Virtue Ethics in Various Philosophical Theories - Essay Example

Philosophy Virtue Ethics The Categorical imperative is a philosophical concept that strives to provide explanation on how human beings relate. Over the history of the world, philosophers have coined many theories to explain the morality of human behaviors and to explain why human beings behave the way they do. The attempt of various philosophical theories of morality is to construct a moral identity that would suit personal life and guide people on doing good or bad in the society. Kant is among philosophers who have strived to explain the morality of human behavior and the rationale that can be used to define an action as either right of wrong. Kant expresses that the will of the people to treat others as an end rather than a means, defines the rightness of their action (Pojman and Tramel 23-27). He explains that human beings can only act right if they treat other people with fairness. Evidently, human beings consider the virtuous people as those who treat others fairly, with dignity and positive attitude. On this ground, the idea of Kant that moral rightness as the ability to treat others fairly is universally practical. In his third formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant states one should “Always act in such a way that you are both legislator and legislated in the kingdom of "Ends” (Pojman and Tramel 23-27).Kant paints the image of a person as a legislator of kingdom, to direct people on how they should act morally. The interpretation of this statement is that human beings should act as if they are designing universal law that applies not only to them but also to other moral agents. In this statement, the philosopher urges human beings to act in such a way that their actions are exemplary and that others should follow the same direction. Thus, if one does a bad thing, then he invites others to act the same way, as this would be legislating a new law in the universal kingdom. On this ground, human beings should act in such a way that their actions are fairto others and the results of these actions are positive. Trammel (24) states that Kant’s philosophy can best be understood as being committed to the theme of rightness as fairness. From a close examination, Kant alludes to the idea that the morality of an action can be assessed by the extent to which it is fair to the recipient. The role that morality should play in our lives is a topic that garnered attention from numerous philosophers. Wolf (419-439) is among the scholars who focused on the way human beings apply morals on their life. She states that human beings should not strive to live a saintly life as this was be too good to the extent of denying themselves happiness. She agrees that human beings should treat others not as a means but an end. The implication of this is that people should strive to be happy and make others happy by treating them fairly and with respect. For instance, they should do as much good as possible, save lives and avoid killing. This coincides with the idea of Mill that human beings should strive to save lives as failing to do so is tantamount to killing (Bendle 36). These arguments are much similar to Kant’s philosophical theories that consider fair actions as morally right. For instance, if a person lies and that the result of these lies is negative, then that person would be unfair to the recipient of that action.On this note, there is a concession that good actions should not be in striving to saints but in treating others in a fair manner. Human beings should weigh their private or personal actionsbased on their consequences on others. Wolf (429) agrees with the idea of Mill that rational moral would guide people in their actions with one another. Mill proposed the principle of utilitarianism in determining the morality of actions in the society (Bendle 40). In his argument, human beings should weigh their actions on the consequences they have on the people whom they affect. In the principle of utilitarianism, the best action is one whose consequences do overall good to the society. This is similar to the idea of Wolf that one should do as much good as is possible, unlike the absolute saints who should strive to do good only. On the other hand, this contradicts the idea proposed by Kantianism on the universality of moral laws that bind each person. Kant proposes that each person must act according to the moral laws that the people legislate. For instance, if lying is bad it remains bad in whatsoever situations (Rolf 598). However, Mill and Wolf seem to appreciate the fact that a lie would be good if its consequences to the people are to the good of the majority. The idea of Kant seems to uphold the virtue of a saintly life, whereas Mill and Wolf seem more reasonable and agree that an action is right as wrong as its consequences are good in the society. The question of whether the best life is one in which one acts in accordance with morality is a controversial issue. Kant regards the best life as one in which human beings abides to the universal moral principles (Rolf 596). Since there are a set of universal morality laws that dictate whether an action is good or bad, then Kant sees as the best life as one in which one obeys these autonomous laws. However, Wolf (420-422) suggests that living a life that agrees with moral laws would be a sad life. She