Morality is not simply about avoiding the wrong, but is also about doing what is virtuous. This theory is secular in the fact that it is non religious and therefore universal as it can be applied to all, and we all strive for happiness. Virtue ethics also values morality for its instrumental worth as when people acquire good habits of character, they are better able to regulate their emotions and their reason. This, in turn, helps us reach morally correct decisions when we are faced with difficult scenarios. Furthermore it emphasises the need for people to break bad habits of character, as they prevent one from achieving full happiness and being a moral person.
'The weaknesses of Virtue Ethics outweigh its strengths.' Discuss. Virtue ethics derives from Plato and Aristotle and does not focus on actions being right or wrong, but instead of how to be a good person and the character of a person. It looks at what makes a person good and the qualities (or virtues) that make a person good. 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.
“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.
Examine how both deontological and teleological ethical systems can be used to help people make moral decisions. Deontological and teleological ethical systems attempt to provide those who follow them with contrasting moral guides, recommending wrong and right concepts of behaviour. Deontological ethics derives from the Greek word, "Deon" which translates to "duty", for all deontologists, morality is a matter of duty. This ethical theory judges the morality of an action based on the action's adherence to a rule, so essentially, deontology is concerned with the intent behind an action as well as the nature of the action itself. Therefore, deontologists follow the belief that certain actions are inherently good if they follow the stated rules even if the action has bad consequences, it can still be defined as moral.
We use this is help us choose the right moral action is situations. Aristotle and Aquinas both conclude that humans aim for some goal or purpose in life-but does not see this as eudemonia. Aquinas believes that humans are the ‘image of god’ therefore the supreme good must be the development of this image which is perfection. They did not believe that you could reach this perfection in this life but the afterlife. There are the three laws in Aquinas’ book which are eternal, natural and divine.
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’.
Some people believe that culture is a way that morality can be established, but morality differs from culture to culture. In Doing Ethics, Lewis Vaughn talks about cultural relativism and lays out an argument for it. In the second premise it states “If people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, then right and wrong are relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles” (Vaughn 26). He makes it clear that he does not support this premise and explains his points as to why this is false. Cultural relativism is the idea that the moral principles someone has are solely determined by the culture one lives in.
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.
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.
For utilitarian school of thought, an individual strives to do the most good, even at the expense of the minority. Utilitarianism and Kantianism find the basis of their differences in the idea that the ends justify the means. Utilitarian beliefs support this idea while Kantian philosophy rejects this. Modern ethics were devised from these two basic ethical beliefs in an attempt to combine the best aspects. Generally, the morally “right” action benefits the majority while affecting the fewest amount in a negative way.