Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction to virtue ethics
Moral values of Godfather Death
Introduction to virtue ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Introduction to virtue ethics
3. My Arguments
The Divine Command theory is the ethical theory that I believe is the best ethical theory to live by. One problem with this theory, as stated by several philosophers, is whether or not that theory would make God the originator of morality. Many believe that if this were the case, then God could will any crime to become morally right. According to some, if this were the case, it would mean that God’s commands become arbitrary and have no real reason behind them. As a religious person, I am inclined to believe that a supreme being automatically knows what is best for his own creations simply because of the fact that he created them. Just as a parent acts in the best interests of their children, God acts in a way that will have the best end result
…show more content…
This theory, when put into practice, does hold a good amount of truth to it. It is only logical to look towards the actions of the people who have the qualities you admire. However, like Kant’s theory, I believe virtue ethics is also covered by the Divine Command theory. Many look towards the examples of the faithful ones listed in the Bible in order to guide their actions today. The problem with virtue ethics is then filled by the Divine Command theory. This is true because virtue ethics lacks a moral principle to define whether the actions of one label them to be virtuous. The actions of the faithful ones in the Bible are regarded as virtuous because they follow God’s standards. Without the divine command theory, virtue ethics is caught in a paradox. The right thing to do is what the good person does and the good person is the one doing the right thing. Judging what is virtuous can be very subjective in some instances. On top of this, even the virtuous people can still do the wrong things. It is nearly impossible to rely just on the actions of others to dictate for ourselves what the morally right thing is to do without crossing over with another ethical
Broadly, the divine command theory is a religious moral code in which God’s commands determine what human beings should or should not do. As such, it is expected for theists to subscribe to the divine command theory of morality. The deontological interpretation of the divine command theory separates actions into one of the following categories: mandatory for human beings to perform, prohibited for human beings to perform, or optional for human beings to perform. Those actions that are mandatory to perform are ones which have been expressly commanded by God. Failing to commit a mandatory action would be defying God’s commands, and thus, according to the divine command theory of morality, immoral. Actions that are prohibited are ones that God expressly commands human beings do not perform. Consequently, to perform a prohibited action would be immoral. Finally, those actions that God does not expressly command that human beings should perform or should avoid performing are optional; there are no moral implications to performing or not performing such acts. The rightness or wrongness of an action is inherently and wholly dependent upon th...
Throughout human history, the topic of theology has been a central aspect of everyday life. A common denominator of all modern-day religions is that they provide a set of rules which one is to follow in order to live as a good, moral being. When a deity (or a group of deities) commands followers to abide by specific moral standards though a vehicle such as prophets, religious texts or otherwise, this is called Divine Command Theory (DCT). Those who accept this theory believe that moral action coincides with what has been ordered by the deities, and immoral action would occur when one deviates from these orders. Despite this theory remaining relevant into the twenty-first century, it has still yet to solve one age-old dilemma. The Euthyphro Argument has stumped philosophers for years, but some Divine Command theorists believe they can overcome the massive obstacles it presents. In this paper, I will argue that it is impossible for one to resolve the Euthyphro Argument no matter how it is approached, and that the challenges it presents to DCT are insurmountable. To begin, I will first introduce the Euthyphro Argument and its two horns. Following this, I will summarize the best response a Divine Command theorist could possibly hold for the first horn of the Euthyphro Argument, and subsequently render it untrue. I will then repeat this process for the second horn of the dilemma. Once both of the original claims have proven to be unshakable, I will address the common attempt by Divine Command theorists to work around the issue by claiming it is not in fact a dilemma at all.
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent. A modern day virtue ethicist virtue Alastair Macintyre points out that different virtues have been prized by different societies, and at different points in history. Virtue Ethics is therefore a morally relativist, non-cognitive theory.
