The concept of virtue ethics by the philosopher Aristotle looks at how we should not look at the right and wrong actions we do by following guidelines, but look at us as human beings becoming virtuous people, through doing virtuous things. The statement of the weaknesses of virtue ethics outweighing the strengths is to an extent true, in particular when you look at the limitations of virtue ethics when claiming the doctrine of mean. Firstly by looking at the aim if virtue ethics we can gain an insight to the whole concept, Aristotle claimed that in life our aim is to reach fulfilment of happiness, which he called eudemonia. To achieve eudemonia you have to practice virtues and achieve these virtues, through education, emulation and experience. So we learn the virtue by copying someone who is a role model or mentor to confirm our virtue is right and finally practice and experience said virtue.
For me I think it starts with morality in a person. Morality, good manners, decency, and other virtues must be teachable (Feinberg, 585). Morality tries to identify and explain why some people do wrong things and do the right form of act that should be followed by everybody. However, Psychological Egoism is directly opposite with the need of good morals. It is like if I'm given a task to do, I work toward satisfying the standard in order to achieve my own self goals.
Meta ethics tries to make sense of the terms and concepts used in ethical theories such as Utilitarianism and Natural Law. Some people believe that ethical language is extremely meaningful as they argue it is essential to be able to define terms such as “good” and “bad” before we can even begin to discuss ethical theories. However others disagree with this and argue that moral statements are subjective so are meaningless, as they cannot be described as either true or false. Those who hold cognitive theories about ethical language would argue that ethical statements are not meaningless as they are about facts, and can therefore be proved true or false. Ethical Naturalism is a cognitive theory of meta ethics which holds the belief that
However, the requirement of enrichment could be argued as well if enrichment came from knowledge and not profit. Lindquist certainly did have a reasonable expectation of being paid for these services and they were not doing this as any charitable act. Obviously Lindquist perceived the services that they were providing as a benefit to Middleton and Middleton assumed they would benefit. Craig Miller was a general manager of the successful organization, Lindquist Ford. So, it would lead you to believe that his presence at Middleton would be a benefit to that organization.
Primarily I will discuss James Rachel’s arguments about these topics and his opinions referring on the concepts psychological egoism and ethical egoism. Then the two arguments which are cited in his essay Humans are not always selfish such as humans only do what they are pleased to or willing to do and the satisfaction they get after doing a good thing such as helping someone is it the proove of being selfish. Evaluating his arguments referring on his essay will be helpfull to unify our thoughts about the question “Are humans always selfish?” James Rachels main response consists of why a person is called selfish because he helps or does a good thing and an unselfish person does not even care about helping or doing that thing. Getting satisfaction from a good act we do demonstrates that we are unselfish according to Rachel because when you are only an unselfish person you get that feeling of satisfaction. Only an unselfish person can feel that way.
As human beings we ought to help each other out to succeed in our own destiny. “Even people who claim no entitlements to happiness would likely be in favor of reducing human suffering in the world”(Falikowski, Egoistic Versus Altruistic Utilitarianism, 2005). We must take a look into what the morality of this issue to understand why it is right or wrong. We can refer to Jeremy Bentham’s view on Utilitarianism when discussing this topic. The principle of utility states that the quality of life matters when it comes to pleasure, and if we were to make the quality of a person’s life better, we must be useful and relieve that person from pain and suffering.
This theory is the opposite of the goal setting theory. According to Robbins and Judge (2011) “Reinforcement theory ignores the inner state of the individual and concentrates solely on what happens when he or she takes some action”. This tool can be good if the employee is willing to do the required work to be successful. The goal is mostly motivational in the since of rewarding one’s effort to complete work. You have to be careful though when trying to motivate people.
Philosopher John Stewart Mill describes utilitarian acts as “…actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill, p. 58). Motives for actions do not matter, as long as the result is a positive and desired one. Utilitarianism works upon the happiness principle, which means that for an act to be considered morally justifiable, you must do what maximizes pleasure in your life (Mill, p.58). Although this point of view seems like a great view to live by, it may be flawed, especially when it comes to monetary debt within the community. A flaw that I have come across is that it is difficult to determine exactly what a utilitarian act is.
Utilitarian Theories Utilitarianism Utilitarianism is a normative ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes (consequences) of choosing one action/policy over other actions/policies. As such, it moves beyond the scope of one's own interests and takes into account the interests of others. Bentham's Principle of Utility: (1) Recognizes the fundamental role of pain and pleasure in human life, (2) approves or disapproves of an action on the basis of the amount of pain or pleasure brought about i.e, consequences, (3) equates good with pleasure and evil with pain, and (4) asserts that pleasure and pain are capable of quantification (and hence 'measure'). In measuring pleasure and pain, Bentham introduces the following criteria: INTENSITY, DURATION, CERTAINTY (or UNCERTAINTY), and its NEARNESS (or FARNESS). He also includes its "fecundity" (will more of the same follow?)
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.