Virtue is a state of character, lying in a mean, a mean relative to us, concerned with choice, determined by reason, and reason as a man of practical wisdom you'd see it.
"Virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by reason, and by that reason by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it." Virtue is a state of character (the things of virtue which we stand well or badly with reference to the passions) because it is not a passion (feelings accompanied by pain or pleasure) we are not good or bad based on our passions, nor is it a capacity (ability to feel passions) b/c virtue involves choice; and all that is left for it to be is a state of character.
It is concerned with choice and lying in a mean because we choose to be virtuous or vicious or somewhere in between, and virtue is the mean of two extremes, or vices (there are many possible ways to fail, but only one way to succeed). This mean is relative to us because what is too much/extreme for someone might be the intermediate or too little for someone else. This must be determined by reason of a man of practical wisdom because we need a standard to measure against, and a man of practical wisdom would be the best source to judge an action as virtuous or not. An example of a virtue is truth, where the excess is boastful and the defect is mock-modest.
According to Aristotle, we should love ourselves more. (See pages 174-175)
"the good man should be a lover of self (for he will both himself profit by doing noble acts, and will benefit his fellows)."
the good man loves himself most and assigns to himself the things that are noblest and best. He defends his answer by saying that if everyone did what was noblest and best then all would be right with the world. If every man sought to live as virtuously as possible, even though that means that every man would want as much virtue possible for themselves.
However, he does admit that most often people will respond that you should love others more. Yet, he describes two different meanings of self-love. There's one that we blame others for (pride as we know it), which is when people give themselves more money, honor, and bodily pleasure than others. whereas self-love that we praise people for is (humility/charity, etc) that in which people are giving themselves virtuous actions and it is good to be selfish in this way.
"It is true of the good man...that he does many acts for the sake of his friends and his country, and if necessary dies for them; for he will throw away both wealth and honours and in general the goods that are objects of competition, gaining for himself nobility... Now those who die for others doubtless attain this result; it is therefore a great prize that they choose for themselves."
For Kant, dignity is something that has intrinsic worth, and its basis is autonomy. human have dignity because they are rational and therefore think of themselves. ...also autonomy...He is sure of this because things only have relative value as a means and persons are ends in themselves. "Such an end is one for which there can be substituted no other end to which such beings should serve merely as means, for otherwise nothing at all of absolute value would be found anywhere. But if all value were conditioned and hence contingent, then no supreme practical principle could be found for reason at all." As a result, Kant says "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never simply as a means." Kant would consider it wrong to steal someone's laptop because it would be treating him as a means not an end...the person would be a means of obtaining a laptop...the person buys it from the store, you steal it from him without any regard to him and how stealing the laptop that he bought will affect him, his grades, his finances, etc.