Ogien defines “character in a broad sense, [as] a certain way of acting or feeling that is consistent, that is, stable over time and immutable from one situation to another" (Ogien 123). For Aristotle, "virtue is a state of character which concerns choice, lying in a mean... with respect to us, this being determined by... that principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine... and acquired by repetition" (Aristotle 124, 129). Mark Timmons, a moral philosopher, also makes a slight distinction between character and virtue by defining virtue as "(1) a relatively fixed character trait (2) that typically involves dispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways under certain circumstances, and (3) is a primary basis for judging the overall moral goodness or worth of people” (Timmons 212) Finally, philosophers Tom Beauchamp and James Childress define virtue in terms of “a trait of character that is socially valuable and a moral virtue [as] a trait of character that is morally valuable” (Beauchamp 31). Now, there are four reasons why I examine the ways in which philosophers have defined virtue. (1) To demonstrate that Ogien criticizes virtue ethics without defining virtue at all. (2) To show that among philosophers (at least read for this week) there is commonality in defining virtue in one way or another as a fixed character. (3) Just because a person possesses a certain character trait that he does not possess it