Principal Considerations that Favor Ethical Theory - Essay Example

Topic: Ethical Theory Principal considerations that favor Ethical Theory The contemporary ethical theories, with only a few of exceptions mostly deal only with the reasons, values and what justifies. The do not necessarily address motives and the motivational framework and constraints that are associated with ethical life. It is considered that apart from failing to do this, they are also unsuccessful as ethical theories (Stocker, 1976). Even though what is considered today to be virtue ethics was the pre-eminent form of ethical theorizing in the traditional world, this particular technique of looking at ethics has been looked down upon in the contemporary world. But recently, there has been a renewal of the interest in virtue ethics to the point where today it is one of the main ways that are employed in dealing with substantive philosophical ethics. This new interest has been generated from the dissatisfaction with the manner in which moral philosophy has been done in the contemporary time and particularly recently. This is because the contemporary and modern philosophy has insisted on moral responsibility and moral law while it ignored the sources of morality in the inner life and the character of the individual (Crisp & Slote, 1997). As is the case in many other areas in philosophy, precise definitions are hard to arrive at but the main contrast comes in the forms of ethics that are based on moral laws, rules and principles. In the case of virtue ethics, the focus is mainly on individual that is supposed to have these virtues and the inner traits that the individual possesses, their dispositions and motive that make the person eligible to be virtuous. Philosophers in the contemporary world perceive moral life as a matter of connecting properly to moral rules as opposed to the traditional virtue ethics where the understanding of moral or ethical life generally needs requires the understanding of what it is to be a virtuous person, or what it entails to have a particular virtue. This is considered to be an inner trait or a disposition that is associated with the individual (Crisp & Slote, 1997). There is a widespread conviction that is associated with virtue ethics that it does dictate what to do. In some instances, this conviction is seen only in the expressed theory that virtue ethics in being agent-centered rather than art-centered is more direct at “being” rather “doing”, with good and bad character rather than right and wrong action. Taking this supposition, virtue ethics doesn’t therefore come out as a normative opponent of practical and deontological morals. In contrast, the revival that it has experienced recently is seen to be serving the practical function reminding the moral philosophers that the elaboration of a theory that is normative may not be able to provide a complete account of an individual’s moral life (Hursthouse, 2013). The only explanation that the people that are against virtues ethics have is the claim that the value ethics is mainly focused on good and bad character instead of considering right and wrong actions. This claim only helps to expose the contrast that exists between the virtue ethics and deontology and utilitarianism the former being agent centered while the latter can be seen as being act centered. On the contrary, utilitarianism mainly focuses on good and bad states of issues instead of looking at right and wrong action and this means that utilitarianism, unlike deontology has nothing to report concerning right action (Hursthouse, 2013). There exist two most important limitations of self-effacing hypothesis. To begin with, the self-effacing theories are not clear what should motivate us and therefore do not provide a direction in the way that we should live. This means that they are unsuccessful in performing a function that the ethical theories are mandated to perform. Secondly, these theories generally preclude the realization of a vital good which is the good of a psychologically harmonious life where the agent gets motivation from the things that are perceived to be legitimately vital. This means that consequentialism and deontology face either the failures that does not offer an account of friendship and other personal connections that is credible or the failures associated with self-effacement. On loose characterization, the term ethical virtues encompasses any type of philosophical enquiry that fields questions that are normative concerning character or queries what kind of people we are supposed to be. A characterization like this one means that the virtue ethics should not be in competition with consequentialist and deontological accounts in terms of rights of action. There also should not exist a direct concern as far as virtues are concerned thus in focusing on the person it is better to dwell on the emotions, intentions, goals and abilities instead of focusing on the virtues (Keller, 2007). This characterization of virtue ethics under which they offer criteria that that is associated with right action which is in contrast with the criteria that is offered by the consequentialist which is of the opinion that a particular act is right if it results in the best probable state of affairs as well as the deontological theory that is of the opinion that an act is correct in the event that it is in accordance with moral rules. The criterion that exist in this case state that an act is right only if an agent that is completely virtuous performs it in the circumstances. A completely virtuous agent is a person who possesses all the virtues in amount that are optimal in that the person can be considered to be generous, just, straightforward, brave, and