Aristotelian Vs. Aristotelian Ethics Essay

Virtue ethics is a very different approach to the others and central to Aristotle's work. It does not primarily concentrate on the right action as such; the right action according to virtue ethicists is the one that the virtuous agent would do. Virtue ethics takes the central feature of morality to be the virtuous character, and the account of what the virtues are as the basis of the theory.

Aristotle outlined his theory of Virtue Ethics in his book Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle focused his idea of ethics on agents rather than acts. His main idea is focused on the idea of human character- how can you be a better person? In fact, Aristotle once said: “For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is, but in order to become good, since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.” Aristotle is given the credit for developing the idea of virtue ethics, but many of Plato's cardinal values influenced his ideas. Virtue Ethics is focused on the person's actions, not the consequences of that action. Aristotle believed if you had good moral values, then your actions would be "good" in theory. Rather than defining good actions,

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.

A married couple, both addicted to drugs, is unable to care for their infant daughter. She is taken from them by court order and placed in a foster home. The years passed. She comes to regard her foster parents as her real parents. They love her as they would their own daughter. When the child is 9 years old, the natural parents, rehabilitated from drugs, begin court action to regain custody. The case is decided in their favor. The child is returned to them, against her will. Do ethics support the law in this case? Discuss.

In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle understands virtue is a disposition that issues correct choice. In this essay, we are given the task to explain what Aristotle means by choice, which is in turn show that choice is not wishes, opinion, nor desire. Rather, Aristotle believes choice involves desire. So, I will explain concisely why correct choice is not a tendency to opine the correct thing to do rather correct choice is an intimate coordination between our rational and desiring faculties. Thus, controlling and coordinating what we desire and why we desire something. Ultimately, leading the agent to what the right thing they should do, full stop, regardless of numerous alternatives.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics first narrow their scope with his understanding that one would need to be materially secure first in order to perform virtuous activities listed that make a person virtuous. His logic seems to be based on

“But virtue, like Nature itself, is more accurate and better than any art; virtue therefore will aim at the mean; - I speak of moral virtue, as it’s moral virtue which is concerned with emotions and actions, and it is these which admit of excess and deficiency and the mean. Thus it is possible to go too far, or not go far enough, in respect of fear, courage, desire, anger, pity and pleasure and pain generally, and the excess and the deficiency are alike wrong; but to experience these emotions at the right times and on the right occasions and towards the right person and for the right causes and in the right manner is the mean of the supreme good, which is characteristic of virtue.” (Aristotle)

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics explores the idea of an ethical framework based on virtues, deliberation, and choice. The key to being virtuous is to strike a balance between the extremes on either side of a virtue. Arriving at what constitutes as a virtuous balance is achieved through the process of deliberation and then action. Sartre and the existentialists say that existence precedes essence; the good starts from human subjectivity rather than from known virtues. Through a person’s choices, they determine what is good. Though their theories of what constitutes the good may differ, choice is a key element of both ethical frameworks. The differences that each ethical framework has about what the good is are not mutually exclusive. In

Virtue Ethics is neither deontological nor teleological, since it is concerned with neither duty nor consequences, but rather the state of the person acting. Aristotle believed that once you are good, good actions will necessarily follow, and this belief is at the centre of Virtue Ethics. Rather than defining good actions, Virtue Ethics looks at good people and the qualities that make them good. The non-normative theory, although very effective in determining the morality of individuals, is particularly flawed when applied to whole societies. This weakness is largely due to its imprecision and abstraction; however, before these weaknesses can be considered, it is necessary to give an account of the theory itself.

The philosophy of virtue ethics, which primarily deals with the ways in which a person should live, has puzzled philosophers from the beginning of time. There are many contrasting interpretations regarding how one should live his or her life in the best way possible. It is in my opinion that the Greeks, especially Aristotle, have exhibited the most logical explanation of how to live the "good life". The following paper will attempt to offer a detailed understanding of Aristotle's reasoning relating to his theory of virtue ethics.

Recalling from the discussion on Euthyphro, the ancient Greek approach to moral philosophy was oriented towards overall character development, what one could think of as a universal approach to morality. The central question is “How should I live?” To which the answer is quite tersely, “live happily and noble.” Yet it is notable that this approach characterizes the person’s life, rather than their explicit actions. In other words, being a virtuous person is not simply reducible to doing the right thing or making the right decision. In this older form of philosophy, actions are sheer reflections of what has genuine moral worth, the character of a life fully lived. Therefore, it would appear that these early philosophers saw that the moral worth of people takes precedence over the rightness of their actions. For many, the concept of trying to “live honorably” sounds old fashioned. This is because it is old fashioned. This notion of regarding yourself as an “honorable man” or “virtuous woman” can, nowadays, strike many as arrogant or self righteous. In addition, other might perceive such thinking as reserved for their grandparent’s generation or the devoutly religious. Yet this is precisely what both the Platonic and Confucian moral traditions advocate. This approach of virtue prompts readers to consider moral standing in broader terms than simply doing the right thing. Rather, Confucius suggest

In Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, every point, every major idea, and every argument made, is all connected back to the concept that every action seeks an ultimate good. Aristotle felt that there is an intrinsic good that humans aim for and that there is this "good life" we all mean to have. However, what does it mean to be good? That means something different to everyone; we all inhabit many different roles in our day to day lives, whether we strive to be a good parent, a good sibling, a good student, a good citizen, or a good leader. All emphasize the importance of our own well-being, as well as that of others, and the greater community as a whole. For the purpose of this paper, the focus will

According to Aristotle, virtue is found in living reasonably; between the extremes of deficit and excess. There are two