Nussbaum's Analysis

Aristotle’s view of the Virtue Theory is that an individual who is virtuous must be brave, honest, and kind. In substance, the virtue theory relies on a person’s character, judgment and trust oppose to the act

In Rosalind Hursthouse’s essay on Virtue Ethics, she aims to create a new type of ethics that is classified as Aristotelian in nature. Hursthouse’s model is more agent-based rather than action-based, which implies that it is based on the individual’s characteristics rather than the type of action implemented. Husrthouse believes that the agent’s thought process, beliefs, and personal view of moral values are ultimately what shapes virtue ethics. Although her discussion on virtue ethics is both intriguing and important, Hursthouse's model falls short of being a viable ethical theory for several reasons. Firstly, the idea of agent-based ethics is a nice one in theory, but is not easily employable because of the individual standard of ethics that would be required to take ethical action. It is important to present a model that can actually be applied in practice in order to achieve actual results. Virtue ethics cannot be considered as a real alternative to any other code of ethics because it is not employable in the real world, and is therefore not worthy of serious consideration. This underlying reason will be thoroughly discussed in order to refute the arguments that Rosalind Hursthouse provides on Virtue Ethics in her essay.

ABSTRACT: The term "virtue" has traditionally been used to designate morally good character traits such as benevolence, charity, honesty, wisdom, and honor. Although ethicists do not commonly offer a definitive list of virtues, the number of virtues discussed is often short and their moral significance is clear. Hume's analysis of the virtues departs from this tradition both in terms of the quantity of virtues discussed and their obvious moral significance. A conservative estimate of the various virtues Hume refers to in his moral writings would put the number at around seventy, with the more untraditional ones including wit, good manners, and dialog. Unsurprisingly, Hume's critics have attacked

Gier, Nicholas F. "A REVIEW OF JIYUAN YU'S THE ETHICS OF CONFUCIUS AND ARISTOTLE: MIRRORS OF VIRTUE." The Journal of Chinese Philosophy 35.4 (2007): n. pag. Web. 14 Dec.

The three different ways of life according to Aristotle are the life of enjoyment/pleasure, the political life, and the contemplative life. The life of enjoyment/pleasure is a life that is purely devoted to pleasure, good, and happiness; when one lives as if they are a slave to sensual pleasure. Aristotle refers to the life of enjoyment as “completely slavish by choosing a life that belongs fatted cattle (Book I pg. 4)”, meaning this way of life does not correspond or consist of the rational nature in which each individual hold. Political life is a life that honor is used to convince one that their life is good and correlates to our rational nature. However, this life, like the life of enjoyment, is dependent on other people. Aristotle states, “for it seems to be in the ones who give honor rather than in the one who is honored. (Book I pg. 4)” In this way of life honor is a virtue, but it is a virtue that anyone can possess but be unfortunate or not good. Since both the life of enjoyment and the political life depend on someone else, Aristotle concludes the contemplative life is the highest or best way of life. This is because contemplative life on the basis means a life of true happiness and can possibly dodge difficulties. With the contemplative life, one is more than capable of engaging or

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be

central and deeply held principles(Cahn130). This conflicts with the idea “virtue is it's own reward”

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.

Virtues are gained through nurture, and backing his thought, he explained that if we are born virtuously then we could not become bad. Yet, there are a number of bad people in the world. Aristotle saw that virtue and duty had a strong connection. This is because duty is an act in accordance with law, which enforces perfections. Since laws keep us in line, and our duty is to follow these laws, virtues come if you commit your duty. It is a cycle that repeats itself in the positive and the negative depending how we act. Because Aristotle was a Christian, he saw God as everlasting, and overall, see’s god as an important figure to live up to. Aristotle laid the framework to what would be the future of ethics. Although what he had reported would be found eventually, his views are what most believed as the golden rule, and future philosophers would just string off his ideas.

In Book II of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the idea of moral virtue. Aristotle emphasized the importance of developing moral virtue as the way to achieve what is finally more important, human flourishing (eudaimonia). Aristotle makes the argument in Book II that moral virtue arises from habit—equating ethical character to a skill that is acquired through practice, such as learning a musical instrument. However in Book III, Aristotle argues that a person 's moral virtue is voluntary, as it results from many individual actions which are under his own control. Thus, Aristotle confronts us with an inherently problematic account of moral virtue.

Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.

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).

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.

Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western philosophy, and is most notably known for expressing his view of happiness in Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle develops a theory of how to live the good life and reach eudaimonia (happiness). Eudaimonia has been translated into, living a happy and virtuous life. Aristotle’s definition of the good life as the happy life, consist of balancing virtues (arête), the mean, external goods, political science, and voluntary action.

The aim of this essay is to examine the following question. Does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Immanuel Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as a moral habit? Suppose it is objected, at the outset, that these definitions cannot be critically compared because their moral theories are, respectively, aposteriori and apriori, and so incommensurable. Two points of commensurability and grounds for comparative evaluation are two basic problems that any theory in moral psychology must address. They are moral ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do).(1)