Three theories for a better life - Essay Example

a) What is the nature of virtue for Aristotle and how can his approach to ethics be contrasted to one based on rules and obligations. (b) Discuss the roles of moral habituation (training) in Aristotle's account of the development of a virtuous person. (c) Characterize Aristotle's  doctrine of the mean and explain how it relates to views concerning the complexity of moral life and give a concrete example of the working of the doctrine of the mean that was not discussed in class or in the readings. According to Aristotle, the acquisition of virtue is a result of the right habit which was nurtured by education and choice. This virtue which has been nurtured by early training and conscientious choice can be destroyed either by excesses or deficiency and it is important that the individual should hit the mean condition of virtue to remain virtuous. This “golden mean” according to Aristotle is an approximation of in-betweens between two extremes that is neither excessive nor deficient. It is to feel fear, confidence, desire, anger, pity and pleasure that is neither too much nor too little because both polarized directions are wrong. What is desired is to have “feelings at the right times on the right grounds towards the right people for the right motive and in the right way is to feel them to an intermediate, that is to the best, degree; and this is the mark of virtue. Such, there are three dispositions of virtue which are excessive, deficient and the mean; that is the desirable approximate in-between of the two extremes of excess and deficit. For Aristotle’s standard, this is the ultimate virtue for this compels an individual to act with utmost temperance by acting at the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way. Aristotle realizes that hitting this mean is extremely difficult for this is the ideal. And if it cannot be hit due to circumstances or lack of virtue, one could take the next best course which is choosing the lesser of the evils. Then remedy it by noticing “all errors into which we ourselves are liable to fall and we must drag ourselves in the contrary direction and away from our failing”. It is equally important to realize that “in every situation one must guard especially against pleasure and pleasant things, because we are not impartial judges of pleasure” and the failure to realize this could make our actions less virtuous. Thus, it is important that we know “ourselves”, our failings, our tendencies and our weaknesses so that we may guard ourselves from it and prevent ourselves from veering away from virtuousness. We can take for an example an honest family man who makes a living for his family. He may toil with integrity under normal situation, but when a crisis like losing a job will set in, he may be faced with a dilemma that would reveal his weakness and change his disposition (honesty). He may be tempted to commit fraud when presented the opportunity just to provide for his family. This is a common dilemma that confronts many “honest” people which made them less virtuous because it hit their unguarded weaknesses such as theirlove and duty for their family that held them hostage to do things that they do not like. 3) (a) State and explain the meaning of the second version of Kant's categorical imperative. (b) what are the ethical implications of this imperative; [c] provide a somewhat detailed analysis of an ethically relevant problem or situation, different from those discussed in the readings or in class, that can be illuminated through this imperative. To effectively explain Kant’s second version of categorical imperative, it would be necessary to understand what Kant meant by categorical imperative. According to Kant, imperatives imply what they meant which are command such as “wake up early”. Often they are hypothetical imperative because they only serve a specific objective or purpose such as “wake up early so you will not be later for work. This imperative or command becomes categorical when it is applied universally and that the actions and decisions of individuals are to be judged solely by their motivations and that the consequences do not matter morally (as in the case of hypothetical imperative) neither the intended consequences nor the actual consequences matter morally; only the principle or rule we follow if we do the action matters morally. Thus actions themselves become an end and this action should be a rational result in the exercise of freewill. Consistent to this, Kant’s second imperative states that every person has the duty to use and exercise his goodness/humanity as a means to an end. The application of this second formulation of Kant’s categorical imperative is best illustrated in slave ownership. A slave owner may assert his right to own a property which in this case is a slave. While ownership by itself is not immoral, slave ownership becomes unethical or immoral according to Kant’s second imperative because it deprives a person of his free rational action and that persons can never be a mere means to an end. One distinct characteristic of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it is universal and inflexible that it applies to everyone without exception. For Kant, neither good or bad luck affects in assessing the moral act of a person. His idea of “goodwill” did not become good because it serves an end or objective but because it intends to do “good” regardless of the consequence. Thomas Nagel however differ that he makes an exception through his assertion of moral luck that there are a broad range of externalities that affects moral judgment. Moral luck occurs when “an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008). It meant that we should only be assessed morally only to the extent that the factors attendant to the circumstances of our actions that we can control as stated in his “control principle”. 7) Of the ethical theories and approaches which we have studied, which seems to you to provide the best guidance for everyday moral life?  Discuss your reasons for making your selection. If you do not feel that any of the theories and approaches can play such a role, or feel that no  single one of them can, discuss your reasons for that contention. The issue of ethics particularly in determining which of its many principles is applicable as a best guide in a real world setting can indeed be murky. The real world is not neat and there a lot of factors to consider before electing a best guide to determine and assess one’d conduct. But this is necessary because the absence of ethical guide can also be devastating both on a personal, national and even to a global level. We need not look far for example how the lack of ethics could be damaging. The recent financial crisis that made everybody’s life difficult where millions lost their jobs and thousands more lost their homes can be attributed directly for people lack of ethics or willful disregard for any concept of ethics. The financial scandals that rocked America from Enron, Worldcom to mortgage crisis all redound to greed which is a byproduct of lack of any sense of any ethical consideration. Worst, the crisis was not solely a financial crisis but also a crisis of trust. Investors and the general public suddenly became wary of the ethical practice of American business that they stopped investing their money that made America’s economic recovery more difficult. This was evident with businesses having extra cash but are not investing to expand the operation of their business that would create jobs because they do not trust America’s economic environment. This created a vicious spiral where the anticipated crisis becomes a reality because the economy will naturally contract if businesses are not investing or expanding. And all of this can be traced back to lack of ethics. Personally, I believe that the best ethical guidance in today’s world is Kant’s categorical imperative. Particularly his deontological ethics of doing good for the sake of good regardless of its consequence. I believe that the ethical crisis that we faced before was due to the relativity of ethics where people will “bend” or make the rules of ethics subjective to serve their end which are not always ideal. This made us ethically loose as one ethical compromise led to another until we develop a society of cheats, frauds and dishonest people. As a result, we became distrustful of one another that if we hear or see something good, we often ask “what’s the catch?” implying that such goodness is only a show and is done to achieve some ulterior motive. Practicing categorial imperative ethics which is to do good all the time will not only address the social ills that the lack of ethics created (corporate scandal, increased crime, etch). It will also make our society, and our world a better place to live in because people wants to do good for its own sake and not because it is only a means to achieve or get something. We will also begin believing in each other that if we see someone good, we will appreciate the act and reciprocate instead of being guarded that the person is up to something else. Reference Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2008). Moral luck. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/ Read More