sees this as the same as trying to become a saint, which is an ideal life of human beings. A saint strives to obey all the moral laws and strives to do good to other people even if it means a disfavor in them. Wolf sees this as a miserable life that would be too good to be true. Mill supports the idea of Wolf by stating the harm principle that requires a person not to harm themselves by their own actions. Kant seems to assume that all actions that have fair results are right. However, as other philosophers show, it is possible that some actions are fair in one situation but unfair in others. A controversy may rise on Kant’s argument thatfair actions define the moral virtue of an action. One may object on the ground that considering personal happiness may lead to selfish behavior among people. Normally, human beings are likely to consider actions that are fair to them as more important than that of others. However, it is crucial to consider the balance that exists between personal interest and that of others. The utilitarianism theory requires that one consider themselves as part of the larger crowd. While weighing actions it is possible to consider the good of the majority and not a person Mill (Bendle 40). On this note, one should assess their actions by the impact they have on others. If an action has positive impact on a person and negative consequences on others then this action is wrong. This limits the abuse of liberty and provides an opportunity for fair treatment of the majority of the people. Therefore, acting for the good of the majority would act against selfish motives in the society. However, as Trammel argues, Kant brings out the idea that the right actions are those that have fair consequences. When one acts, they should consider whether this action would be fair to them and to others. Since human beings are the lawmakers, they should judge their actions on whether they perceive human beings are end or as means. He urges human beings to consider their actions as rules and evaluate if they would be glad to live a world governed by the rules they make by their actions. For instance, a person who lies defines a rule that allows other moral agents to follow. His proposal is that all actions be fair so that moral agents live in a world where fair laws govern their actions. On this note, he identifies moral virtue as the ability of human beings to define standards that can govern the world and ensure that every human being is fairly treated. From a critical point of view, Kant provides an idealistic approach in which human beings can judge their actions. From realist theories, it is important to judge actions from their impact on the majority. It is clear that there are times when some bad actions may have a positive impact to the majority of the people. For instance,when a police officer kills a criminal, he protects the lives of many other people, which is good action. Whereas killing is wrong, there are times when it may be crucial to kill as this achieves greater good in the society. On this ground, Kant’s idea that human beings write laws when they act may appear rather controversial. Kant appears to mean that when a person does a wrong action, he incites other human beings to act the same way. However, in reality, human beings do wrong actions with selfish interests. For instance, one may kill an innocent action, based on the excuse that such a person is a criminal. Therefore, it is crucial that human beings act with fairness, if they have to be morally right. In conclusion, human beings should use morality to achieve fairness in the community and to treat fellow human beings as an end not as a means to an end. Kant’s third formulation of the categorical imperative sees human beings as the makers of laws that define the virtues that governthe actions of human beings. Human beings should judge the correctness of their actions on the way the consequence they have. The implication of this principle is that, as Trammel (26) points out,that the morality of an action is based on its fairness. Wolf and Mill agree that the right actions are those that do well to the majority of the people in the society. Therefore the best life is not one in which human beings pursue morals in order to live a saintly life, but one in which human beings use morals to guide their actions hut one in which that makes themselves and other happy. A saintly life would be too good to be real and would hinder personal happiness. While one may object this position by considering human beings as selfish creatures, the utilitarianism objects selfishness by judging actions based of their consequences and the way it affects the majority of the people. This principle supports the idea that an action will be right only if it is has positive consequences on the majority of the people in a group setting. Works Cited Bendle, Mervyn F. "On Liberty." Quadrant Magazine 53.12 (2009): 36-43. Literary Reference Center Plus. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. Pojman, Louis P., and Peter Tramel, eds. Moral Philosophy: A Reader. Hackett Publishing, 2009. Rolf, Sibylle. "Humanity As An Object Of Respect: Immanuel Kants Anthropological Approach And The Foundation For Morality." Heythrop Journal 53.4 (2012): 594-605. Academic Search Premier. Web. 25 Mar. 2014. Wolf, Susan. Moral Saints. The Journal of Philosophy, 79(8), 1982. 419-439. Read More