The action of duty must exclude the influence of inclination so it may only be influenced by the objectivity of the law and therefore subjectively respected by us as good. Kant then goes on to confront the claim that moral worth is linked to agreeable condition and the promotion of happiness by stating that the moral worth of an action lies in the principle and not the effect of the action. Kant claimed that agreeable conditions and happiness can be brought about by too many other causes that do not require human rationality, and that human rationality is the only place where the “supreme and unconditional good” (P.2) can
With a good upbringing and a base value system, most individuals will exude good values and ethics. A description of the differences in how each theory addresses ethics and morality Virtue ethics centralizes around characteristics, such as moral character or the virtue of an individual. A proponent of virtue ethics would define helping someone in need as a benevolent or charitable action (Stanford, 2007). Virtue ethics also places more emphasis on helping individuals expand his or her character that in turn extends to individuals better decision-making later in life. These theorists believe erasing vices builds good moral character (Cline, 2012).
How far is virtue ethics a satisfactory guide to moral behaviour? Virtue ethics is person rather than action based as it looks at the virtue or moral character of the person carrying out an action, rather than at ethical duties and rules, or the consequences of particular actions, unlike Utilitarianism or Situation ethics, which always look at the consequence of the action. Virtue Ethics was a theory first developed by Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC), Eudaimonia, or 'happiness', is the supreme goal of human life. Aristotle believed that everything has a purpose, Eudaimonia is the purpose for humans. Aristotle draws a distinction between superior and subordinate aims, believing Eudaimonia' is the end goal or purpose behind everything we do as people, and is desired for its own sake and therefore a superior aim.
This was as opposed to expressing rashness by being violent, or expressing cowardice by not standing up for himself and others. The incorporation of the Golden Mean into Virtue Ethics makes it a good way to make moral decisions. This is because it ensures that the individual making moral decisions is challenged to consider what is sensible and moderate in each situation. This consideration helps to prevent actions that are extreme and promote those that are sensible. However, the use of the Golden Mean within Virtue Ethics in fact makes it weak, and not a good way
Aristotle believes we practice good virtues for a greater reason, the superior aim in life is to achieve the supreme good, which is happiness. For Aristotle, happiness or fulfilment was the goal and purpose of life. In this understanding he meant more than just pleasure, he understood this in three different ways. First being happiness as a life of enjoyment of pleasure, second happiness as a free member of society, and last happiness as a philosopher. In order to achieve the eudaimonia, Aristotle believed that you had to practise skills or virtues to achieve happiness and live good lives.
For Socrates, upholding justice leads to this state, while for Epictetus, it is about being in accord with nature. For Epicurus, it is about maximizing pleasure through removing all pain. I will expound on these below. We will first consider how each philosopher views justice as a means to achieving the ideal human state. To Socrates, his action was right and thus he chose not to flee as he felt that upholding justice was very important and the most righteous and virtuous thing to do.
Virtue ethics comes from the Greek word of excellence, which concentrates on the moral agent performing the actions and not on the actions itself. Whereas in other theories its aim is to make people do good and avoid doing wrong. For example Utilitarianism’s “greatest good for the greatest number” and Kant’s theory on duty. Through the work of Aristotle’s table of the vice of excess and deficiency you are able to weigh up the character and focus on just the actions in order to reach the Golden mean. Consequently there are many weaknesses of virtue ethics that do not outweigh its strengths.
The basic philosophy of Utilitarianism, the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount, is one of the basic building blocks of the democratic system. If a person lives on the principles of Utilitarianism, they disregard the motives involved in an action. Utilitarians try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant (among others) disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.
This leads Mill and Nietsche to believe that whatever they choose to do with their lives to make them happy, then that is their form of "right." In contrast, Aquinas would be the one to side with Aristotle because both philosophers are aiming towards reaching virtue and happiness in the end. Aquinas believes that law is nothing but reason for the common good, and that,if laws are obeyed, people will be led towards their happiness. This is similar to what Aristotle believes. He believes that people must do good to reach moral excellence (virtue), so if his and Aquinas's theories were combined, humans would reach virtue and happiness all together by obiding by the laws created for
NML is seen as objectively ideal, it is something that everyone should strive for as it is an objective truth which ties in with Moral Realism, this means there are objective truths, things that we should do/should not do because they are definitely right or wrong. This then ties in with a priori ethics, which means our ethical knowledge has nothing to do with our experience or influences, it is just knowable in the universe, we just know it, this is what NML is seen as, we do not learn it, we just know it. Aquinas was very influenced by Aristotle especially his view that everything has a purpose and these purposes can be understood through looking at the natural world and through the bible which reveals the purpose for which God created man. St Paul said the moral law of God is evident from the nature of man and the world, ‘Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature, namely, his external power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made’, Aquinas said God gave man reason to accomplish the purposes NML whether we believe in him or not. All humans can understand and follow NML but only the believers in God know that if they do, it will be beneficial for them beyond the