterize the virtues in terms of a desire for truth.
In Book Four, Socrates defines each of the cardinal virtues in terms of the complicated psychology he has just sketched.
But the natural way to develop this insight is to understand the intellectual virtues in terms of epistemic responsibility.
In one way or another, the various schools attempt to explain the virtues in terms of the soul, although there are, of course, variations in the accounts.
He used Plato's work as a basis and he defined the four virtues in terms of the fourth virtue, wisdom.
Certainly early American leaders talked a great deal about virtue, but in terms of governing they had far less on their plate.
Yet he had to argue the point, since he did not understand virtue primarily in terms of individual flourishing.
To be sure, other extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood, are certainly no paragons of virtue, but in terms of wholesale brutality and aggression, ISIS has had no peer.
A virtue epistemologist would reverse the order of analysis, defining justified belief as one that manifests intellectual virtue, and evidence in terms of intellectual virtue.
