The Theory Of Virtue Ethics Essay

Virtue ethics is a theory of ethics in moral philosophy in which it emphasizes that the notion of virtue is key to a

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.

Aristotle and Rita Manning both have different theories when it comes to ethics. Aristotle uses virtue ethics to answer questions about morality whereas Manning uses what is called ethics of caring to do the same thing. Virtue ethics claims people’s actions aim towards the highest good of happiness. From happiness, moral virtue stems from reasons governing the desires of the soul. Manning on the other hand believes that moral actions extend from people caring for one another on a personal level. By developing the ability to care for others, people become morally aware of how to act in certain situations. When the question of: “how ought I live my life?”

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.

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.

But first, let me explain what Virtue Ethics are. “Virtue-based ethics does not rely directly on ethical principles in its formulation. In Virtue Ethics, the focus is the role character as the source of moral action” (Bennet-Woods, 15). In other words, virtue ethics looks at the person and whether that person is a virtuous one and not at the actual actions. Virtue Ethics is a theory that is agent centered and looks not at the actions, but at the individual who embodies virtues in each particular situation.

With winter break 2016 winding down, in anticipation of the upcoming spring semester of classes, I found myself compelled to login to my Creighton accounts and explore what the class material that had already been placed onto Blueline. Glancing briefly at the course layout, I was initially shocked by the large amount of information that had been posted under my Theology 270 class. Examining the rubric, I can honestly say I was less than excited to discover a total of six papers and two tests would be required to pass the class. It would be a lie to not confess that the thought of attempting to possibly switch classes, or even drop the class entirely certainly crossed my mind during my initial judgment of the class. However, now with just a

Answer: I think that virtue ethics is the best theory for several reasons. First of all, the main component behind virtue ethics is self fulfilment and achieving inner happiness through actions that you believed to follow your morals, it simply felt true and pure from within. Another factor that comes into play is living a life of no regret, virtue ethics allows you to do this because the choices made are those of pure and true intentions and selflessness, self-interest, and greed do not come into play. Allowing you to reflect back on your life and being able to say that you lived a life of truth and honesty. That is what someone who follows virtue ethics really wants to achieve, mostly for peace at the end of their human lives. When compared to Utilitarianism, it differs dramatically in terms of the “end game” and how one choses to live their life. “The three common ways of evaluating actions are: 1) according to their consequences, 2) according to their internal features, and 3) according to the character traits they exhibit or reflect.” (Moral Philosophy, 156). These three types of evaluations show us

In modern virtue ethics, in aspiration from Aristoteles and his believe that of character and virtue. Aristotelian character is about a state of being king. It's about “having the appropriate inner states.” For example, the virtue of sympathy involves the right sort of emotions and inner states with respect to our feelings towards others. Based on the Aristotelian theory, this is a theory of action, because having the virtuous inner natures will involve being moved to act in accordance with them. Kindness is the appropriate reaction to a situation and feeling appropriately kindly will most likely lead to a corresponding attempt to act kindly. There are factor that may affect the development of a person. For example: parent’s, peer groups, role

cause or motivation. In Aristotle 's system of virtues there includes a concept of eudaimonia,

“I would rather be a good man than a great king” said the character Thor in Thor: The Dark World. In these words we find a frightening tension. Almost everyone agrees that it is good to be ethical; this is an easy affirmation. It is much more difficult, though, when ethics is in direct opposition to success. This dichotomy- between ethics and success- will no doubt confront an engineer during a professional career of any substantial length. Can you say that you would rather be a good man than rich? Or popular? Or a successful engineer? What should happen when an engineer faces this question? One real world example that can shed some light on this problem is what is known as bid shopping. This essay will provide a thorough definition of the problem of bid shopping and the ethical dilemma surrounding it. It will then apply the ethical theories of Duty Ethics and Virtue Ethics to the question. And seek to show that bid shopping is unethical according to both ethical theories.

These virtues shall come from the categories: conscientiousness, benevolence, self-discipline, and self-assertion (with respect to others)

you ask what the virtues are, it is likely you would be told that we

Anna says that people desire a conclusive theory on ethics. It is human nature to demand a clear path that does not meander into oblivion. Matters Ethics and Morality take twists and turns that seem to end in no specific action plan. Philosophers that came after J.S mill, Bentham, Kant, Aristotle and many more have strived to find a conclusive theory to Ethics. Ethics and any other branch of Philosophy has proven to be so problematic. Applicability of Ethics peddled by recent philosophers might prove to be as futile as before. Anyway, an objective look at virtue Ethics is still desirable. The recognition of virtue by modern society shows that Aristotle’s is impactful and necessary just as it was before. Major religions today still observe virtue. Modern day ethics scholars pain themselves with looking for systematic action plans on ethics. Ethics is no longer the domain of pragmatic thinkers, but empiricists who wish to disentangle this riddle. In this paper, I will show how Aristotle’ ethics can be applied to modern contexts through Julia Anna’s proposal. I will also argue why applying Virtue Ethics in universal scale is almost impossible.

The study of ethics and morality is an extremely broad and general theme. It covers countless different areas of human life and our relationships with the decisions we make and their effects on all aspects of our own and others’ lives. According to the text of Thiroux and Krasemann, the topic of sexual morality is truly “the heart of morality” (260). The morality of human sexuality and marriage deeply covers the complex characteristics of human relationships and friendships, sexuality, love, intimacy, and a multitude of other moral engagements between humans. The main objective of this paper is to examine and clarify why, as humans, we should be concerned with the sexual morality of ourselves and others. While other major themes covered prior may not relate to all humans directly (such as abortion or the debate of taking a life), moral issues in sexuality are experienced by every member of humanity. In certain societies, the sexual behavior of a person is intensely dependent on the policies and rules of their religion. Even though religion serves as the mighty tradition holder of many cultures, it does not provide a fair explanation for how people should behave in terms of sexuality because of its ambiguity and lack of clarity. Sexual morality should be a concern to all human beings because we are all influenced by the purposes and public and private aspects of human sexuality, and we also all face conflicts in regards to various moral issues of sexuality. In addition, the