Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments for virtue ethics
Discuss virtue ethics
Discuss virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
What determines how one behaves? Is it character, situation, both, or neither? Although this is not an easy question, social psychologist Stanley Milgram provides a possible answer through a series of experiments conducted from 1960 to 1963, to examine obedience to authority. While there is no agreed upon interpretation of Milgram’s results, philosopher Ruwen Ogien uses the experiment as grounds for criticizing virtue ethics as a moral theory. The purpose of this essay is not to offer an interpretation of Milgram’s results. The purpose is to articulate why I am not persuaded by Ogien’s use of the Milgram experiments to criticize virtue ethics.
The problem with Ogien’s argument is that he fails to correctly represent the moral theory. He
…show more content…
Ogien defines “character broadly speaking, [as] a certain way of acting or feeling that is consistent, that is, stable over time and unvarying from one situation to the next” (Ogien 123). For Aristotle, “virtue, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean…relative 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 trait of character (2) typically involving dispositions to think, feel, and act in certain ways in certain circumstance, and (3) is a primary basis for judging the overall moral goodness or worth of persons” (Timmons 212). Lastly, 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 go through the ways in which philosophers have defined virtue. (1) To show that Ogien critiques 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 some way or another as a fixed character. (3) Just because a person possesses a certain character trait that does not
In "The Perils of Obedience," Stanley Milgram conducted a study that tests the conflict between obedience to authority and one's own conscience. Through the experiments, Milgram discovered that the majority of people would go against their own decisions of right and wrong to appease the requests of an authority figure.
In this article “The Pearls of Obedience”, Stanley Milgram asserts that obedience to authority is a common response for many people in today’s society, often diminishing an individuals beliefs or ideals. Stanley Milgram designs an experiment to understand how strong a person’s tendency to obey authority is, even though it is amoral or destructive. Stanley Milgram bases his experiment on three people: a learner, teacher, and experimenter. The experimenter is simply an overseer of the experiment, and is concerned with the outcome of punishing the learner. The teacher, who is the subject of the experiment, is made to believe the electrical shocks are real; he is responsible for obeying the experimenter and punishing the learner for incorrect answers by electrocuting him from an electric shock panel that increases from 15 to 450 volts.
Though individuals live by and react similarly to various situations, not all people have the same morals. I can relate to instances where I have supported a belief, regardless of the criticisms that arise, all because my choice is based upon personal morals. The same can be said regarding Debra J. Dickerson as she expresses in her novel, An American Story. In Carol Gilligan’s “Concepts of Self and Morality,” she states, “The moral person is one who helps others; goodness in service, meeting one’s obligations and responsibilities to others, if possible without sacrificing oneself” (170). After considering this statement, I strongly feel that Gilligan’s proposal lacks the depth to accurately characterize the moral person, but I am able to accept the argument raised by Joan Didion. Her essay entitled, “On Morality,” clearly provides a more compelling and acceptable statement in describing the moral person by saying, “I followed my own conscience, I did what I thought was right” (181). Joan Didion’s proposal is precise and acceptable. It is obvious that as long as people follow what they believe is the right thing to do, and approach the situation maturely, their actions can be considered examples of morality, and they can then be considered moral human beings.
When put into an authoritative position over others, is it possible to claim that with this new power individual(s) would be fair and ethical or could it be said that ones true colors would show? A group of researchers, headed by Stanford University psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo, designed and executed an unusual experiment that used a mock prison setting, with college students role-playing either as prisoners or guards to test the power of the social situation to determine psychological effects and behavior (1971). The experiment simulated a real life scenario of William Golding’s novel, “Lord of the Flies” showing a decay and failure of traditional rules and morals; distracting exactly how people should behave toward one another. This research, known more commonly now as the Stanford prison experiment, has become a classic demonstration of situational power to influence individualistic perspectives, ethics, and behavior. Later it is discovered that the results presented from the research became so extreme, instantaneous and unanticipated were the transformations of character in many of the subjects that this study, planned originally to last two-weeks, had to be discontinued by the sixth day. The results of this experiment were far more cataclysmic and startling than anyone involved could have imagined. The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the discoveries from Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment and of Burrhus Frederic “B.F.” Skinner’s study regarding the importance of environment.
In this essay I will consider the objections to Virtue Ethics (VE) raised by Robert Louden in his article entitled On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics which was published in 1984. It is important to note at the outset of this essay that it was not until 1991 that the v-rules came up in literature. So Louden is assuming throughout his article that the only action guidance that VE can give is “Do what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.” I will be addressing Louden’s objections with the benefit of knowing about the v-rules. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience are the focus of Theodore Dalrymple and Ian Parker. Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician that composed his views of the Milgram experiment with “Just Do What the Pilot Tells You” in the New Statesman in July 1999 (254). He distinguishes between blind obedience and blind disobedience stating that an extreme of either is not good, and that a healthy balance between the two is needed. On the other hand, Ian Parker is a British writer who wrote “Obedience” for an issue of Granta in the fall of 2000. He discusses the location of the experiment as a major factor and how the experiment progresses to prevent more outcomes. Dalrymple uses real-life events to convey his argument while Parker exemplifies logic from professors to state his point.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Life as we know it is full of wonder and mystery. Questions are essential in order for us to discover the world around us and especially understand where we stand in the world. Many philosophers find their inspiration in Aristotle’s work. His work is legendary and his name is known throughout the world. As a philosopher, Aristotle questioned life around him in order to better understand the world and how humans work. One of those various questions included, “What makes a good person?” This question resolves around the theory of virtue ethics. This theory stresses how character and virtue play a major part in moral philosophy. According to Aristotle, someone who has excellent attributes is defined as being virtuous. Both Plato and Aristotle are known as the founding fathers of this theory of virtue. Aristotle is credited more with this theory than Plato. Around the 19th century virtue ethics declined, but resurfaced in the late 1950’s in Anglo-American philosophy. Virtue ethics has risen to prominence once again because of its focus on the virtuous character traits of individuals that help
person of the novel, different traits that can lead us to talk about virtue, and one of them is
Hursthouse, R. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue
The other branch of virtues is the agent-based theory which deals with rightfulness of actions.It 's from this theory that most moralists base and benchmark their actions from. The agent-based theory also puts a lot of emphasis on virtues. The virtues are determined in most cases by both any sense in common and intuitions. It’s from this that observers make judgments about admirable traits found in various
Virtues are desirable tendencies that illustrate high moral standards. These tendencies are directly related to engineering and define if an engineer is considered virtuous. Aristotle, the founder of virtue ethics, defined how an individual is considered virtuous based on the concepts of eudaimonia, arête, and telos. Secondly, Aristotle explained that virtues can be broken into character and thought virtues. These two categories of virtues help organize the different types of virtue characteristics. For example, some virtues of engineering that will help flourish an engineer in their career are honesty, creativity, and determination.
As mentioned by Thiroux & Krasemann, expresses how the establishment of virtues is based on the measurement of righteous perceptions (72). For instance, as a society we know mainly through trial and error what type of moral codes to develop. Many people undergo errors of society and we established what is common sense because of it. Therefore, virtue ethics isn’t solely on notions to project a list of rules in order to be a decent human being, but to apply these basic principles to how we feel as well (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg.78).