Virtue ethics is concerned with the traits of character that make one a good person. Virtue ethics seems to be more personal because it is not about choosing which side of an issue one would prefer to take part in, but the kind of person one wants to be. A virtuous person is considered to be a morally good person, and virtues are good traits. For virtue ethics, the moral life is about developing good character.
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.
you ask what the virtues are, it is likely you would be told that we
I. Provide answers for five (5) of the following (6 points each, total of 30 points):
Luke is in charge of ABC Company’s land development project in building an adult entertainment store on the land they recently purchased. Unfortunately, his brother, Owen, happens to live in the same area. Luke remembers Owen once told him he is thinking about selling his house, since he recently received a decent offer from a real estate firm. However, he is debating whether he should sell it or waits for the real estate to rise. Luke realizes with the appearance of adult entertainment in the near future, the values of Owen’s house and other houses in neighborhood are likely to drop significantly.
Summary of Virtue Ethics. For a non-consequential theory, I will use Virtue Ethics. This theory is developed by philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. All of them have a different perspective of the theory, but they have the same central principle of Virtue Ethics, which is a personal character to lead to happiness and fulfillment in one's life.
‘Virtue ethics’, is an agent-centred approach in normative ethics that stresses the importance of moral characters and virtues, which is unlike the two other major approaches in the field (Hursthouse, 2013) . Deontology rather emphasises the use of duties and rules, and utilitarianism emphasises the importance of consequences of one’s actions (Hursthouse, 2001). Aristotle’s (2009) theory of virtue ethics is the most widely recognised, he believes that the virtuous person is one who exhibits desirable character traits, these traits are stipulated in the four main character virtues which underpin virtue ethics.
Virtue Ethics is a theory of morality. It only takes into account the individuals themselves when distinguishing morality. As defined in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Virtue Ethics is the theory that “emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).” It is because of it’s seemingly “rule less” structure that the theory has shown appeal. Virtue ethics places the emphasis on the type of person performing the action as oppose to action itself. This leaves room for the importance of character and a greater emphasis on the intentions of the person rather than the consequences or rules as above stated. This also means that people can learn to improve their moral life by becoming more virtuous. Those in oppose to Virtue Ethics argue that the rules of deontology and consequentialism provide the rigid action guidance lacking in v-ethics and because of this, what is “right” or “good” is’ obliviously’ more clearly defined. Without clarity in what is right/good, how can we know what is more virtuous of a decision? In this paper is will refute the objections to virtue ethics stating that virtue ethics, (1.) Does not specify what the “right action” is and (2.) Does not provide action guidance.
Luke can utilize the Golden Rule, which states that “One should treat others as one would like others to treat them”. Hence, if Luke somehow happened to help his sibling by unveiling data of the development of the retail stores in the neighborhood, he would want Owen to act in the same way towards him as he is with Owen. It would just be reasonable to feel that Luke reasons his activities with the Golden Rule, as he would not want such a store to be built close to his home. Then again, Luke would basically be selling out ABC by uncovering the data. According to the logic dictated by Golden Rule, it would just be reasonable for ABC to sell out Luke (by eventually terminating him). ABC
Another reason as to why Virtue Ethics doesn’t offer a successful approach to ethical decision making is because it relies too heavily on the character of individuals. For example Milgram’s experiment proved that normal citizens of society are nearly always likely to follow orders of an authority figure even when the lives of innocent people are at risk. The experiment showed that 65% of participants continued to electrocute fellow partakers up to 450 volts, just because they were told to. Virtue ethics is not act based and instead agent centred. In a given ethical decision the question asked would be ‘what kind of person should I aim to become’. Aristotle believed that when we are young ‘that is the time at which the character is being formed’.
In this week’s assignment, we were asked if we should accept the political doctrine of “the end justifies the means”. Next we discussed if the acceptance of this doctrine should be unconditional. Then we looked if this doctrine can be used on a situational basis such as with war vs. peace. Finally we discussed what possible consequences might arise from following or not following, this political
I would begin by saying my discussions will be centered on two intriguing theories I have learnt through this course deontology ethical theory and Virtue ethical theory. To my understanding, deontology theory takes on the face of a normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based totally on regulations, rules and laws. The theory is far on occasion described as "responsibility-" or "duty-" or "rule-" based totally ethics, due to the fact that it emphasizes on guidelines "binding people to their responsibility". For instance deontology states that an act that is not appropriate morally can cause something top, such as capturing the intruder but killing is inaccurate even if it’s in defense of your own family for
Truth telling is one of the most fundamental ethical actions a person can take. However, not telling the truth can also have an ethical component, especially from the perspective of ethical consequentialism. For Immanuel Kant, it is always immoral and wrong to lie. There are ethical absolutes according to Kant's deontological ethical framework, and one of those ethical absolutes is that it is absolutely, categorically, wrong to tell a lie. Kantian categorical imperative is the assertion that it is imperative to always tell the truth. One of the reasons why Kant believed it was ethically correct to tell the truth and never to lie is based on the fact that people have what Kant believed to be "intrinsic worth," (Mazur, 2010). Lying insults the intrinsic worth of both the receiver of the lie, and the teller. A person telling the lie diminishes his or her intrinsic worth, degrading the self to be on the level of a brute. Lying also insults the intrinsic worth of the receiver of the lie: by suggesting that that recipient is not worthy enough of the truth. Even when the truth hurts, it is still considered information that is valuable for the person to make informed decisions. To withhold any information deprives the right of the individual to make decisions, even based on information that is painful (Mazur, 2010). Using this logic, Kant would say that it is important to tell a spouse about a one-night stand. The spouse can make the informed decision whether to kick you out of the
The virtue theory is different from all other theories because it focuses on the person instead of simply doing the right thing or taking the correct action (Rae & Wong, 2012). This theory goes beyond the others and says yes people understand right from wrong but if their character is not strong, they will succumb and do the wrong thing. It says that a person must have a strong belief and character so that they always do the right thing regardless of the situation. It says that people who have strong character will do the right thing even when they know it will not benefit them and it may even hurt them. It says that a person must also be able to reason as well as understand right from wrong and have the character to follow through and do the correct thing.
According to Holland (2011) there are few criticisms of virtue ethics. First, virtue ethics is really complicated and multiple varieties of the theory of virtue ethics exist. Hence a single summary of VE cannot completely do justice to this theory and the complexity it encompasses. Second, as VE is attempted to be used on more specific cases and is tried to be made more concise, the theory tends to become more inaccurate. The article further suggests the needs for a more comprehensive and specific explanation of virtue ethics. Although there are criticisms of virtue ethics, there are positive remarks about it as well. Stephen (2011) cites McDougall, according to whom, virtue ethics might be the best way to think about and approach