Thesis: Is the development of a virtuous character a suitable basis for ethics?
My thesis is that a virtuous character can be seen as a suitable basis for ethics, however in some ways it can be flawed. I believe that in western civilisation there can be a more flexible form of what virtue actually means to people which in turn develops a new practicality to it. Since there are different communities it therefore needs for different virtues to exist. However since it’s based on a more communal idea it does not therefore apply to each person. And a secular community can adapt and become more efficient in it’s new environment makes the whole idea of morality merely pragmatic more than anything else.
Argument/Rationale:
First I looked at Elizabeth Anscombe’s ideas on Aristotles Virtue ethics, she had heavily critiqued him in her paper ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’. She had argued that we should all essentially stop doing moral philosophy altogether. That a sense of moral concepts such as is and ought are incoherent with each other, and that all modern philosophy is basically the same. Anscombe believed that modern moral philosophy both had tried to rely on theism for the use of it’s concepts and to both reject it also. Believing that the rest of the beliefs were corrupt and charged to a term that she coined consequentialism, because she believed that it made even the most evil things tolerable if the benefits are sufficient enough. With this being said Anscombe believed that all moral obligation should be abandoned if there was no kind of rationality to it. Secular approaches to modern theories were found to be without any kind of foundation. The concepts such as ‘morally ought’ and ‘obligated’ are legalistic and therefore would require...
... middle of paper ...
...racter. We all had the same sort of answer to the question between all of us and that was that it was a suitable basis for ethics, but as the world is becoming more modern there is a lesser need for it as there was, and being moral has become more pragmatic through the years as society is starting to change and evolve.
Reflection/Evaluation:
I believed that on the whole we worked well as a group with each other, each presenting our own ideas to one another and helping each other. I had strugged trying to answer the actual question because there was a lot of stuff on moral philosophy, and how it was flawed. There wasn’t as much on what it meant to be a virtuous character and what was actually meant by the term ethics. However I really did enjoy reading Anscombe and Aristotle and learning about what it means for a person to be virtuous and to have a good character.
In Ruth Benedict’s “Ethics are Relative”, she argues that because morals and values change with time and across culture, there can be no solid judgment for any action to be consistently deemed “right” or “wrong”, since the same action will be viewed differently when considered from different points of view. Benedict’s primary assertion is that the ethics seen as good or bad by modern cultures are not better to those found in primitive cultures, but are the values we have developed over time. “Most of the simpler cultures did not gain the wide currency of the one which, out of our experience, we identify with human nature, but this was for various historical reasons, and certainly not for any that gives us as its carriers a monopoly of social
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 “Consequentialism and Integrity,” Bernard Williams criticizes consequentialism on the ground that it is inherently unreasonable due to its insistence on negative responsibility, and as a result, denies the agent integrity. Peter Railton’s “Alienation, Consequentialism, and the Demands of Morality” is a response to Williams and a defense of consequentialism. In the following essay, I will explain Williams’s attack on consequentialism, and Railton’s argument that consequentialism need not deny the agent integrity. I will then consider an objection to Railton’s argument, and then evaluate a possible Railtonian response.
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.
Doaker- A forty seven year old, tall, patient man that has a lot of respect for others. Even though he caves into people he is still a respectable figure.
A tragic character is someone who experiences misfortune in courtesy of poor judgment, fate or a conflicted personality. In the tragedy, Antigone, there is a heavy debate over whether Antigone or Creon is the tragic character. Creon can be classified as the tragic character of the play because he has been affected the most due to his decision of sentencing Antigone to death. For instance, a fight emerges between the king and his son, Haimon, as a result of his harsh punishment. Also, he lets his pride get in the way which triggers the suicide of Haimon and his wife, Eurydice. By the end of the tragedy, Creon is forced to live through the painful death of his family, thus being the tragic character because he suffered the most.
real reason he got blind. He knows that seeing the eclipse without protection wasn't the
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’ .
Aristotle, a student of Plato, is known for his contributions in many fields of philosophy, ethics being one of the most prominent. He produced the first methodical and collected ethical system to be produced by an ancient Greek philosopher, found in his book the Nicomachean Ethics. This, along with the less-read Eudemian Ethics, are his ethical accounts that we have today.
...d, different cultures live completely separate lives and each society is not the same as the next. Different lifestyles would mean that there are different cultural views and norms depending what type of society you live in when building your moral standards. Furthermore I believe that there is a distinguishable line between right and wrong and a rational being need not the rules of society to help govern decisions, but it is necessary for society to have standards of morals and ethics so that one’s actions can ultimately be justifiable.
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
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.
...teenth century intellects claimed that morality was independent of religion, and that religious authority had no say in the moral dictates of an individual. This sort of thought would eventually sway the public’s view in matters of morality and religion and eliminate the churches influence in society and institution altogether.
...the concept of what should we do or what we ought to do. Ethics is design to help one receive the life they want and live it with purpose. In certain situations it’s unclear as to consider it moral or immoral as ethics comes to play alongside morality. Some would argue the concept of what can be define as moral as immoral in conjunction with ethics by means of feelings, religion, law, culture, and science. Although they prove good standings they cannot be accounted for as those rationales are more so that of opinion that are altered daily depending of that of the individual. For this reason any act can be considered moral as we can use descriptive education depicting that of ethics, in which we live a life seeking how things should be and that it depends on the individual. So who is to say what’s right and what’s wrong. If it exists in the universe it can be moral.
“All of morals comes down to the virtues.” (Keenan, 142) Keenan asserts that these virtues are the cardinal virtues, consisting of courage, temperance, justice, and prudence, and date back to Aristotle in Ancient Greece. The word cardinal is derived from the root, cardo, meaning hinge. Simply stated, the Christian moral life hinges on the cardinal virtues. Keenan suggests an updating of the cardinal virtues to become justice, fidelity, self-care, and prudence. He provides reasoning for the new virtue list. He defines each virtue with its social implications. For example, individuals should seek to set up society with equal justice for all persons. These descriptions help the Christian understand when the virtues are best applicable to self and/or others. Thomas Aquinas adds three theological virtues to the mix: faith, hope, and charity. Familiar from the thirteenth chapter of I Corinthians, these virtues seek to help Christian theologians through the ages maintain the integrity of the Gospel and continue to make it relevant in the modern world. Keenan recounts Bernard of Clairvaux’s beliefs that cultivating the virtues is a way to assimilate with the humanity of Jesus. (Keenan, 136) According to Aquinas, “Every human action is a moral action.” (Keenan, 142) The purpose of the virtues is to guide Christians, and when the Christian studies and applies the virtues to his life, his actions will demonstrate morality. The Bible heralds in Proverbs 3:32, “Devious people are detestable to the Lord, but the virtuous are his close