Virtue theory is the best ethical theory because it emphasizes the morality of an individual in which their act is upon pure goodness and presents as a model to motivate others. Aristotle was a classical proponent of virtue theory who illustrates the development habitual acts out of moral goodness. Plato renders a brief list of cardinal virtues consisting of wisdom, temperance, courage, and justice. This ethical theory prominently contradicts and links to other theories that personifies the ideal being. However, virtue theorists differ from their own expression of these qualities yet it sets a tone that reflects on the desire to express kindness toward others.
Virtue ethics is a theory about finding our highest good and doing so will develop a vigorous character within each person. Character is important because it shows that a person has certain beliefs and desires in doing the right thing and when the right thing is accomplished, happiness follows (Hartman, 2006). Virtue ethics derives from Aristotle and he concludes that by doing virtuous acts all through life happiness and respectable character will develop (Morrison & Furlong, 2013). Finding the highest good within oneself brings happiness and great character to that individual.
Secondly, the possibility of the right to lie is refuted on the basis of virtue ethics, which maintains that lying is morally wrong though the argument or claim is less strict as compared to Kant’s statement. Virtue ethics generally provides a different approach to ethics by focusing on character development of individuals. As a result, virtue ethicists tend to look at what people should be with regards to their character rather than determining the right or wrong of a behavior simply on the basis of reason and desired and undesired behavior (Mazur par, 5). In this case, virtues are desirable characteristics of individuals that make them act in a specific way. According to virtue ethicists, being virtuous is regarded as being ethical because it is a reflection of the individual traits of fairness and striving towards accomplishment of human potential.
In conclusion, a satisfactory moral theory may develop from many different views. For Rachels’ view it was a matter of modesty, reason, desert, motives, consequences, community and justice and fairness. Although I agreed partially with Rachels view, overall I believe a satisfactory moral theory would be treating people the way we wish to be treated, thinking of what results from our doings, as well as living according to the best
In Intro to Ethics, we have discussed each moral theory in the context of how the theories dealt with the theory of right conduct and with the deontic status the action had. When we looked at how each theory we talked about dealt with deontic status, we looked at how the actions were right or wrong. The main theories we looked at this semester that dealt with right conduct were utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory, and virtue ethics. Although each of these moral theories has its own flaws, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the strongest and most superior out of all the moral theories.
Virtue theory defines what it takes to be a good person and above all else one’s character matters most (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014). This theory focuses on the person’s moral character rather than duties. A virtuous person is someone who acts just in situations throughout his or her lifetime because of their good character (Boylan, 2009, p. 133-139). An example of a virtuous person would be a priest. A virtuous person does not act to gain favors, but only to do their duty. Individuals who practice virtue theory ponders questions like; how should one live, what is a good life or what are proper social and family values. The deontological ethics approach accentuates one’s duty to rules (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014, para. 1). The morality of an action is based on following rules. The “rules” help guide individuals morally in decision making. Therefore, the person should make a moral choice as long as he or she sticks to the guidelines. The third approach is the utilitarianism,...
In order to critique the Divine Command Theory, it is important to first understand it. According to the theory, morality is defined solely by the will of God and no moral standards exist independent of His will. It is simple and unambiguous; once accepted, issues such as moral relati...
The Divine Command theory of ethics is a theory that states that an act is right or wrong and good or bad based on whether or not God commands or prohibits us from doing it. This means that the only thing that makes an action morally wrong is because God says it is. There are two sides to this theory; the restricted and the unrestricted. The restricted theory basically says that an action is obligatory if and only if it is good and God commanded it; the unrestricted theory states that an act is only obligatory if it is commanded by God, it is not obligatory if it is prohibited by God and it is optional if and only if God has not commanded nor prohibited it.
After all, virtue ethics tries to go down to the ground in order to shun those abstract principles, and provides us with the evaluation to an agent, taking place of the evaluation to an action. It inheres the uncertainty and it is short of
Kant 's argument may seem like the best answer to this question, but when examining Aristotle 's virtue ethics it is clear that his theory is stronger.
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
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).