Whenever I tell folks I am writing about urban ethics, , Aristotle always comes up because has rather an in-depth description of civic virtue.  I’ve been struggling with his virtues, as his city is a city-state, with the notion that the civic virtues apply to creating virtuous citizens. It strikes me that there are differences between the virtues of citizenship in sovereign nation and the virtues associated with urban residency.  Moreover, Aristotle’s civic virtues can not be readily separated from his hierarchy of governing—free men, slaves, women, etc–because virtuous free men, having been brought up within the norms of the virtuous city, then apply that virtue to governing their part of the city–the household.  You could just shrug that off and say Aristotle is a man of his time, but I don’t think so.  You do not have any space within the theory, because it applies to citizens (who govern), to deal with simple residents or visitors within the city. And because Athens, and his home in Stagira, were nation-states (despite their alliance via the Delian League), the bonds of sovereignty that urban citizenship made were singular, unlike most urban residents today (outside of Vatican City, Singapore, and Hong Kong). A Portlandian may love Portland, but he has bonds and obligations of citizenship to the US.  Aristotle’s virtues tend to be more useful in helping us understand the bonds and obligations held towards the US than to Portland.