Aristotle explains one way our moral knowledge can be faulty in §6. The key to understanding this passage is reflecting on the example about "dry things benefit every human being." Try to describe this first way in which moral knowledge can be faulty.
This is a question on a study guide and I can't seem to grasp what the answer would be. Need help so I can study for test.
For context, let's recall that Aristotle is discussing three major vices. So in that respect, he's going to be arguing by comparison. What that means is that, just as the vice is the opposite of a certain virtue, it is also relatable to other potential vices. This is how Aristotle turns, by paragraph 6, to the most associable vice with irrationality or stupidity: that of anger, or unchecked aggression.
People who have what some might term a "short temper" are reasonable, but only up to a certain point -- ...
Aristotle's basis, argument and variance as it relates to anger and faulty moral knowledge are touched upon in a bit of detail.