The weakness of Virtue Ethics outweighs its strengths – Discuss. Virtue ethics is the ethics of us as persons and argues that morality is not about duties. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, and most for, argue for the formation and growth of us via phronesis or practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using our conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle. It is based on different virtues that a person should have, so that they can then reach Euadamonia.
* The vice of excess is entirely too much of the virtue which leads to excess rather than moderation, e.g. the excess vice of modesty is shyness. Aristotle asks followers to choose the mean or middle ground between virtue and defect: rather than praising a golden unevenness, followers are expected to discover the middle ground for themselves – to avoid excess and lacking character in any particular kind of action. Aristotle said that virtue is a state of having increased the ‘right prescription’ of good behaviour or ‘orthos logos’. A virtuous person will be able to apply the virtues to practical ethics for example; they will know when to show courage etc.
Providing arguments for the hedonism and desire satisfactionist against knowledge being counted as a basic good can be accomplished by outlining their respective positions and then show that knowledge need not be a basic good in those systems. In this paper, I will first outline hedonism, then show how knowledge is excluded as a basic good. Then I will outline desire satisfactionism and show how knowledge is excluded as a basic good in that system as well. Hedonism states that a life is good for the person who lives it if that life contains a favorable balance of pleasure over pain.Since this is the case, according to hedonism, knowledge is not a basic good, pleasure is the basic good. The reason why knowledge is not a basic good is because hedonism gives it no value toward the evaluation of lives.
For a conscientious observer, this double standard should seriously cause him to question the ability of a consequentialist perspective to prescribe satisfactory moral understanding and guidance. By accommodating an agent’s moral feelings only when they are in accord with utility is indicative of a deeper failure to recognize that such feelings are often expressions of the agent’s own projects and commitments. Thus, to achieve an objective standard of right action, utilitarianism ultimately sacrifices the agent’s integrity by making right action irrelevant to those projects and commitments. The first part of my exposition focuses on what Williams sees as the reason for the popularity of consequentialist ethical theories, which is rooted in an illicit jump from thinking about moral kinds of actions to thinking about moral degrees of outcomes. The rest of my exposition explains how this jump directly leads to the
Self Interest or Privilege Superson approaches the moral skeptic in a way in which helps us to better understand the skeptic’s view but at the same time, by developing a better understanding of the moral skeptic, she is better fit to defeat it. The moral skeptic is aware of morality, yet lacks any interest in abiding by it, rather acting in self-interest. The traditional model of the skeptic dichotomizes morality with self-interest, because it is assumed that the skeptic endorses expected utility and the motives he believes is rational to have (ones that are most in conflict with morality). Rational actions go hand in hand with self-interested actions, and this is identified with promoting the satisfaction of any of one’s desires or preferences but moral ones, or with maximizing one’s expected utility. According to Superson, in order for self-interest to successfully defeat the skeptic it must defeat both action and disposition skepticism, which is where it lacks.
I think that to a large extent the conflict is misunderstood, but it is also illustrative of some larger, more glaring issues in philosophy. Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned. The person takes pleasure in, or is not, at any rate, disinclined toward, doing what he thinks is best. The virtuous person, according to Aristotle, is superior to the continent person, in whom deviant passions are in conflict with prudent deliberation, and in whom deliberation manages to defeat the passions for the control of immediacy of action. Yet it is the continent person whom Kant calls virtuous and to whom Kant ascribes moral worth.
For example, in the case of lying, a deontologist would argue that lying is always wrong, doesn’t matter even if it holds any potential to creating a greater good. While the consequentialist would say that to lie is a wrong thing to do because it would cause negative outcomes as a result, however lying could still be allowed, knowing that it would lead to the creation of a greater good. While as for a virtue-ethicist would care less on just about lying, but focus more on what does the decision say about his/her own traits and character. So here are several features that make the theory of virtue ethics distinctive compared to the other
In fact, according to Kant, a person who hates helping others but does so anyways because they see it as their societal duty is a good moral agent. On the other hand, a person who enjoys helping others because it brings them joy would be considered selfish and without any moral content. How can this make sense? Hume would argue that it is the passion to help those that are less fortunate that motivates the individual rather than the actual act. In general, the action is produced by a passion to do something, spurred on by feelings of guilt or perhaps philanthropy.
It was Socrates that said “before acting, a person ought to consider the arguments for and against various alternatives and, disregarding the opinions of the many; he should be guided by reason.” When I started this essay, I felt strongly that utilitarian philosophers would be against the option of drilling for oil in shallow waters. It is said that deepwater drilling is preferred over shallow water drilling to preserve the environment and the economy of tourism closer to our shores. Utilitarian philosophers could base their argument on the fact that utilitarianism is based upon the principle that an action is morally right if it produces a greater quantity of good or happiness than any other possible action. Out of the two options, deep vs. shallow water drilling, the one that is better for the environment (deepwater drilling) would seem to be the morally correct decision. But nothing is quite that simple.
One possible philosophy that could be applied would be from the principle of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral philosophy, generally operating on the principle that the utility (happiness or satisfaction) of different people can not only be measured but also meaningfully summed over people and that utility comparisons between people are meaningful. (Econoterms) This principle states that the best action is determined by looking at the results or consequences of that decision. Meaning, if the consequences are bad (Nike sweatshop allegations and a socially negative representation to the public in this case) that the action taken place is considered wrong. This principle leads to the responsibility that Nike workers should receive a “living wage” by utilitarianism asserting that the action we should produce should be “the greatest good for the greatest number”.