'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.
The weaknesses of virtue ethics outweigh the strengths, discuss (35) The definition of a virtue is habitually doing what is right; being a virtuous person requires the practice of a certain kind of behaviour. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, most argue for the formation and growth of us via practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using out conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle, Phillipa Foot and Alisdair Makentyre. Vitue ethics is based on different virtues which a person should possess in order to reach Eudemonia, Eudemonia should be the ultimate goal in everyone’s life as this leads to ultimate happiness and therefore a healthier and better society. 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.
John Stuart Mill was a hedonist and accepted that happiness was of great importance and stressed that happiness is more important than pleasure. Mill believed that the quality of pleasure decides on whether an act is good; for example, human pleasures such as reading are what is good however animal pleasures such as eating is not as good. This meant that he felt that the quantity of pleasure did not matter, it was only the quality. Mill continues to develop his argument by saying that everyone deserves happiness so therefore, everyone aims towards their own happiness so everyone should aim for the happiness of everyone. He believed in universalizability which means what is right or wrong for one person in a situation is right or wrong for everyone.
“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.
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.
A traditional moralist supports this statement and says that if you love someone what you do should be for their benefit. 3. What does Russell mean by his claim that “the whole antithesis between self and the rest of the world…disappears as soon as we have any genuine interest in persons or things outside ourselves”? By this Russell means that by being good people and having an outward focus we are a part of the world around us and it is a part of us. He says this in contrast to the belief that the only way we can be good is through self-denial, focusing only on the world as opposed to the world and all its people, including ourselves.
This makes the theory ‘agent centred’. A key feature for Virtue Ethics is philosopher Aristotle who stated that all series of actions are aimed towards ultimate end- happiness and that fulfilment is the goal of life (final and efficient cause). In Greek, the world telos means end/purpose. ‘Teleological’ approaches in ethics judges the rightness of moral actions based on how much they lead to achieve to fulfil a purpose, For Aristotle ‘happiness’ can be understood in three different ways:- 1) Happiness as a life of enjoyment or pleasure 2) Happiness as a free member of society 3) Happiness as a philosopher Therefore living pleasurably is not enough, we have a responsibility to live a good life! Another key feature of virtue ethics is Eudaimonia which is the idea of justified and deserved ‘happiness’.
Perhaps more so than Emotivists, Prescriptivists see ethical language as fairly meaningful. They believe that the terms used are able to create absolute rules that everyone ought to follow. It would seem that ethical language is seen by many as very meaningful, although for varying reasons. However agent centred theories such as Virtue Ethics would argue that our main focus of morality should be on becoming as virtuous as possible, rather than deciding what is meant by ethical language. Therefore it would seem that perhaps morality should be more focussed on individuals’ actions rather then defining what is meant by ‘good’ and
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.
In order to make someone else happy, you must be happy with yourself. Life’s choices, treatment of others should be made with the best of intentions and cause no harm to others. Scalet and Arthur (2014) have suggested the quality of life is determined by activities and that a happy person will never do what is hateful and mean but will live life with dignity and always do what is best. Kant’s theory suggests that actions determine morality and one must not only act in accordance to duty but for the sake of