Although Hursthouse accepts that virtue ethics ‘…cannot tell us what we should do’, she nonetheless reasons in a different way to show how virtue ethics aids us. Furthermore, Hursthouse would refute virtue ethics being insufficiently action-guiding because we have v-rules in the form of virtues and vices to provide action-guidance (Hursthouse, 1999).
Elizabeth Anscombe in ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ (1958) also contributed to virtue ethics and put forward the idea that modern moral philosophy is misguided, asking if there can be any moral laws if there is no God. In turn questioning what does right and wrong even mean without a lawgiver? Her approach argued for a return to Aristotelian ethics, specifically on his idea of eudaimonia of
…show more content…
Despite these claims held by Aristotle, Hursthouse and Anscombe they are not strong enough to contend against the main assertion at hand of virtue ethics being insufficiently action-guiding. Such accounts fail ultimately because, they do not change the fact that virtue ethics does not provide any guidance for our actions. Principally, how can an ethical theory be judged on its sufficiency (hence why virtue ethics is insufficient) when it does not even promote any guidance for our actions in the first place?
As a result of all the weaknesses discussed, it further validates my stance on how virtue ethics is insufficiently action-guiding. Despite virtue ethicists asking questions such as ‘how should I live my life?’ the fundamental problem continues to be echoed, for no guidance is given to support how I should do this. Robert Louden in ‘On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics’ supported this view, arguing how virtue ethics does not help anyone facing a crisis. This is primarily because virtue ethics fails to provide anything near to a rulebook for the moral life that a person could consult with, in shaping what they ought to do in certain situations. Surely, this is what is required for it to be seen as a successful moral theory and thus, explains why it provides little value to us as an action-guiding ethical system. Thus, virtue
In Rosalind Hursthouse’s essay on Virtue Ethics, she aims to create a new type of ethics that is classified as Aristotelian in nature. Hursthouse’s model is more agent-based rather than action-based, which implies that it is based on the individual’s characteristics rather than the type of action implemented. Husrthouse believes that the agent’s thought process, beliefs, and personal view of moral values are ultimately what shapes virtue ethics. Although her discussion on virtue ethics is both intriguing and important, Hursthouse's model falls short of being a viable ethical theory for several reasons. Firstly, the idea of agent-based ethics is a nice one in theory, but is not easily employable because of the individual standard of ethics that would be required to take ethical action. It is important to present a model that can actually be applied in practice in order to achieve actual results. Virtue ethics cannot be considered as a real alternative to any other code of ethics because it is not employable in the real world, and is therefore not worthy of serious consideration. This underlying reason will be thoroughly discussed in order to refute the arguments that Rosalind Hursthouse provides on Virtue Ethics in her essay.
This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics
Philosophers have studied and analyzed divergent implications and answers to ethical problems and the morality construction in which is the correct way of going about life upon many years. Philosophers have begun to narrow down the cases that provide the best support to answer ethical questions which we encounter. That being, divine command theory, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics all provide adequate insight to everyday morality. There are flaws and strengths to each and every one of these concepts. However, divine command theory proves to provide the most requisite intellect with minute disfigurement. Divine command theory offers a chance at a purposeful reason to undertake morality with the right
In this paper, I will critically examine Rosalind Hursthouse’s argument on “Virtue Ethics” about the reasoning of a virtuous person by delving into the topic. I will then expose a particular problem within it. Perhaps the strongest point of the argument on “Virtue Ethics” that Hursthouse gives relies on the claim of moral philosophy. Moral philosophy claims that a virtuous person would act and make decisions like what a virtuous person would do. In this paper, I will focus on Hursthouse’s argument on the certainty of a virtuous person, offer an objection to the argument, and demonstrate how Hursthouse might respond to that objection.
