Argumentative Essay Final
Virtue is such an abstract concept that it is impossible for individuals or even societies as a whole to clearly and unequivocally define it, so there must be some form of a higher authority capable of defining human virtues tout court in order for such a thing to even exist. Because of the impact one's environment can have on his or her belief system there is a wide range of conflicting ideas regarding human virtue around the globe, which indicates that no intrinsic definition of human virtues exists for humans. Therefore, human beings alone are only able to speculate as to the nature of human virtue that cannot serve as concrete standards people must live up to as opinions generally do not have enough certainty to function as definitions. Thus, there must be a non-human higher power that outlines what is and is not thought to be excellent for all human beings, regardless of age, race, gender, or belief system.
For the purposes of this essay human virtue is defined as a trait or ability such that one who has that trait or ability would be considered excellent and thus virtuous by human standards. Additionally it is important to keep
…show more content…
in mind that this definition of virtue is only meant to extend to humans; whether or not it is applicable to dogs or cats or movies or anything non-human is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Human virtues tout court, more specifically, are meant to apply to all people everywhere, regardless of who they are, where they live, what they do, or what they believe. They are overarching principles of excellence that all humans everywhere should strive to live up to for no reason other than they are human beings wanting to be virtuous. People are very much products of their environments.
However, there are two distinct types of environments: healthy and unhealthy. Healthy environments impact a person's beliefs in a positive way so the person comes to see value and excellence in the qualities the society promotes. On the other hand, an unhealthy environment can lead to a person reacting against his
or her society and taking up conflicting, and sometimes completely opposite, values. It is important to note, however, that healthy and unhealthy should not be taken as either inherently positive or negative in this context. An environment that can be healthy for one person may be unhealthy for another. They should be thought of in reference to an individual and whether that particular environment is healthy or unhealthy for that specific
person. Those who grow up in healthy environments believe what they believe because they were raised that way, and those values have been instilled in them. Different societies value certain traits over others, and there are varying definitions of what is considered excellence and what attributes are thought to be more excellent than others around the world. One particular example of this can be seen when comparing and contrasting Chinese and American cultures. Studies have shown that "while common value dimensions are found in both cultures, differences exist in the degree and order of importance.” This study surveyed American and Chinese students and found that while Americans put a great emphasis on personal achievement, Chinese culture discourages innovative thinking and stresses the importance of the status quo1. It can be inferred that American children are praised for creativity and imagination. Children in China, on the other hand, are most likely discouraged from innovation and originality and instead encouraged to focus on more concrete subjects like math and science. In both cases people generally adopted the same value systems that are most present in their society because it is healthy for those individuals. This is only one example of many; nonetheless, this is not always the case. In what are to be thought of as unhealthy environments, people do not adopt the values that their society believes in. This could be because those values are perceived as oppressive, unjust, or unfair. As seen in the Civil Rights Movement, or any other major political or social reform, people became tired of being exploited and treated unfairly by the status quo and rebelled seeking change. Their beliefs and values were influenced by the injustice they saw in their environments and the want for things to change. The differing impacts the same environment can have on distinct individuals further emphasizes the wide range of ideas regarding what is and is not considered excellent and supports the idea that an individual’s concept of virtue is nothing more than an opinion. An opinion is defined as "a belief or judgement that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.2" As such, opinions are disputable unlike facts, which have a definiteness to them. Consequently, opinions cannot serve as definitions or facts as there is not always a way to determine whether or not they are correct in the same way one can check facts. Opinions can, however, can coincide with facts in a way similar to the principle that squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Even though people may hold certain opinions in high regard, they cannot serve as set standards because of their debatable nature. Although opinions are up to a person’s interpretations and one could argue there is no such thing as a correct or incorrect opinion, one that directly contradicts a fact can be discounted as incorrect and should be given little to no weight. Likewise, if an opinion is widely disputed or directly opposes a fact, it is unlikely that it is also a definition because it goes against the basic meaning of the word. As has been established, the way people view human virtue is widely disputed across countries and cultures. Although some may agree on certain central aspects of virtue, no two societies share the exact same beliefs. Not only do cultural values conflict, but individuals also have no trouble disagreeing with others even within cultural and familial boundaries. As a result of the inconsistent beliefs around the world regarding what should and should not be considered virtuous, everything that individuals and societies believe is nothing more than an opinion. Furthermore, the argument that human virtues are intrinsic and have always simply existed is incorrect. Even if there were inherent human virtues, it is clear that humanity is unaware of them. If humanity was aware of some type of fundamental definition of human virtue, there would not be as much debate and disagreement as to what they are. Since humanity is unaware of any pre-existing standards of virtue, it can be argued that humanity has no obligation to live up to those standards. This follows from the philosophical principle of "ought implies can" which argues that if people have a moral obligation or duty, they ought to or should do it3. From that one can gather that if somebody cannot follow that specific obligation he is not required to, or in other words it does not apply to him. If a certain idea does not apply to a person, it does not, in a sense, exist for him or her. As it has been established, people have no knowledge of any intrinsic definition of human virtue. It can then be concluded that even if there were some type of innately human idea of virtue it would not apply to humans and would therefore not exist. Such standards could only come to be if some type of external force brought it to humanity’s attention. Because it is beyond human capacity to define the basis of human virtue, if there were to be human virtues tout court there must be some type of authority more powerful or more knowledgeable than humanity. This higher power would have the ability to determine what is and is not virtuous in humans whether it is by forming a new, original set of standards or by pointing out ones already present that humans are incapable of seeing on their own. Moreover, it is interesting to examine whether or not humanity would be better off if it could make that type of decision on its own. People trust doctors to make medical decisions because they know the most about the field. People trust scientists to do research because that is what they were taught to do. Why can humans not be left to decide what is or is not considered excellent for humans? Who or what else could know more about humanity than humans themselves? And how would humanity react to such an authority? There would certainly be many people who accept and agree with that authority because they recognize it as wiser and as better than them. And there would be people who question its ability to make such significant decisions about humanity without being human itself. In The Book Thief by Markus Zusak4, the narrator is Death personified as a remarkably human character, sometimes arguably more humane than the actual humans in the novel. He sees; he experiences; and he feels just as humans do. The difference is that he is able to see and know more than any human could. His view is not limited to his immediate surroundings as humanity’s is. Perhaps this is the type of higher authority human kind needs: one that is both a part of humanity and understanding of human emotions but detached enough to look past cultural boundaries and personal biases to find one single definition that people around the world could agree on. Regardless of the type of authority best suited to define such an intangible and all-encompassing idea, it is clear that humanity alone is incapable of setting the standards for human excellence all people must strive for, implying that there must be something more. People alone cannot make such heavy decisions because they are incapable of bridging the cultural divides in the world to find a single concept of virtue on their own. Additionally, the wide range of beliefs indicates not only that even if standards for human virtue have always simply existed people are unaware of them rendering them inapplicable and technically nonexistent, but also that these beliefs are nothing more than opinions incapable of serving as a definitive model for human virtue. Thus, it must be left up to some kind of non-human higher power to set the standards for human virtues tout court for humanity if there were even such a thing.
