The Strengths and Weaknesses Of Virtue Ethics
The virtue ethicist suggests that his theory avoids the complicated
tasks of using a formula to figure out what we ought to do, by instead
focusing on the kinds of persons we ought to be. The trouble lies in
determining just how we know what kinds of persons we ought to be. Or,
we might put it this way: how are we to determine just what the
virtues are? Obviously, if we do not know what the virtues are, then
telling people to "Live virtuously!" becomes an empty imperative. So,
if we ask the virtue ethicist what the virtues are, what will he tell
us?
Virtue theorists answer this question in at least five different ways.
Firstly, some virtue theorists suggest that we will know what the
virtues are, we will know what the good life is.
Secondly, some virtue theorists suggest instead that we can determine
what the virtues are by figuring out what the excellent human life is.
Once we know what it means to be the best human being possible, then
the virtues are whatever character traits enable us to live at the
heights of excellence. Aristotle suggests this theory too. However,
identifying the "flourishing life" is itself a major task. Also, if we
look very closely at the notion of a "flourishing life," we will find
that instead of helping us determine what the virtues are, it actually
begs the question, since the flourishing life already contains value
judgements.
The very idea of a flourishing life is a normative concept. That of
course was the original question: what are the standards by which we
ought to live our lives? The virtue ethicist told us that we could
avoid this quest...
... middle of paper ...
...lise moral principles simply
by doing the morally good deed and through the action itself come to
understand its value and begin to desire it.
However, virtue theory offers a great deal to moral psychology -it
tells us how we in fact learn moral principles. This means that virtue
ethics is less a normative theory of what we ought to do than a
descriptive account of the limits and capabilities of human beings. If
humans are creatures that tend toward habituation, then moral
educators would do well to heed this fact in developing a moral
curriculum. Then it also raises questions about whether calling virtue
theory "ethics" is even appropriate. Since virtue theories fail to
offer defensible moral norms that are distinguishable from their
normative rivals, virtue theories are not really ethical theories at
all.
An employee of ABC Company, Luke is in charge with a project of developing new purchased land. The company is planning to build an adult entertainment retail store which confidently lay near where his brother, Owen, lives. If the plans are announced to the public, the property of the surrounding neighborhood will drop significantly. What concerned Luke is that Owen just told him about the offer to sell his house at a decent price compared to the current real estate market. However, Owen is considering if he should wait for a couple year and sell his house later at a higher price as the estate value may increase.
There are two basic types of ethical judgments: deontological judgements that focus on duty and obligation and eudaimonist judgements that focus on human excellence and the nature of the good life. I contend that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgement and not try to understand one as a special case of the other. Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main kinds, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one of the other of these types of judgement as primary. A second important contention, which this paper supports but does not attempt to justify fully, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we subsume them under some more encompassing ethical synthesis.
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. First of all, let us discuss what VE is. VE is a normative ethical theory that emphasises the virtues or moral character, thus it focuses on the moral agent. It differs from Deontology which emphasises duties or rules, and Utilitarianism which emphasises the consequences of our actions.
No decision procedure – moral decision making is too complicated to have a single criterion for decision
In Intro to Ethics, we have discussed each moral theory in the context of how the theories dealt with the theory of right conduct and with the deontic status the action had. When we looked at how each theory we talked about dealt with deontic status, we looked at how the actions were right or wrong. The main theories we looked at this semester that dealt with right conduct were utilitarianism, Kant’s moral theory, and virtue ethics. Although each of these moral theories has its own flaws, I believe that Kant’s moral theory is the strongest and most superior out of all the moral theories.
When we discuss morality we know that it is a code of values that seem to guide our choices and actions. Choices and actions play a significant role in determining the purpose and course of a person’s life. In the case of “Jim and the Indians”, Jim faces a terrible dilemma to which any solution is morbid. On one hand, Jim can choose to ignore the captain’s suggestion and let the whole group of Indians be executed. Alternatively, he may decide upon sacrificing one Indian for the sake of saving the rest. Both options involve taking of person’s life. Regarding what should Jim do in this circumstance, there are two approaches according for Jim’s dilemma that should be examined. By looking into the Deontological moral theory and the moral theory of Consequentialism we can see what determines an action that is morally required.
