Theory Of Virtue Ethics

F- On December 13, during seventh hour in my communications class on a Tuesday seven of us, Me (Sunmi), Morgan, Brandi, Maya, Rachael, Caralee, and Laine gathered in order to have a fishbowl discussion about the mistreatment and exploitation of marine animals.The primary purpose of this discussion according to our teacher, Mr. Wolfe was for us to select a committee type, create a problem, and then hold a discussion where we attempt to solve the problem in 30 minutes.The aquatic life representations, create a problem- marine animals are being exploited, hold a discussion that and create a resolution in 30 minutes. The second purpose of this activity was to help us become aware of the roles we as individuals play

Virtue ethics is a concept that is used in the process of moral decision making. It is dependent on the individuals themselves rather than on society, culture and religion. Aristotle was one of the main philosophers involved in virtue ethics. He was an advocate for virtue. Virtue ethics are associated with the type of person that one should become. It is solely concerned with human nature and morals. This essay will explore Aristotle’s conception of virtue. I will discuss Aristotle’s belief that virtue ethics are vital in achieving the ultimate goal of happiness. I will further consider and examine his theory of the Doctrine of the Mean. Finally, I will explore how Aristotle distinguishes between the two kinds of virtues and this will result

In this country we use animals for all sorts of uses, whether that has to do with medical testing or the other countless uses. But there has always been question’s when It comes to the human thought process is whether or not the animals are suffering? The way that I look at the correlation between humans and animals. I believe this reasoning can be acceptable because if a human steps on the tail of a dog, or brands a horse or a cow, these animals are suffering. They are in pain and they try to avoid these situations but this leads to more pain and suffering. But if someone in this country was being treated this way and was publicly documented, then there would be an uprising, if not a jail sentence or a death penalty. Or when it comes to the interests of the animals, as a human being who is given the moral capacity to weigh decisions between right and wrong is a human right. But we are obligated to take every things best interests in to account, whether that is a human or an animal. These interests are what help us make the most correct decision between animals because if we aren’t taking into full account of a situation that could possibly put harm or suffering to an animal is where we think about these interests. It’s hard to think about because humans are inclined to think what is best for them, while not taking into account of the others interests.

Recently, Vancouver Park Board (VPB) passed a motion to ban the use of cetaceans for entertainment or research purposes. This motion has lead to a heated debate among animal right supporters and others who believe the ban was too harsh. Some supporters of the ban use Tom Regan’s view, a philosopher who adopts the abolitionist view of animal rights, to argue that the motion is justified. Others who favour against the ban believe that the Vancouver Aquarium is an organization that helps cetaceans by research and educating the audience. In this paper, I will examine closely and proof that the supporters of the ban who adopt Regan’s stance of not viewing animals as resources and treat them with respect is not suitable as I believe Vancouver Aquarium keeps cetaceans to lead them to a greater good.

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.

Although Cook uses many words I have never heard of, the article was easy to understand and follow. Additionally, Cook’s claim helped me realize my own stance on animal rights, and created a lasting impression on my opinion. Since I do not stand with any political party in particular, I have always found it difficult to relate to different stances during debates or seminars. However, as I read Cook’s article he writes that he is arguing for Liberals, I agree with the points he mentions. “…To achieve this, I argue for a liberal society, fostering individuality and the exercise of the imagination, as a precondition, for non-human animals to be properly recognized as beings owed justice for their own sakes.” (Cook 4) This article does not change my beliefs or political standing completely, but it offers the information I need to form a valid and concise stance on matters such as animal rights. With a unique style, a fascinating argument, and organized thoughts and ideas, Cook’s article was a phenomenal example of how the human race should approach animal

Virtue theory is how a person makes decision right and wrong. What kind of person does one wants to be? Also, it deals with a person characteristic difference between good habits and bad habits and the commitments to their relationship, job, and community. Virtue theory is especially important in medical field. Working in medical field it does not matter if a person is doctor, nurse, or therapist. This type of occupations it is extremely important to keep patients information confidential. Also, working medical workers needs to be good to their patients. Medical Beneficence is to be good the patient. Medical virtue is higher standard of virtue than any other career because; it is not based on person self-interest

As I explained in question 1, utilitarianism involves taking into consideration the interests of every body involved, in which no body’s interests are higher valued nor neglected. Individuals like Singer and Regan consider speciesism and anthropocentrism to be similar to sexism and racism because it is a form of prejudice, therefore going against the utilitarian view. Much like valuing one sex or race over another, valuing one species greater than another, goes against the utilitarian belief that the interest of all body’s (human, and non human) should be equally valued. Neglecting to value the rights of non human animals can be considered by these individuals to be just as prejudiced as not valuing the rights of one solely based on their skin color, gender, or religion. Additionally, no entity should be considered superior to another, which seems to be a common belief among many humans (that the human race is superior to all other

Imagine, one day you are a baby orca whale, when you are separated from your family by humans who were looking for sick and lost animals. You then live the rest of your life away from the ocean and your family at Sea World, where you die a much younger age, watched by many people in a large tank. Animal rights seemed like a subject that I would like to look into because it would help me understand more about laws and how animals are treated now and how they were treated before animal rights. I believe that we should let these animal rights tell us how we should treat animals, so I ask you to ask yourself this question: How should we as civilians support animal rights? I have done some research, and I have found some solutions for those who don’t believe in animal rights, but I hope that I can change your mind.

When most think of philosophy a list of people come to mind. You have your “greats” such as Plato, Nietzsche, and of course Aristotle. However, this does not mean that their ideas cannot be challenged and questioned, as no one is above criticism. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics have a major flaw that strikes at the heart of the idea. There is a severe lack of guidance both in what a virtue is, and what happens when they conflict. The mains question is, is one virtue more important than another?

“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.

Peter Singer’s argues that we should take a utilitarian viewpoint on how people should treat animals. He sees that animals can, in some cases, be smarter than humans and should therefore have some rights in how the animals should be treated. His argument holds this general viewpoint, “..we [should] extend to other species the basic

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

The subject matter at hand, is whether animals should have rights or not? Following two opposing views by Tom Regan and Carl Cohen. However, before getting into more detail on their positions, what exactly is animal rights? As simple as it may seem, animal rights is exactly defined by its own term. Animal rights is simply moral privileges that should be considered for all non-human animals due to the fact that it is typically argued that these non-human animals encompass some form of emotional pain or pleasure. Looking at a historical aspect, the various views of animal rights in society have embodied a philosophical and legal progression.

The rights of animals and their role in society is a topic that is constantly considered, but is never known how the problem can be solved. The dictionary definition attempts to explain it with “the rights of animals, claimed on ethical grounds, to the same humane treatment” (“Animal Rights”). For animals to have humane treatment, is an endeavor to give them the same rights as humans. People want animals to have rights to make sure that they aren’t abused and mistreated, but having the same amount of rights as humans is just unnecessary. Animals such as pigs, chimps, and cows can’t have the same rights as us because they are NOT us. It does not make sense why we should give human rights those that are not human. However, it would be