On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. http://www.oxfordscholarship.com. ———. "
Hursthouse, R. (2003, July 18). Virtue Ethics. Stanford University. Retrieved March 6, 2014, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue
Value is such is human dignity kindness and sympathy, altruism, responsibility and commitments, justices and honesty, and personal and professional competence were similar in most of the
Environment refers to the internal and external context or setting of a person’s social experience (Arnold & Boggs, 2001; Kozier et al., 2014). This consists of physical, psychological, social, cultural, historical, political and economic dimensions; thus, person and environment are fundamentally intertwined (Arnold & Boggs, 2011; Schim et al., 2007; Thorne et al., 1998). The notion of environment is multilayered and constructed, therefore, constantly changing, distinctly serving to shape a person’s health (Thorne et al., 1998). The concept of environment is foundational to the, “Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts,” and in practice, helps the nurse describe, explain, and predict health outcomes and their context (Kozier et al., 2014; Mikkonen &Raphael, 2010).
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….
Virtue theory defines what it takes to be a good person and above all else one’s character matters most (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014). This theory focuses on the person’s moral character rather than duties. A virtuous person is someone who acts just in situations throughout his or her lifetime because of their good character (Boylan, 2009, p. 133-139). An example of a virtuous person would be a priest. A virtuous person does not act to gain favors, but only to do their duty. Individuals who practice virtue theory ponders questions like; how should one live, what is a good life or what are proper social and family values. The deontological ethics approach accentuates one’s duty to rules (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2014, para. 1). The morality of an action is based on following rules. The “rules” help guide individuals morally in decision making. Therefore, the person should make a moral choice as long as he or she sticks to the guidelines. The third approach is the utilitarianism,...
...uller-Thompson et al., 2000). In general, it is assumed that people living in a well - developed environment are more likely in better health condition since they could be more active outside of their residence (Kuo et al., 1998); while poor housing condition could increase the risks of physical health problem (Dunn, 2000).
...h the engagement of virtue using the VIA classification system. Limitations of this research pertain to the examination of only specific ideas that may be misinterpreted when taken out of context of the entire theories.
A patient is not entirely “healthy” or “sick;” a patient may be healthy in some ways but sick in others. “Health” is subjective in that what works for one patient might harm another. Health is not just related to the state of the body but also is influenced by emotions and the environment.
healthy is a major component in ones’ overall wellbeing, more so mentally, but being healthy
As mentioned by Thiroux & Krasemann, expresses how the establishment of virtues is based on the measurement of righteous perceptions (72). For instance, as a society we know mainly through trial and error what type of moral codes to develop. Many people undergo errors of society and we established what is common sense because of it. Therefore, virtue ethics isn’t solely on notions to project a list of rules in order to be a decent human being, but to apply these basic principles to how we feel as well (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg.78).
Human law must always be ordered to the common good which commands all virtuous actions. Any and all virtue can be ordered to either the private or public good. Aquinas provides the example of courage and how courageous acts could either “preserve the political community or [uphold] the rights of one’s friends” (Regan, 63). Law commands courage for the purpose of preserving the political community and upholding the rights of the neighboring men and other like purposes. Since there is no virtue that could not be, in one way or another, ordered to the common good, every virtue is commanded by human law because all law ordered to the common good. By commanding every virtue, human laws do not necessitate every many to have every virtue. Men need
Health is described as physical and mental well-being and freedom from disease, pain or defect. However, such descriptions only superficially define the actual meaning of health. There may be many occasions when individuals are not necessarily ill or in pain but may be overweight, stressed or emotionally unstable. Health is a quality of life involving dynamic interaction and interdependence among the individual’s physical state, their mental and emotional reactions, and the social context in which the individual exists. There are many factors that influence your health, but three major components contribute to general well-being: Self-awareness, a balanced diet and, regular physical activity.
-Someone that is healthy or balanced would not turn to actions that are unhealthy such as; becoming a serial killer or becoming a criminal. They are able to confront their emotions in a healthy manner. They are able confront everyday life and environmental experiences in a healthy manner. They are physically, mentally and physically stable.
In this essay I will critically discuss Aristotle’s concept of virtue. I will illustrate how he was influenced by his predecessors and how he disagreed with them and developed his own philosophy. I will also describe how he defined the concept of virtue – what virtuous traits are and also how to be a virtuous person.