What is right and wrong? This question that has been asked throughout history all over the world that perplexes society even today. Many philosophers have attempted to answer this question, but it is hard to make out what the right answer would be or even if it can be answered. Who would be able to tell? That’s why we as individuals must make up our own minds on what is right or wrong. We can only hope to find our own moral path. Though it is up to us we can take a look at philosophers of the past to be a guiding hand at times.
This essay will provide a theoretical understanding of the four ethical frameworks: Consequentialism, Non- Consequentialism, Virtue Ethics and Care Ethics. When applied to a situation these frameworks help teachers to resolve and justify their decision making. The objective is to apply the four frameworks to the scenario Helping Molly, to establish the most ethical course of action. Finally, a recommended course of action will be justification. The overarching ethical issue present within the Helping Molly scenario is the community sponsorship and the alignment with school beliefs and initiatives.
In The Abolition of Man, Plato comes up with a question that he answers himself. Can virtue be taught? In his writings, he answers this question with eleven simple words. “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous”. This is simply implying that virtue can’t be taught because being virtuous is something you are born with. A twist to this question that could possibly give us a positive answer would be asking if virtue could be learned. The only difference between these questions is that when you ask if virtue can be learned, you’re inferring that there is a teacher and a pupil. Asking if something can be learned simply suggests that there is a student and he teaches himself virtue by experiencing life lessons. To give an example, asking if a person was taught how to play soccer means that there was someone to teach that person; while asking whether a person learned to play soccer has certain inclination towards that person learning from life experiences or by watching soccer being played.
What establishes a noble, valuable, enjoyable life? Many philosophers tried their own beliefs to these ancient and most persistent of philosophical question. Most of Philosophers have agreed that the best possible life is a life where the ideas of “virtue” and “happiness” are fulfilled. Nevertheless expected differences in terms, many great minds theorized that the road to a joyful, flourishing, happy life is paved with virtues. For example, Aristotle believed that anyone keen to live a virtuous life will reach happiness (Aristotle 1992). Also according to Roman Cicero, the bonds between virtue and happiness are very strong, that a virtuous person could still be happy even if he is tortured (McMahon 2006). In addition, Rosalind Hursthouse contended that owning virtue does not essentially result in happiness, as luck plays an irrefutable part in human’s life; however it is the best bet for a good life (Hursthouse 1999). Exactly the same like taking on a healthy routine is the best way for being healthy, although it does not assurance perfect health. In my opinion, there is a strong connection between virtue and happiness, yet there are some exceptions.
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.
Ethics in business is a highly important concept, as it can affect a company’s profits, salaries paid to employees and CEOs, and public opinion, among many other aspects of a business. Ethics can be enforced by company policies and guidelines, set a precedent when a company is faced with an important decision, and are also evolving thanks to new technology and situations that arise due to technology usage. Businesses have a duty to maintain their ethical responsibilities and also to help their employees enforce these responsibilities in and out of the workplace. However, ethics and the foundation for them are not always black and white. There are many different ethical theories, however Utilitarianism, Kant’s Deontological ethics, and Virtue ethics are three of the most well known theories in existence. Each theory is distinct in that it has a different quality used to determine ethicality and allows for a person to choose which system of ethics works best with both the situation and his or her personal ethical preferences.
In this paper, I argue about the applicability of virtue ethics which is one of three major branches of normative ethics. The subject of virtue ethics is normally defined as one that puts emphasis on virtues which are also known as moral character. The branch is in contrast to the majority of the approaches which places a lot of emphasizes on responsibilities and rules. The practice is also known as deontology or the practice which emphasizes on the results of actions. It is also known as consequentialism (Swanton,11).The way virtue ethics is applied in modern philosophy should be clearly evaluated.
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.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.