generous and so on. All this virtues should be possessed in the correct proportions for the agent to be fully virtuous (Keller, 2007). In total contrast to the consequentialist who defines right actions in relation to the goodness of states of affairs, and the deontologist who defines right action in relation to moral rules, the virtue ethicist is of the opinion that the primary and most important explanation of why right acts are considered so is that they are in accordance with the virtues as well as being performed by a person that is fully virtuous. There is a reason that helps virtue ethics to circumvent self-effacement in that it explains actions that are right in terms of the virtues and also in relation to the motives which makes make its position about how right action cannot come apart from it’s the opinion that it has concerning good motives. If virtue ethics is not self-effacing, then it is because it is always acceptable that an agent can get motivation from the considerations which when virtue ethics are considered, makes the acts that are right or comes up with reasons that warrant doing them. Advantages of virtue ethics over other types of moral theory In an effort to revive virtue ethics and therefore make it worthy of consideration in the current situation that is flooded with ethical discourse and theory, more effort should be put in than just improving Aristotelianism. majority of the Aristotelians ethical ideas seem to lack conceivability or force and even though the virtues that are agent focused and not agent based may properly be seen as Aristotelian it is deeply entrenched in the in the recent ethic-theoretical debates that is raised among Kantianism, the morality that is defined by common sense as well as consequentialism. This means that it would be too demanding even of Aristotle to expect that his views will have such a contemporaneous force (Gardiner, 2005). When the doctrines of the mean, noble, good, and admirable are considered, right actions which coincide with the views of Aristotle lie in the average that exists between the extremes. The most courageous thing to do in the case that a danger presents itself will neither be a cowardly act nor a foolhardy one, but it will lie in the region between them. Even though Aristotle supports the notion that courage is more inclined towards being foolhardy than cowardice, still each of the virtues that are supported by Aristotle entail acting in a manner that will lie at some point. Both consequentialist and deontological ethical theories are morality theories that are action based since they mainly concentrated fully on the actions that are taken by a particular individual. These theories mainly concentrate on the question “Which action am I to choose?” but the approach that is taken by virtue ethics is totally different in perspective (Gardiner, 2005). The virtue based theories normally place less importance on the particular rules that the people are supposed to follow and in contrast concentrate on assisting the people to develop characters that are good such as kindness and charity. These are the character traits that will enable an individual to come up with decisions that are right later in their lives. The theory also stresses the need for the people to find ways of breaking habits that are bad in their character such as greed and rage. This are considered to be the vices that hinder the individual from turning out to be a good person. As much as this theory is the oldest type of theory ethical theory that exists in Western Philosophy, it has not been common in the studies that are taken in the contemporary times. The inaugural systematic description that was associated with virtue ethics came from Aristotle where he thinks that when people acquire habits that are good in terms of their character, they are in a better position to control their emotions and the manner in which they reason. This in the long run will help in achieving decisions that are morally correct when faced with choices that are particularly difficult. There reason that makes the virtue ethic important and popular in the way that they make contributions to the understanding of morality is that they are in position to accord emphasis on the central role that is played by motives that are evident in moral questions. An action that is taken when virtue is considered means that it was taken from a particular motivation. Therefore, to conclude that some virtues are required for right moral decisions is to mean that the right moral decisions require motives that are correct. Neither the consequentialist nor the deontological ethical theories need motives to play a role in the analysis of ethical decisions since they simply encourage the correct motivations as a key element of the moral education of the young people. Right from the onset, we are taught that we are supposed to desire certain endings and therefore we should always want achieve particular objectives by the actions that we take part in (Hursthouse, 2001). Another reason why the virtue ethical theory is preferred is that the difficulty in dealing with complicated moral calculations over the particular actions that are supposed to be taken or which of the ethical duties are supposed to be underscored is common to all of them. Virtue theories generally promise that as soon as we are successful in coming up with the type of person that we aspire to be, getting to the decisions that are ethically correct will be automatic and natural. It is important to know that virtue theory is not always in a position to guide actions that are taken and this is where the conflict problem arises. The requirements that different virtues have can be pointed in directions