This theory relies on intellectual virtues and vices. It claims that knowledge is a true belief brought about by a virtuous intellectual disposition (a person's inherent qualities of mind and character).
In essence, virtues motivate us to use a reliable process to gain true beliefs and, hence, gives us knowledge. So, someone that doesn't exercise their intellectual virtues, regardless of having true beliefs, do not have knowledge.
While a true belief is good, if it is gained by luck (or any other means apart from virtues), then it is not as good as a true blief arrived at by intellectual virtues.
So K=VTB- Intellectual virtue motivates us to pursue what is good- Intellectual virtues allow us to form true beliefs reliably.

However, if we consider someone who, out of 100 times, only demonstrates their virtues once to gain knowledge, at what point would be consider him having knowledge- It seems impossible to determine the amount of intellectual virtues which warrant knowledge.
We can also argue whether the motives for knowledge are necessary. As long as we go through a reliable process and the beliefs are true, do we need motives?
Within Gettier's first case, we can argue, that Smith didn't exercise his intellectual virtues to come up with his proposition 'the man with ten coins in his pocket will get the job', so it is not a VTB.

	Created by Ben Smurthwaite over 6 years ago

A quick summary of the Gettier cases and the solutions to such, with potential counter examples to each solution.