Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred; it asks ‘What sort of person ought I to be?’ rather than ‘How ought I to act?’ The Aristotelian approach shows to give an account of the structure of morality and explained that the point of enrolling in ethics is to become good: ‘For we are enquiring not in order to know what virtue is but in order to become good since otherwise our enquiry would be of no use.’ (Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, ch. 2) Quite importantly, Aristotle’s distinguishes between things which are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things which are good as ends (for their own sake only), Aristotle seeks for one final and overriding end of human action, one final good – eudaimonia (or final happiness). Philosophers of the 20th century brought about a revival of virtue ethics as many were concerned with the act-centered ethical theories. Virtue ethics is able to do something very different to other ethical theories – rather than focus on the act of a person, virtue ethics will focus on the person itself. The modern development of virtue ethics is often linked back to a paper by G. E. M. Anscombe entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’.
In Aristotle’s account of moral virtues he states that they are to be distinguished from intellectual virtues. Aristotle described virtue as stating that they are not feelings, they are not faculties, but they are rather states of character. Virtues are stable dispositions that are based off of our actions and feelings that result in a good or bad outcome. Virtue can be found through experience. Moral virtue has to do with feelings, choices, and acting morally right.
In order to evaluate the claim that the possession of knowledge carries ethical responsibility, it is important to understand ethics and knowledge in the general sense To put it simply, ethics is moral philosophy, or rationalization of conduct as either right or wrong. Normative ethics is the study of determining a moral course of action. The two most prominent ethical guidelines are Kantianism and Utilitarianism. Immanuel Kant suggested that ethics revolve around duty, rather than emotions. All actions are related to an underlying principle.
Yet, if we observe that pleasure is good, we should be able to ask is good pleasure. However if an individual gains pleasure through inflicting harm can we conclude that good and pleasure are one and the same thing? In short ethical naturalism is unable to define good, yet continues to claim that ethical language is based on objective truth. Non Cognitive approaches to meta ethics such as emotivism and prescriptivism argue that ethical language is subjective. A. J. Ayer claims that ethical language
“Outline Aristotle’s theory of Virtue Ethics” Virtue Ethics originates from the Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle who focused not on deontological values of actions being intrinsically right or wrong based on their intention, but on how to develop one’s character to meet the demands of what one would describe as virtuous. Central to the theory is the idea of practising qualities and virtues that are established as ‘good’. Virtue ethics is agent-centred as opposed to act-centred and Aristotle maintains that our final aim, as human beings, is to achieve ultimate happiness, which he calls eudaimonia and describes as human flourishing. The Greek word for virtue, arête, means excellence, and so a virtuous character is one with excellent qualities who continually and undeniably continue to make perfect moral decisions. A virtue is defined as a perfect quality that is habitually carried out by an individual which requires practise and dedication so that one may blossom into a virtuous character, “excellence is not an act but a habit.” For Aristotle, something is ‘good’ if it fulfils its purpose: a good knife is one this is sharps and cuts well.
Virtue Ethics is an agent centred theory as it is not based on action centred or rule based. This approach focuses on the person performing morally significant action, rather than on the actions themselves. The actions and their consequences may be right or wrong in themselves. However it is the moral development of the person reforming them that is central. This makes the theory ‘agent centred’.
Natural Moral Law is a theory that is explained by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle. It states that there is a natural order to our world that should be followed. It was originated in the philosophy of Aristotle and then developed by Aquinas. Natural Law is an absolute theory of ethics but it is not rooted in duty but in our human nature and our search for genuine happiness and fulfilment. Aquinas considered that by using our reason to reflect on our human nature we could discover our specific end purpose.
Of the remaining criteria we might consider, only sentience―the capacity of a being to experience things like pleasure and pain―is a plausible criterion of moral importance. Singer argues for this in two ways. First, he argues, by example, that the other criteria are bad, because (again) they will exclude people who we think ought not be excluded. For instance, we don't really think that it would be permissible to disregard the well-being of someone who has much lower intelligence than average, so we can't possibly think that intelligence is a suitable criterion for moral consideration. Second, he argues that it is only by virtue of something being sentient that it can be said to have interests at all, so this places sentience in a different category than the other criteria: "The capacity for suffering and enjoying things is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in any meaningful way" (175).
One major strength of virtue ethics is that it allows the moral agent to make ethical decisions based on his or her moral well-being, not just based on what is legally right. Therefore this ethical system can be seen to have a greater weight over others as someone who follows it are doing so because they believe it’s right rather than following rules. This then also acknowledges that morality is complex and so rejects simplistic maxims as a basis for moral truths. However, this can also be seen to be one of the weaknesses of virtue ethics. Robert Louden stated that as virtue ethics is focused on the individual, it neither resolves nor attempts to resolve big moral dilemmas.
(i 13) It corresponds to the part of the soul that is involved with emotions and yearnings. Unlike nutritional growth or thinking and reasoning processes it doesn’t fall directly in either the rational or non-rational categories of the soul. Rather, it falls in the middle and is linked to both. Virtues of character are non-rational appetites and feelings concerned with reason because these sentiments alone don’t make a person virtuous. Only when these appetites are conducted by rational thinking, persuaded by reason can they become virtues of character.