that are different to each other. For instance, the virtue of charity would prompt an individual that is better off dead but the virtue of justice prohibits this action, honesty requires that we tell the truth that might be harmful but compassion and kindness makes us remain silent and in some of the instances lie. This means that the virtue ethics can be a letdown in the cases where these dilemmas are involved (Hursthouse, 2001), Varieties of virtue-ethical accounts of right action Virtue ethics generally make an attempt of developing a human being that is good and virtuous at the same time. This human being is not expected to just follow pre-established rules and not mere good acts and rules or tries to achieve good consequences. The virtue ethics seek to instill virtues through urging the individuals to take part in acts that are characterized by virtue in order to develop a person that can be considered to be good as far as habits are concerned and this person is required to continue acting in a manner that is virtuous (Oakley, 1996). Many of the ethicists consider this to be a source of major problems in the recent times whereby, there are rules, laws and regulations yet ethical human individuals do not exist. These ethicists are of the opinion that until people that are virtuous can be developed, the chances that an ethical society can be created are very minimal. The non-consequentialist theories try to develop a clear distinction between emotion and feeling while the virtue ethics make attempts that are supposed to bring them together by stating that virtues are tendencies not only to act in a certain way, but also have feelings of a certain nature which have virtue. The main aim is to employ practical wisdom to make people adopt what is virtuous while simultaneously instilling that virtuousness so that the individual is in a position to not only reason, but also to start and continue to feel virtuous. Kant particularly avoids acting on partiality almost to the point of absurdity and he thinks that when people are inclined to be virtuous and they act on these inclinations, they would not be as ethical as they would be if they had acted in a virtuous manner against intentions that were not good. On the other hand, Aristotle believed that individuals’ main activity was to reason well so that they could achieve a life that was complete and he attempted much more than Kant did to incorporate emotion or feelings with reason without leaving out any of the attributes (Oakley, 1996). Objections that could be raised An ethical theory can be said to be self-effacing if tells us that sometimes we are not supposed to be motivated by the considerations that might justify the actions that we take part in. this means that consequentialist and deontological ethical theories are mandated to be self-effacing if they are to be credible. This is a good reason while consequentialism and deontology should be given up and virtue ethics taken up. But then this is not always the correct the position since there virtue ethics can also be considered to be self-effacing in the very same ways that the other ethical theories are. This is because if virtue ethics can be able to avoid self-effacement, then the other theories are in the same position to avoid it. This means that when self-effacement is looked at, there is no valid reason to choose virtue ethic over the other chief rival theories (Keller, 2007). It might be asked the manner in which the modern ethical theories arrived at requiring either a moral life that is stunted or disharmony, schizophrenia and this can be answered with an answer that surrounds the preeminence of duty, rightness, and obligation that exists in the theories. This preeminence adopts automatically with the theories that came up in a time characterized by personal relations that are diminishing and the ties that hold people together are easing the frictions that are attributed to their enterprises where affection is diminishing (Stocker, 1976). Virtue ethics shares features with consequentialism and deontology and this makes it no better than the other theories since if consequentialism and deontology are considered to be self effacing, then virtue ethics is also self effacing. One of the assumptions that Aristotle came up with was that all things have a particular purpose or outcome that they aim at and that the end of the life humans is towards happiness. This is particularly true since all things come to an end and everything has a purpose. Many argue that happiness is not the best ending for human life but that sometimes more noble is acceptable such as the love that God has accorded human beings and the also the hope of eventually being with him. Further, many are of the opinion that reasoning well for a life that is complete is the view of the philosophers of what the objectives of humans are and not any other things. Aristotle then came up with another assumption but there can be argument that being spiritual is the human aim while the other philosophers think that feelings or emotions are the aim. References Crisp, R. & Slote, M. A. (1997). Virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gardiner, S. M. (2005). Virtue ethics, old and new. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Hursthouse, R. (1999). On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hursthouse, R. (2013). Normative virtue ethics. ETHICA, p. 645. Keller, S. (2007). Virtue ethics is self-effacing. Australasian Journal Of Philosophy, 85 (2), pp. 221--231. Oakley, J. (1996), VARIETIES OF VIRTUE ETHICS. Ratio, 9: 128–152. doi: 10.1111/j.1467- 9329.1996.tb00101.x Stocker, M. (1976). The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories. Read More