Does virtue ethics give adequate action-guidance?
When we are assessing the virtue ethics specifically in Aristotelian, we find that it is much more moderate than the other two moral theories, which are consequentialism and Kantian deontology. It is partly because that virtue ethics takes both the motive and the consequence of a action into account, rather than only concentrates on one of them. This kind of compound value view complies with the crowd social people’s normal thinking style. But I do not deem virtue ethics as an adequate action-guidance, and I will continue to discuss my opinion in the following essay.
It is necessary for any valid moral theory to tell people what kind of things are good and right, and how to act rightly and gain good. Aristotle
Consider a war hero who sacrificed himself to save his comrades, or any other memorable saints such as Gandhi and Mother Teresa. It is naturally comprehensible that those people are well-known because they have done something extraordinary, like giving out one’s life, which cannot be easily followed by most of us. Someone might reject my opinion by arguing that the following behavior must happen in the same circumstance but not in a dissimilar situation, so even if your model is the war hero, you would not have to give out your life when you are not in a battlefield. But I was wondering if so, are there any exactly same circumstances on earth?
Besides, virtue ethics highlights the assessment must be through lifelong time, rather than barely evaluates isolated cases. And even a overall virtuous person hardly does virtuously all the time, which make the model method even more unsound.
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
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...
In Aristotle 's Nicomachean Ethics, the basic idea of virtue ethics is established. The most important points are that every action and decision that humans make is aimed at achieving the good or as Aristotle 's writes, “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at the good... (Aristotle 1094a). Aristotle further explains that this good aimed for is happiness.
The formula of humanity and universal laws help people decide how a certain act would affect the world and if it would be a moral thing to do. This allows for a more standardization of figuring out if something is moral or not. Aristotle’s view of virtue is like The Bible. The things that he finds are virtuous can be seen in different ways. For example, people use The Bible to say certain things like men shouldn’t marry other men or that capital punishment is bad, but other people can use the same text to argue that men should get married and that capital punishment is fine. Same can be said for Aristotle because he gives a list of virtues in chapter 7, but these virtues can be seen in different ways. An example of this could be friendliness which is a virtue. People can be too friendly or not friendly enough but it’s personal preference and changes for everyone. Furthermore, some virtues aren’t on the list, and as societies grow more virtuous characteristics arise as
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 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.
Is virtue all we need? Virtue epistemology is the theory that all of the things we believe are done so through an ethical process. They play an important role, in that our own personal experiences and intellectual facets are what drive this process. The fundamental idea of virtue epistemology is that knowledge is a form of a more general phenomenon, namely success through abilities. Which is turn means: knowledge is a cognitive achievement through cognitive abilities (perception, memory, experience, etc.). Knowledge doesn’t need to be anything beyond a justified true belief.
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.
To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.
Hursthouse, R. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
In Virtue Ethics, Aristotle describes the right thing to do as exercising the virtues, some examples include generosity, integrity, and kindness. Through experiences and learned knowledge, a person can achieve wisdom. Aristotle focuses on the Doctrine of the Mean, and defines it as doing the right action at the right time for the right reason. By focusing on the virtues, he highlights the importance of balance between the intentions of an action and the consequences of that action.
Aristotle was on the right path, but he made his argument too specific, and as a result made virtue something that it is not.
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.