The Importance Of A Virtuous Way Of Thinking

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.

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.

Criminology and the criminal justice system have framed a “taken-for-granted, common-sense” understanding of ‘crime’ and the ‘criminal’ (Tierney, 2010). ‘Crime’ is commonly understood as a violation of the criminal law; originating from religion and the sin of God and then moving towards Classicalism. Classicalism rests on the assumption of free will and recognises rational choice of the individual. It influences much of our system of justice today; especially aspects of due process. It argues that criminality is therefore part of nature; and order is maintained through law and punishments. We can see this through Beccaria’s approach of certainty, celerity and severity (Beccaria, cited in Newburn, 2013, pp116). Positivism, associated with theorists such as Lombroso, offered more of a scientific approach in identifying the causes of crime and could recognise impaired ability such as mental illness. It argues that ‘crime’ is

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.

As Aristotle states that the virtue would allow a man to perform the right action, with right person, in the right time. However, Maher did not reach to this ethical stage. “At first, Maher was unaware of his

According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues belong in the ‘rational’ fragment of the soul and moral virtues lie in the ‘irrational’ measure of the soul However, they are both dependant on reason. Although Aristotle recognised many virtues, he was an advocate for the notion of the existence of only four cardinal virtues. His proposal proved to be popular in the society that he lived in, being acknowledged by Plato and other bodies. The four cardinal virtues are: courage, a virtue which ensures control in the interest of goodness, temperance, a virtue which diminishes wants and desires by limiting them to reason, justice, the only virtue that consists of expressing care for other beings. A human that possesses the virtue of justice has the ability to practise this virtue on other human beings and not solely on themselves. The final and one of the most important virtues is prudence, a logical virtue of practical reason by which we separate the good and the methods of achieving it. Aristotle accentuates that virtues are pragmatic skills and hence experience guides us towards becoming more dexterous in avoiding deficiency. Although familiarity with the vices as extremes supports us in our aspiration for the mean, the wider connotations of the doctrine is that only through experience will we as humans come to know the right pretences and

This class is the first in my major of Criminal Justice, and throughout this class there will be a great deal of valuable information obtained. Justice can have several meanings to it because all of us are different in our own way, and we all will have different outlook on situations. Throughout this research paper you will learn about what justice means to me, and how I think I will impact society once I achieve my bachelor’s degree in Criminal Justice. Secondly, you will be able to compare with the remaining of the class mates to see exactly how many of our views are the same or different. Last but not least, there will be at least two

According to Plato, virtue is an innate ability of a man to go through intellectual suffering in order to think past the visible, material world, which is just “a shadowy imitation” of an ideal world of knowledge (Plato). Even though virtuous actions can be practiced, the original ability or quality is innate. Every single virtue fits into this Plato’s definition and contributes to a person’s knowledge of the intellectual world. For instance, classical virtue of fortitude enables a man to question even the most controversial topics. What is more, theological virtue of faith persuades a man that his suffering will eventually pay off. Once a person engages in virtuous activities, they attain wisdom, and wisdom, () finally leads to happiness. Considering all that, every virtue seems to be equally

Throughout the years, the association between a criminal offense and a criminal have become more relevant. Although there are many theories that try to illustrate the concept of why crimes happen, no theory has a profound influence of understanding an individual’s nature, relationship, development, and a society itself (Coleman & Ganong, 2014). To further explain, “theories of crime are defined in relation to modernity, spanning their development from the enlightenment to the present, with the advent of postmodernism” (Miller, 2012, p. 1798). In other words, theories of crime are an approach to understanding an individuals behaviour and actions in their environment, society, and themselves that may lead to crime. Nevertheless, within this paper, it will be comparing the case of

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

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.

In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explores virtues as necessary conditions for being happy. A virtuous person is a person with a disposition toward virtuous actions and who derives pleasure from behaving virtuously. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of human virtue: virtues of thought and virtues of character. Virtues of thought are acquired through learning and include virtues like wisdom and prudence; virtues of character include bravery and charity, which are acquired by habituation and require external goods to develop. As a consequence, not all people can acquire virtues of character because not all people have the external goods and resources required to develop that disposition.

When I think of what it means to be virtuous, I am drawn to the idea of commitment to the good and an unrelenting desire for greatness. To me, the virtuous are those who strive to perfect themselves and approach every issue with the intent of doing what is best. I am led to this conception of virtue because I acknowledge that in life, perfection is unattainable. Therefore virtue is not complete goodness, but rather a genuine commitment to the pursuit of what is right.

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.

Aristotle presents a formula for how to become virtuous. Achieving goodness according to Aristotle is realizing what the virtuous action is in every situation and continually striving to obtain it. I agree with this reflection because it implies a higher level of thought. To simply have one set of standards that one would use in every situation regardless of underlying circumstances is very easy. To be able to evaluate each situation as unique and consider the details before deciding on an appropriate course of action implies a higher commitment to truly wanting to act virtuous with respect to every situation. This in turn makes the person more virtuous because he or she is required to deeply analyze the problem at hand. Initially we learn through habit. We then modify these habits to make them relevant to different situations, keeping the doctrine of the mean in mind. The doctrine of the mean is not always helpful when a decision needs to be made. Knowing what to do is completely different from actually doing it. In fact it