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.
Louden opens up his article with this statement “It is common knowledge by now that recent philosophical and theological writings about ethics reveals a marked revival of interest in the virtues. But what exactly are the distinctive features of a so-called virtue ethics? Does it have a specific contribution to make to our understanding of moral experience? Is there a price to be paid for its different perspective, and if so, is the price worth paying?” This opening statement gives us a taste of his thoughts about VE already. Louden goes to raise his objections. I will consider the objections he raises under the headings in his article, those being ‘Agents vs Acts’ , ‘Who is Virtuous’ , ‘Style over Substance’ , and ‘Utopianism’ .
Agents vs Acts
Louden opens this section with this statement: “… it is commonplace that virtue theorists focus on good and bad agents rather than on right and wrong acts.” This is a good th...
... middle of paper ...
...r consulting my Minister (Major Allan Bateman) he said that “The Christian understanding will be that behaviours flow out of the values held. If someone says they belief in serving and caring for others, yet in practice rip them off, what is their TRUE belief? The true value they have, we say, MUST be that value out of which their action comes or flows.”
Works Cited
Bateman, Allan. "Person and Action." Auckland: The Salvation Army Auckland City Corps, 2014.
Bateman, Linda. "Father Forgive Them." In Easter Auckland: The Salvation Army Auckland City Corps, 2014.
Hursthouse, Rosalind. On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com.
———. "Right Action." In On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
Louden, Robert B. "On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics." American Philosophical Quarterly 21, no. 3 (1984): 227-36.
Virtue ethics is an approach that “deemphasizes rules, consequences and particular acts and places the focus on the kind of person who is acting” (Garrett, 2005). A person’s character is the totality of his character traits. Our character traits can be goo...
Class notes from PHIL 330, Moral Theory, by Dr. Richard Lippke, Department of Philosophy, and James Madison University. Spring Semester 2002.
An Analysis of Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue. Inwardly examining his own nature, man would prefer to see himself as a virtuously courageous being designed in the image of a divine supernatural force. Not to say that the true nature of man is a complete beast, he does possess, like many other creatures, admirable traits. As author Matt Ridley examines the nature of man in his work The Origins of Virtue, both the selfish and altruistic sides of man are explored.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
In his article "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories," Michael Stocker argues that mainstream ethical theories, namely consequentialism and deontology, are incompatible with maintaining personal relations of love, friendship, and fellow feeling because they both overemphasise the role of duty, obligation, and rightness, and ignore the role of motivation in morality. Stocker states that the great goods of life, i.e. love, friendship, etc., essentially contain certain motives and preclude others, such as those demanded by mainstream ethics.11 In his paper "Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality," Peter Railton argues that a particular version of consequentialism, namely sophisticated consequentialism, is not incompatible with love, affection and acting for the sake of others. In the essays "War and Massacre" and "Autonomy and Deontology," Thomas Nagel holds that a theory of absolutism, i.e. deontology, may be compatible with maintaining personal commitments. The first objective of this paper is to demonstrate that despite the efforts of both Railton and Nagel, consequentialism and deontology do not in fact incorporate personal relations into morality in a satisfactory way. This essay shows that Stocker’s challenge may also hold against versions of Virtue Ethics, such as that put forth by Rosalind Hursthouse in her article "Virtue Theory and Abortion." The second objective of this discussion is to examine criticisms of Stocker made by Kurt Baier in his article "Radical Virtue Ethics." This essay demonstrates that in the end Baier’s objections are not convincing.
Utilitarianism is criticized for only looking at the results of actions, not at the desires or intentions which motivate them, while virtue ethics comes under attack for social standards that are considered as outdated. Both theories are not perfect, nor completely wrong. But when one considers the philosophies and follows each theory, utilitarianism proves to be the superior ethical system than virtue theory. Virtue ethics revolves around the concept of perfect happiness. It concerns the good for the self. Acc...
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.
...importance of virtue here is that, virtues are needed for living well; But in order to obtain
Hursthouse, R. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue
Acquiring virtues takes place throughout a person’s whole life so it states there is a need to show that good actions are rewarding and that virtue is learnt through doing and following the example of virtuous role models, e.g. Jesus, Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela. Whilst this is a strength in itself, what further makes the theory more favourable is the psychological context that can be given to this way of learning virtues. One psychologist Alfred Bandura put forward social learning theory in 1977 as a possible explanation of how we learn from our environment through observation and reinforcement. This can be linked to virtue ethics because it shows that we will watch role models and their behaviour and imitate it, developing a system of virtues that are rewarding which will ultimately lead us to eudaimonia. This gives some form of theoretical evidence to virtue ethics which makes it seem a more realistic way of thinking about goodness and how we must achieve
Virtue, then deals with those feelings and actions in which it is wrong to go too far and wrong to fall too short but in which hitting the mean is praiseworthy and good….
Both Kantian and virtue ethicists have differing views about what it takes to be a good person. Kantian ethicists believe that being a good person is strictly a matter of them having a “good will.” On the other hand, virtue ethicists believe that being a good person is a matter of having a good character, or being naturally inclined to do the right thing. Both sides provide valid arguments as to what is the most important when it comes to determining what a person good. My purpose in writing this paper is to distinguish between Kantian ethics and virtue ethics, and to then, show which theory is most accurate.
This theory involves evaluating the individual making the decision rather than the actions or consequences themselves. Aristotle defined “virtue as a character trait that manifests itself in habitual actions.” (Boatright, 2012) This means that you are not considered virtuous because you did the right thing one time, you must be consistent. Virtue character traits include: compassion, courage, courtesy, etc. these traits not only allow for ethical decision making but they also provide happiness to the individual possessing the traits. When a person has virtue as a part of their character their actions will be moral and ethical without having to choose between what they want to do and what they should do – the decision would be the same. Their actions and feelings would coincide with the moral rationale of the virtue theory. Advantages of the virtue theory are instilling good moral character traits into individuals allowing for more ethical decision making based on personal character. Also, the virtue theory promotes happiness through good moral character which encourages people to make ethical business decisions but also ethical personal decisions – leading to a more fulfilling life. A disadvantage is virtue ethics is trying to determine a list of virtues that people should possess, each trait needs to be carefully
Virtue Ethics Virtue ethics is a theory used to make moral decisions. It does not rely on religion, society or culture; it only depends on the individuals themselves. The main philosopher of Virtue Ethics is Aristotle. The. His theory was originally introduced in ancient Greek.