Theories Of Virtue Ethics

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

Virtue ethics (Aristotelian ethics): People make perfectly sound ethical judgments everyday without understanding anything about ethical theories. We also know that right conduct seems to come much more easily for some than others. For whatever reason some people tend to act in a more consistently ethical manner than others. Whether this is because they have greater knowledge or if they possess a certain capacity that enables them to act in a moral manner more easily and readily is unclear.

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

Due to the vagueness of the specific acts the friend may engage in, it is difficult to establish whether the behavior is truly ethical or unethical. However, utilizing the ethical framework of ethics of virtue will deem the friend as behaving immorally. Similarly, ethical formalism may also argue that the friend’s behavior is also unethical because there is motive. The motive is to not offend others; her actions are not solely based on being good but to please others. Although ethics of care may find the friend’s behavior to be ethical, the application of the other two ethical frameworks argues otherwise. Therefore, the friend is not engaging in ethical behavior as ethical formalism and ethics of virtues indicates.

In addition, the virtue theory is said to be properly concrete, as it grounds morality in facts about human nature in comparison to other theories which ground morality in subjective principles or in abstract principles of reasoning. In relation to human psychology, the theory is said to be more accurate as it concentrates on less conscious aspects of motivation such as habits or short-term goals. Whereas, theories such as the deontology and utilitarianism place emphasis on decision making in relation to principles or rules. As such, it is often argued that the virtue theory offers a more united and comprehensive conception of moral life, which goes far beyond ones likes and dislikes, needs and wants and, in general, what type of person

“Aristotle and the Ethics of Virtue and Character” explains the “theories” that make up a moral situation. First, we have expectations for the outcome of a moral situation to be utilitarian or sometimes produce another desirable result. We also have restraints that govern the actions we make to produce those outcomes. Last, certain character traits define who is prepared to perform the necessary actions and be content with the results. Aristotle’s “The Moral Virtues” explains how the mean of an excess and a deficit is the virtue. It is nearly impossible to act perfectly within the mean, which is why Aristotle recommends that one keep away from the extreme that is more opposed to the mean, be wary of pleasant things, and notice the direction (toward excess or deficit) toward which one, personally, will tend. Finally, in “Habit and Virtue,” Aristotle defines virtue as a result of habituation. Character is developed through the repetition of activities, and therefore the aim of the

The ethical issue of whether the annihilation of followers of a religion that proclaim their holy writings and their god demand the destruction of all who will not succumb to the will of their god, their teachings, and their laws are correct, justified, and sanctioned for the greater good of all mankind. The issue is further exacerbated by requiring the United States to be the leading force in the destruction of those adhering to the perversion of a religion that is oft quoted as a religion of peace. Are these followers a band of holy zealots directed by their god to subdue the earth or a threat to the entire world? Is their god the wrong god and therefore it is not religious intolerance when they are destroyed? Can an ethical justification be found to destroy the lives of religious fanatics, because the nations of the world reject their ideology? Is annihilation the only means to curtail their terrorism for the greater good? Is it ethically permissible to determine whether the beliefs of a religious group are correct or pose a danger to others? The means of achieving the greater good would appear to be dependent upon the viewpoint of the examiner, which is hypocritical.

The question, what is ethics, one of the most compelling topics in Philosophy. Often ethics is considered to be interchangeable with moral values, and takes into account peoples actions and whether an individual’s actions taken, were right or wrong. There are many different views on this topic, as there would be, considering that everyone, will have different moral values as it pertains to their own personal experiences in life, and thus their perception of a situation. When researching ethics in Philosophy, we find multiple views or theories.

Virtue ethics initially emerged as a rival to deontology and consequentialism. Virtue ethics makes a claim about the main role of virtue and character in its understanding of moral life and uses it to answer such questions, "How should I live? What kind of person should I be?"

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

Virtue Ethics is defined as “any character-based approach to normative ethics that emphasizes some conception virtues and vices; often including a universal conception of human flourishing” (Blakley, Christopher). Aristotle and David Hume developed accounts of ethics that remained true to their own empirical philosophies; both of which stray away from the more traditional accounts. Their opposing theories contain the overall theme of how a virtuous person would live their life. In contrast, David Hue developed his own account of sentimentalist virtue ethics that challenges, or pushes back on, the virtue ethics Aristotle.

Ethics of virtue is the belief that if a person wants to be considered good, they do good things (Pollock, 1988). In ethics of virtue, happiness is always the outcome of a situation. The main premise of virtue theory lies upon three main principles; virtues, practical wisdom and eudemonia. A virtue is a mean state which lays between two vices. A virtue is a characteristic a virtuous person possesses, for example courage. Courage is a virtue which lays between 'cowardice ' and ‘foolhardiness’. Virtue can vary in meaning for each individual depending on their background and history.

Philosophies of the origin, application and the very essence of virtue have been approached in several ways, by philosophers of different practices. Western-traditional philosophy tends to maintain metaphysical, realistic views, whereas Buddhism is much more idealistic, however themes of both can be found in the development of virtue ethics. Buddhism itself contains various branches and beliefs of moral theory. However, Mahayana Buddhists have produced more in-depth ideas, sufficient enough to be contrasted with that of Greek philosophy. Aristotle, an Ancient Greek and student of Plato, has constructed logical and complex arguments towards his idea of virtue. By comparing Aristotle with Mahayana Buddhism, it shall be revealed Aristotle

Virtue, an attribute that contributes to the joyous functions of the human condition, is an instrumental component to the basis of a properly functioning human being, allowing humans to act rationally. We accumulate virtue by both understanding and participating in activities. For instance, by playing the piano, people become piano players (Aristotle Book 2 26-27). Virtue is essential to rationale. To act rationally and by doing just things, we become rational and just people (Aristotle Book 2 27). When an individual conducts just actions, then they will become good (Aristotle Book 2 32). However, an individual will not become good by simply philosophizing about just actions, rather they must conduct just actions to have a body in good condition (Aristotle Book 2 32). Aristotle

Virtue ethics teaches us how to live our lives habitually and naturally through virtuous character traits which are in balance between vices of lack and vices of excess. This balance between lack and excess is known as the Golden Mean and is essential to the core of virtue ethics. One who practices virtue ethics lives their life according to their character traits and moral values and therefore acts intrinsically in all situations. In other words, they do not need to consider how to act; they do so strictly out of habit and with the balance maintained through the Golden Mean. Virtue ethics were mostly derived from the theories of Aristotle.