Compare And Contrast John Stuart Mill And Virtue Ethics

How do we even begin to try to decide what is morally right? Technically, it depends on what ethics someone believes. This is one of the major points philosophy is made up of. There are countless beliefs on what is right and how to determine what is right. One of the most famous philosophers of all time, Aristotle, believes in virtue ethics. In virtue ethics, the ultimate goal in life is happiness and a person’s character is the determinant of morality. On the other hand, John Stuart Mill is a believer in consequentialism. This can be summarized as the belief that the consequences of an action or decision is the determinant of if it is moral or not. When describing these philosophers’ beliefs, it can sometime sound as if they are in entirely different worlds in their mind. However, there are a few general aspects that John Stuart Mill and Aristotle agreed on. Obviously, there are also many important factors that easily contrast such as what happiness can be defined as, where

It emphasizes the virtues in contrast to Mill, who emphasizes the consequences of actions. The only way a person can be truly virtuous, is if they contain ideal characteristics that come naturally to them. This is something that someone gains overtime. For an act to be considered virtuous, it will require conscious and moral purpose and motivation, and they cannot be making decisions based on personal reasons. In other words, Aristotle is basically saying that one must act like this for a long period of time, and not just make one “moral” decision in one situation that would benefit them for the moment. Virtue ethics deals with a broader spectrum of questions and beliefs than consequentialism. A believer of virtue ethics would ask questions like “How should I live?” and “How do I become the best character I can be?” and “How can I get it right?” It looks more at the person, rather than the act like consequentialism