Virtue Ethics Analysis

Virtue Ethics suggest what we do is all about a person’s moral character. Aristotle suggests that, “virtue discovers the mean and deliberately chooses it.” (Aristotle, 1982) In this situation it would have been vice deficit to badger the owners of the pet and continue to report the issue and vice excess to just leave the dog exposed to the elements knowing it could be harmful. Virtue Ethics suggest that we take into consideration all of the fact and based on our beliefs, do what’s in the best interest of all parties. While this action in stealing the dog was good in a sense, it came with the consequence of the woman being charged with a criminal offense for that action. As suggested earlier in this paper, oftentimes doing the right thing

The act of the woman in this situation to take the dog does not necessarily fit the scenario of greatest good for the greatest amount of people however; it does fit the greatest good for the greatest number, (meaning canine). In that respect the recommendation would to determine if the “action is permissible” (Tamu.edu, 2016) by those sets of rules and act accordingly. The positive is the pleasure in knowing you did what you felt was the right thing to do in saving the dog from the exposure to the frigid temperatures. The negative part of this is if everyone took it upon themselves to take ownership of other people’s property because they feel it’s the right thing to do, we would have higher crime rates in our cities. Ultimately she broke the law regardless of how she felt about the situations therefore the end did not justify the

(Thomson, 1953) My decision in this case would have had to been allowing the authorities to handle the situation. Virtue Ethics teach us that we should make sure we know all of the facts and use those to make a decision based on our ethical beliefs. I think that if I felt that the situation needed immediate resolution, rather than stealing the dog, I would have tried to speak to the owners to come up with a solution. Possibly offering to purchase the dog or offering to aid in sheltering it would have saved a lot of undue consequences later imposed to the woman. There was no indication in this story that the owners wanted to keep the dog just that the dog was for protection. Considering these facts, offering to relieve them of the responsibility would have been the best thing to do. Aristotle also points out that, “the function of a man is the exercise of his non-corporeal faculties or “soul” in accordance with, or at least not divorced from, a rational principle.” As such, trying to resolve the situation amicably is the best route to take. Considering the facts as stated in this case, if applying reasoning, I don’t think I want to break a law for something that could possibly easily be resolved in a more civil manor. As such, the decision to speak to the owners, and offer up a solution would be in the best interest for everyone