An Argument On Virtue Ethics Essay

Aristotle and Rita Manning both have different theories when it comes to ethics. Aristotle uses virtue ethics to answer questions about morality whereas Manning uses what is called ethics of caring to do the same thing. Virtue ethics claims people’s actions aim towards the highest good of happiness. From happiness, moral virtue stems from reasons governing the desires of the soul. Manning on the other hand believes that moral actions extend from people caring for one another on a personal level. By developing the ability to care for others, people become morally aware of how to act in certain situations. When the question of: “how ought I live my life?”

Let us suppose that there are two individuals who have different levels of internal conflict when faced with a virtue dilemma VD. The first individual, named Easy, when faced with VD does not have a second of hesitation and immediately chooses the more morally correct decision (what the morally correct decision is will depend by what definition of virtue is applied to the situation and will be addressed later in the paper). This first individual Easy is categorized as virtuous according to a virtue ethicist in that he perfectly possesses virtue, and “is often discussed as an ideal which we aim towards, but do not necessarily achieve” (Athanassoulis 2000). As Athanassoulis points out, there are few if any who are truly virtuous (according to virtue ethics), but for the purpose of this paper we will assume that Easy is perfectly virtuous.

Virtue defines the human goodness of an individual M. Harbour, V. Kisfalvi (2013), while other ethical theories such as utilitarianism, and relativism may discuss actions that are considered to be good or bad, ethical virtue discusses the person himself and the goodness of that human being.

Dilemmas are a part of our daily lives, and when faced with such difficulties, individuals always have to make significant decisions in their lives, which they can be judged for either positively or negatively (Rowlands, M. 2016). Moral theories help one to make sound decisions when faced with such lifelike dilemmas to guide their thinking and reasoning. Renown ethical theories or normative include utilitarianism, stoic virtue ethics, Aristotelian virtue ethics, the categorical imperative, and Ross’s intuitionism. All these normative theories tend to show the guidelines as to what one should do or not do when faced with dilemmas

Virtue ethics can be described as a collection of numerous theories that put their emphasis mainly on the role of virtue and character rather than emphasizing on the guidelines associated with the actions and the consequences of this actions. The origin of virtue ethics can be dated back to the ancient Greek and this concept was highly conceptualized by the early Greek philosophers and thinkers.

To the extent that the morality of desire and emotivism hold true, objectivism finds no traction in ethics. These doctrines preclude the exclusion of the self in evaluation of questions of morality and ethics. Meno’s crude and self-interested model of virtue complements Unger and MacIntyre’s discussion of subjectivity.

Consequentialism Deontology Virtue Theory example Mill 's utilitarianism Kantian ethics Aristotle 's moral theory abstract description An action is right if it promotes the best consequences. An action is right if it is in accordance with a moral rule or principle. An action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. more concrete specification The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized. A moral rule is one that is required by rationality. A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues. A virtue is a character trait a human being needs to flourish or live well.

Virtue ethics are theories that highlight the importance of character and morals over dutiful behaviors. Many virtue theories are rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which argue that a "virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits" (Athanassoulis, 2004). Virtue theories are founded upon the contention that sets of universal principles, virtues, can be applied across a variety of situations. Virtues are defined as conformity to a standard of right or particular moral excellence (Merriam-Webster, 2012). Presently, virtue theories have seen resurgence, specifically Eudemonism, agent-based theories, and the ethics of care (Athanassoulis, 2004). Eudemonism "bases virtues in flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one's distinctive function well" (Athanassoulis, 2004). Agent-based theories argue that individuals seek to emulate virtuous qualities they see in others based on common-sense intuitions, whereas the ethics of care argues that qualities such as caring and nurturing should also be considered as virtuous traits.

In this paper I will discuss virtue ethics. I will start by describing and sharing what virtue ethics is, and move on to my thoughts on two critiques of virtue ethics.

In John Ludwig Mackie’s book Inventing Right and Wrong, he claims that “in making moral judgments we are pointing to something objectively prescriptive, but that these judgments are all false”. By saying this, he supports his main point that there are no objective values. However, John McDowell will be against Mackie’s argument, because he suggests that moral values are secondary qualities which can be objective. I hold the same viewpoint as McDowell’s. In this essay, I will firstly explain Mackie’s argument, then illustrate McDowell’s objections, and finally explore some potential responses by Mackie.

According to virtue ethicists, virtues are developed by routine. The majority of virtue ethics philosophies take their motivation from Aristotle who stated that a virtuous being is somebody who has supreme character qualities. These qualities stem from innate inner predispositions, but need to be cultivated; yet, once seeded, they will grow to be firm. For instance, a virtuous individual is somebody who is thoughtful through several circumstances throughout a lifetime, as that is their personality and not because they want to get the most value or increase favors or merely do their obligation. Contrasting deontological and consequentialist philosophies, notions of virtue ethics do not have the intention to predominantly isolate general values that can be functional in any ethical circumstances. And virtue ethics concepts manage broader demands such as how one should live and what are the correct familial and social values.

In modern virtue ethics, in aspiration from Aristoteles and his believe that of character and virtue. Aristotelian character is about a state of being king. It's about “having the appropriate inner states.” For example, the virtue of sympathy involves the right sort of emotions and inner states with respect to our feelings towards others. Based on the Aristotelian theory, this is a theory of action, because having the virtuous inner natures will involve being moved to act in accordance with them. Kindness is the appropriate reaction to a situation and feeling appropriately kindly will most likely lead to a corresponding attempt to act kindly. There are factor that may affect the development of a person. For example: parent’s, peer groups, role

In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.

One philosopher believes one possesses moral values if his decisions produces desirable results, not only for personal benefit but for attaining universal happiness as well. Another supposes that morality should be an “act of duty,” attesting it is our responsibility to abide by the moral laws and that the “will is good if the intentions are good” (Nance, Michael. These men have somehow set the tone that facilitated how man comport himself in civilization. Without Kant’s Categorical Imperative, John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianisms, or even Plato’s The Republic, society may not have cultivated to the refined people we have become.

Your deed is morally admissible only if others’ doing that action would also be morally admissible. We can promote this thought by different ways. One of the opinions is that, before thinking to perform some act, you should question yourself ‘What if everyone did that?’ (hooker, 2002, p.n.d).