It is based on different virtues that a person should have, so that they can then reach Euadamonia. Euadamonia should be the end goal to everyone's life and it is the ultimate happiness. Virtue Ethics is ‘agent centred’ and it focuses on the qualities of the person making the moral choices rather than the actual moral choice that they are making, which can bring weaknesses to the theory as one can justify mostly anything by using virtue ethics. According to the theory, morality is about becoming the right sort of person, it is not asking “what should I do?”, but it is asking “what sort of person should I be?”, and is not trying to find rights and wrongs, just allow you to become a good person. Virtue ethics is agent-centred ethics rather than act-centred.
It is agreed by the masses that happiness is associated with living well. “For happiness we always desire for its own sake and never as a means of something else(p. 392).” The purpose of happiness is not to gain anything, but to seek for the sake of being happy. All actions focus primarily on the achievement of happiness; honor, pleasure, and intelligence may seem like they are desired as means to themselves, but all amount in an achievement of some kind of happiness. There are two different kinds of virtues: intellectual, which is taught directly, and moral, which is gained through self-experience. Aristotle views virtues as “traits that enable us to live well in communities(p. 389)” He holds the better good of the community higher than that of the individual.
Aristotle develops this and distinguishes between things that are good as means (for the sake of something else) and things that are good as ends (for their own sake only). Aristotle believes that our end or telos is to achieve eudaimonia (flourishing in society). Aristotle discusses the traits or virtues one who achieves eudaimonia would have and that a good human life is characterised by the virtues. Central to Aristotle’s idea is that humans should live in harmony with each other, as we are not just rational beings but also social beings. Aristotle saw two types of virtues: intellectual and moral virtues.
One key influence of natural and moral law is Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) Aristotle argued that we can discover how people should behave by studying how people do behave; observation and rational analysis of human nature is the surest foundation for judgments about it. Aristotle sees goodness in something fulfilling its nature, goodness lies in being fulfilled, flourishing, and moral wrongdoing lies in falling short, failing to fulfill human potential. One of Aristotle’s arguments is known as the ‘function argument’, in which he suggests that all human beings have a greater variety of functions than animals and plants do. Aristotle’s theory is concerned with the essence of something, when considering why an object exists, he asks the efficient cause question of ‘how did it happen?’, yet he also then asks ‘what is it for?’, which is known as the final cause, this is seen as the most important question as it relates to its purpose. His theory also concludes with the idea that perfection is reached when the object does exactly what it was invented to do.
The manner in which a human being behaves solely depends on what he considers good. In his definition, something good is something that acclaims happiness which is a state of nature. Mainly, the subject is concerned with the human aim of having a character of virtue that brings him good and eventually happiness (Urmson, 1988, p. 564). Aristotle proposes some rules of conduct and gives an explanation of Aristotle-Ethical Analysis paper virtue and goodness that is still helpful to the modern man in attaining full and a better understanding of his responsibilities as a member of
An analysis of Kant’s ethics of duty and freedom as a response to all previous ethical theories proves the characteristics of the Kantian ethics and the most significant contrast to utilitarianism, according to Kant, is the ethics of duty in which normative judgments are made on the basis of the character of the action rather than its consequences. According to the Kantian ethics, people have the duty to act in certain ways even if it does not produce the best results. “The ethics of duty is rooted in Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative ‘Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law,’ which in turn is rooted in the belief that humans are rational beings capable of self-determination and self-governance. Every responsible person is therefore entitled to dignity and respect.” (Budd and Scoville, 2005, p 9). Thus, the views of Kant, who is the most important supporter in history of deontological ethics or the study of duty, insist that the single feature that gives an action moral value is the motive that is behind the action.
Next on the basis of James Rachel’s argument against ethical egoism will try to answer the question posed. This essay will also discuss the common sense view is the most appropriate way to act in most of the cases. Ethical Egoism is a normative theory, a theory which states how one should behave. It states that promotion of one’s own good is in accordance with morality. In other way we can state that it is always moral to promote self-interest and it is not moral not to promote it.
It is also referred to as the theory of utility and encourages us to behave in a way in which is useful to society. Unlike natural law which is an absolutist and deontological theory, based on religious principals, utilitarianism is a teleological, secular theory which judges morality on the consequences. Aristotle believed that good conduct promoted happiness in society and Epicurius developed Aristotle's idea by claiming that a good life consisted of the maximum amount of pleasure and the least amount of pain. Another important figure in the utilitarian development is Jeremy Bentham, he is considered to be the founder of utilitarianism and his ethical theory is said to have had a significant influence on a number of philosophers including Peter Singer. Bentham believes that humans are motivated by a desire to experience as much pleasure as possible and avoid experiences of pain.
This indicates that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism as what is viewed to a morally correct action is based upon the actions outcome. Therefore, utilitarianism commands that when one is faced with a choice of morality, one should consider the moral rightness of an act by means of the consequences that should occur due to the performance of this act and also the happiness which arise due to the execution of the act. The theory of utilitarianism thus places paramount importance on happiness. Utilitarianism subsequently branches off into two forms: Act consequentialism, which claims that “an act is morally right if and only it maximizes the good” and hedonism “that pleasure is the only intrinsic good and that pain is the only intrinsic bad.” In this essay I shall outline and explain the theories of act and rule utilitarianism. I will also discuss and examine these theories in light of the case study about the programme
The same thing can be said about deontology, a person is good and moral when his choice of action within a community is inherently moral and good or they do the right thing. This makes the similarities between these three theories is goodness and morality as perceived by others within communities such as a work environment, a group of friends, and family. However; the vast differences between these three theories are how a community identifies a person as good, moral, and ethical. Virtue ethics looks directly into the character of a person to see if he or she is good and moral and this judgment or evaluation of his character is in the long term. Deontology as well as utilitarianism look at actions instead of character.