Analysis: Whose Virtue Compass Is More Valuable?

In this paper, I will critically examine Rosalind Hursthouse’s argument on “Virtue Ethics” about the reasoning of a virtuous person by delving into the topic. I will then expose a particular problem within it. Perhaps the strongest point of the argument on “Virtue Ethics” that Hursthouse gives relies on the claim of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy claims that a virtuous person would act and make decisions like what a virtuous person would do. In this paper, I will focus on Hursthouse’s argument on the certainty of a virtuous person, offer an objection to the argument, and demonstrate how Hursthouse might respond to that objection.

I believe virtue is anything that may be advantageous in one’s own way. It may be good, it may be bad in

Consideration and responsibility are both virtues that virtue ethics holds in high regard (Shannon 32). Under virtue ethics, this move was

For a given ethical dilemma, there is usually a dominant pair. Frequently, more than one must be considered, and sometimes all four. But, as Kidder

Hursthouse, R (2007) Virtue ethic. In Zalta,E(ed) , Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Stanford University. Online. Available: http://plato.stanford.edu/ (accessed 5 August 2015).

These individuals will have the wisdom to follow through and do the right things when presented with a dilemma. Therefore, everyone would be benefited from such actions and have achieved happiness. In Rachel’s writing Aristotle say, “that the virtues are important because the virtuous person will fare better in life (p. 167). For example, if someone is needing help, a utilitarian would give the help, because by doing so it would maximize well-being (SEP). On the other hand, a deontologist would say that by helping that person in need, they would be following a moral rule of duty – “Do unto others as you would be done by” (SEP). In facing this moral dilemma, a virtuous person would put into practice the habit or virtue of benevolence. This virtue would be applied neither in excess nor in deficiency. They would be neither over kindly or indifferent to the needs of the person who is in need of assistance. Therefore, in essence,

Some individual are concerned that their concepts do not allow for moral dilemmas to have more than stability in mind. It is known to be somewhat concerning, that theories that allow for dilemmas failure to be uniquely action-guiding. “A theory can fail to be uniquely action-guiding in two different ways, by suggesting incompatible actions in a situation or by not suggesting any action at all.” (McConnell2014)

The art of virtue is a distinct method employed by Franklin. The method features thirteen different aspects: “Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquility, Chastity, and Humility”. Franklin believed that it was essential and advantageous for one to follow this instruction of method, not only to be happy, but to attain clarity, morality, and virtue. Franklin’s first act of virtue, temperance, necessitated self-control of eating and drinking “Eat not to Dulnesss / Drink not to Elevation” (987). Franklin’s second virtue, silence, dictated not to involve yourself in useless discussion, as he illuminates “Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself” (987). Franklin’s

According to critics, a major problem with the theory is the difficulty of establishing the nature of the virtues, especially as different people, cultures and societies often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue. Some proponents counter-argue that any character trait defined as a virtue must be universally regarded as a virtue for all people in all times, so that such cultural relativism is not relevant. Others, however, argue that the concept of virtue must indeed be relative and grounded in a particular time and place, but this in no way negates the value of the theory, merely keeps it current.

The lawyer in this case has an obligation to the child under the virtue theory, the lawyer must exhibit strong core moral values such as integrity, non- maleficence, and justice and fairness when approaching this case. Since the lawyer suspects that the couple he is representing is involved in illicit drug use, it is his responsibility to work in the child’s best interest. Though his professional role is to represent and ‘win’ the case against the adoptive parents, the lawyer must remain virtuous (as a human being) and consider what he morally ‘ought’ to do to ensure the welfare of the child involved. The virtue of caring and concern is paramount in this case. Under the virtue theory, the lawyer must show strong moral character as well as caring and concern for the wellbeing and future of this child, in spite of the legal leverage his clients may have.

Throughout life, one must make difficult choices. People are often faced with decisions of the good (temptation and temporary and immediate pleasure) and the greater good (pain and sacrifice). The most important moral virtues are moderation, courage, and justice. Moderation keeps us from overindulging in limited goods, pleasure, and temptation. Courage is facing your fears, and justice (the laws) encourages people to behave virtuously and create relationships with others. Reaching happiness is highly dependent on living a balanced virtuous life.

After filling out the Ethical Inventory again I found that Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics are the two areas that made the most persuasive thinking for me. Utilitarianism looks at the consequences and weighs the positives to see if it is going to bring happiness to the greater number. Every situation is looked at from a pros and cons point of view and a decision is made from there. One statement that is on the inventory sheet says, “When I am trying to decide what the right thing to do is, I look at the consequences of the various alternatives open to me.” In this example for myself I usually don’t think about consequences and react on emotions. After reacting from emotions I think about the consequences and realize most of the time it wasn’t the right thing to do. There are many times that I react and then realize I could’ve done things differently in that situation. I think about my own self interest before I think about the effects of the greater number. I see myself now looking at the situation and seeing both sides of it. I look at the positives and negatives before I react on emotions. By learning more about utilitarianism and changing my thought process I see my virtue ethics in a different perspective compared to what I did before this class. All the virtues that are stated in the book are virtues I hold very deeply in myself. These virtues are courage, generosity, honesty, loyalty to friends and family. Courage was one I had a hard time with because I don’t always

Confucius and Aristotle are some of the greatest thinkers in the history of mankind. While Confucius was born in China and spearheaded a new way of perceiving morality, Aristotle was born in Macedon/Greece and also immersed his philosophical work to addressing moral thinking.Both philosophers have addressed similar subjects with major points of divergence and convergence. On virtue, these two authors have almost similar opinions. However, it is their points of convergence or agreement that have had a huge impact on the modern world’s thinking and understanding of virtue and moral behavior.

An advantage of virtue ethics is that it brings in all the qualities of being human such as reason, responsibility and emotion to influence a person’s ethical consideration. This can be applied in situations where a person asks what sort of person he or she should be. However, our text book clarifies that “determining what the specific virtues are, and what the appropriate balance among those virtues should be, can be difficult” (Mosser, 2011).

In this paper, I argue that some moral outlooks may be more paradox-prone than others (Question 2.2). My argument proceeds by examining a difficult moral scenario. Then, I outline the reasons to choose whether the scenario is good or bad. I follow by classifying the scenario as a moral paradox. Following this, I highlight the fact that some people may not confront this paradox at all. I develop my idea using examples of different moral foundations. I claim that individual moral differences lead to differences in recognizing a paradox. Individuals may disagree when reasoning about the hierarchy of certain morals. I end and solidify the argument that some may confront a moral paradox while others with the same scenario may not.