In Normative Ethics there are three distinct schools of thought, and each differentiate through moral intentions. Consequentialism relies on the consequences of an action in order to distinguish whether or not something is morally acceptable. Deontology considers the morality of an action by one’s reason for doing a certain deed. Lastly, virtue ethics bases morality off of virtuous character, and how a virtuous person would act given a certain predicament. Ultimately, consequentialism provides the most practical explanation for morality due to the notion of providing the best possible result. Contrarily, deontology and virtue ethics do not always provide an individual with the most sensible course of action, and therefore prove to be
Virtue ethics is a normative theory whose foundations were laid by Aristotle. This theory approaches normative ethics in substantially different ways than consequentialist and deontological theories. In this essay, I will contrast and compare virtue ethics to utilitarianism, ethical egoism, and Kantianism to demonstrate these differences. There is one fundamental aspect of virtue ethics that sets it apart from the other theories I will discuss. For the sake of brevity and to avoid redundancy, I will address it separately. This is the fundamental difference between acting ethically within utilitarianism, egoism, and Kantianism. And being ethical within virtue ethics. The other theories seek to define the ethics of actions while virtue ethics does not judge actions in any way. The other theories deal with how we should act, while virtue ethics determines how we should be.
Hursthouse presents an outline of these ethical approaches. First, deontology premise one the action is right if it follows the guideline of a “moral rule or principle”, and premise two a correct moral is either “required by rationality” or the “rational acceptance from behind the veil of ignorance and so on…”. Then she presents act-utilitarianism, premise one the action is correct if it comes out with the best outcome, and premise two if the best outcomes presents that “happiness is maximized”. Finally, the author presents virtue theory. Virtue theory, the action is correct “if it is what a virtuous agent what do in the circumstances”. She then explains what a virtuous person is, and discusses how a virtuous
While Valjean occasionally uses utilitarian reasoning in his approach to ethics, he is more representative of a third approach to ethics, a virtue-based approach. If a deontological approach to ethics first asks “what does the law say?” and a
Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.
Virtue Ethics is neither deontological nor teleological, since it is concerned with neither duty nor consequences, but rather the state of the person acting. Aristotle believed that once you are good, good actions will necessarily follow, and this belief is at the centre of Virtue Ethics. Rather than defining good actions, Virtue Ethics looks at good people and the qualities that make them good. The non-normative theory, although very effective in determining the morality of individuals, is particularly flawed when applied to whole societies. This weakness is largely due to its imprecision and abstraction; however, before these weaknesses can be considered, it is necessary to give an account of the theory itself.
When most think of philosophy a list of people come to mind. You have your “greats” such as Plato, Nietzsche, and of course Aristotle. However, this does not mean that their ideas cannot be challenged and questioned, as no one is above criticism. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics have a major flaw that strikes at the heart of the idea. There is a severe lack of guidance both in what a virtue is, and what happens when they conflict. The mains question is, is one virtue more important than another?
In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be
In James Rachels’ book, The Elements of Moral Philosophy, he expresses ideas within the concluding chapter, “What Would a Satisfactory Moral Theory be like?” that lay an silhouette of every moral approach we have discussed so far and compounding it into a final discussion with a couple of final contentions towards a comprehensive understanding of morality and the approaches we can make as moral guides to make decisions that are virtuous for each class without exception. Rachels’ gives thoughtful perspective on all subjects that we have learned about and makes final accumulations for the way we can decide to use these for our own benefit. While then expressing the virtues we must value for ourselves to have a best plan, and the ways our choices can help others in a positive aspect.
An advantage of virtue ethics is that it brings in all the qualities of being human such as reason, responsibility and emotion to influence a person’s ethical consideration. This can be applied in situations where a person asks what sort of person he or she should be. However, our text book clarifies that “determining what the specific virtues are, and what the appropriate balance among those virtues should be, can be difficult” (Mosser, 2011).
Throughout the last few weeks of class, we have discussed many different theories of ethics by many different philosophers. We have examined these theories by looking at different examples of how someone who believes in a specific theory would respond to the situation. I have come to the conclusion after closely examining each theory of ethics that virtue ethics presented by Rosalind Hursthouse is closest to correct. Even though virtue ethics has a few flaws that I believe need to be revised, this theory is closest to what I believe is correct. This theory is well structured and has fewer controversies than the other theories we have looked at because this theory deals with wider questions like, how should I live my life, instead of narrow questions like, how should I respond to this situation. In many other theories, we are given a specific, often unlikely situation, and given a specific way to respond to that situation. In my life I have always learned many important values from role models like my mom and dad. These people are considered virtuous people to me because I have learned right from wrong from them my entire life. Learning how to act from another person in real life situations better prepares me to make the right moral decisions in my own life. Overall, I believe that virtue ethics is the closets theory to correct because in virtue ethics, we are given a way to act and a role model to follow in order to make the right moral decision in all situations all of the