Philosophy Ethical Theory - Coursework Example

ETHICAL THEORY In studying normative ethics, virtue ethics explain the role of an individual’s character as well as the virtues that the character of a person embodies as necessary in determination of an ethical behavior. For instance, in considering lying, a virtue ethicist decides on whether or not to lie based on what such an act would imply on own character or moral behavior. In often times, virtue ethics would be interpreted as being in conflict with deontology as well as consequentialism (Slote, 1992). However, a point of difference is to be noted in that while the two revolves around the action(s) a person should take when presented with a given scenario, virtue ethicist have it that developing desirable virtues would always aid while making morally upright decisions when such times arise. Virtue ethics are therefore better understood from the point of ‘normative’ ethical philosophies whose emphasis is on being as against doing. It does not rely on a person’s actions but rather on morality that stems from individual identity and or character. However, an argument would be raised on what particular virtues would be moral and hence be advocated for among people. This paper would nevertheless note that in virtual ethics, the interpretation and understanding of morality is from intrinsic virtues. Philosophers like Aristotle would argue that virtues are safeguards of intercalations of humans and as such, the lack of such frustrates the pursuit of happiness. In virtue-ethical theories, philosophy seeks to define right action in terms of the choices of a virtuous agent (implying a person who exhibits the virtues). This therefore explains the main aim of this paper as being an evaluation and analysis of the discipline of morality and ethics through the focus on virtues. Introduction Morality and the ethical/accepted code of behaviors has been a characteristic feature of all human society ever since the enlightenment of human species. However, acknowledging the acceptable form of behavior and morality have been subject to controversies and discussions as different schools of thought advances own opinions regarding what morality should be and how human subjects should behave and interpret one another’s actions. Among other widely studied schools of thought is the virtue ethics. Historical perspective shows the possibility of the school of thought as having originated from ancient Greek and the philosophy of the four main virtues; justice, wisdom, temperance as well as fortitude. Despite such a wide understanding of the virtues and ethics, critics of the philosophy that it is difficult to establish the nature in virtues as differences in races, cultures as well as societies subscribe to various opinions on what exactly constitutes virtues. The effects of changing times in history has equally had its influence in understanding the philosophical background of virtue ethics as shown by the unanimity in understanding virtues from the traditional society and the divergent views on what constitutes virtues as seen from the modern societies. For instance, unlike the traditional religion view of a virtuous woman as being quiet, industrious as well as servile, the changing times have defied such and virtue has become a broader subject today. Discussion The principles studied in virtue ethics revolve around what actually defines and makes a character trait of a person such as bravely or greedy virtuous (Slote, 1992). This would be defined in often times by what people strive to become and not on what people strive to do at any one time. In another dimension, virtue ethics triggers the behavior of persons to conform to a certain predefined behavior set such as by virtuous heroes and saints and hence strive to understand what exactly ‘characterized’ them as virtuous. For instance, while the courageous act is what is most praised, courage is not inherently an act in itself but must be analyzed together with the person doing the act. Ethical knowledge is much of a practical science, as one would only have the right understanding with practices as against the theoretical kind of knowledge. According to Aristotle, a virtue is defined as a trait that is inherently responsible in making a person act or function well as human beings ought to. It is therefore not a feeling as when a person feels brave but acts otherwise would not be seen as virtuous. It is also viewed as not being a natural inclination as a person would not be said to be virtuous just for the reason that he/she is born by a virtuous person (Slote, 1992). Besides, the act of being virtuous is not defined by an occasion and this implies that when a person acts bravely of generously in an occasion does not out rightly qualify the person as a virtuous person. Accordingly, Aristotle reasons that ‘virtue’ is a disposition which is learnt and enables a person to reason and act in a psrticular manner, which qualifies for morality. For instance, a friendly person is not just a person who acts friendly only once but rather frequently. However, Aristotle also points towards a certain defining feature as that of neutrality or mean where, the extremes of anything becomes unethical and falls short of a virtue. For example, being brave falls between being a coward and the extreme of being brave where a person takes uninformed and unnecessary risks. Virtue is therefore dependent on such a consideration of non-extremist. In being generous, the virtue is evaluated based on the extreme of being wasteful and or miser and such, understanding it requires learning and practicing. However, critical analysis of the argument reveals some shortcomings in that the mean or average disposition is subjective and hence such classification would be biased on personal opinion and views. In fact, this argument shows that defining ethics and morals from Aristotle’s point of view places ‘virtue’ in the outside domain in that a person has little to influence how others interpret his/her act of virtue and ethics (Slote, 1992). Besides, another object lies in the fact that the theory fails to acknowledge the morality of an action taken by a person but only on the inherent character exhibited by a person as used to define a ‘good’ person. For instance, while people would condemn murder in moral regards, the school of thought may opt to view the act of murder as lacking such virtues as mercy, compassion as well as compassion. The deontological principles on the other hand assume that behavior is inherently wrong or right and that other people has the absolute right to determine naturally how ethical the acts of a person are (Shanahan &Hyman, 2003). Further, teleological principles determine the ethicality through analysis of actions and decisions based on expectations in punishment and or rewards. It is however inherent that virtuous people tend to act virtuously in pursuit of rightfulness as well as being true to themselves. The actions are therefore shown to emanate from cultivated good character and habits, which thus shows a lifelong continued learning process. In an analysis, Murphy dictates that virtues are characteristic to merely all fields in life and in business world; he identifies various core virtues that influence operations and especially marketing. These include integrity, fairness, trust, respect as well as empathy (Shanahan &Hyman, 2003). The contemporary moral discord has increasingly been embracing the virtues of ethical behavior, as admirable behaviors are desirable as against adhering to stringent and rigid rules as have been advocated for in the society. The main advantage in focusing the social set-up from the point of virtues is that ethics of virtue fail to focus of the principles of rules and laws and on the contrary takes position with the agents’ moral disposition. Being virtuous as per the principle therefore emanates from inner traits, motives as well as dispositions and this explains the interest with many of modern moral theorists (Huang, 2010). In order to understand the development of virtue ethics, it is central to work out a criterion of understanding the morally right actions as advocated by virtual ethicists. Whenever a person is aware that any action does not attract any blame after doing and or failure of doing it presents the foundation of setting criteria of morally right action. In weaker point of discussion, moral rightness may be viewed from the point that the action has nothing at all to be deplorable and that moral rightness acts to recommend the action (Hacker-Wright, 2010). Philosophers who advocate for moral theories strife towards guiding agents in moral deliberation and judgment as pertain to morality in actions. Moral agents act and decide how to act after assessing the status in that moral judgment as well as deliberations. For instance, Cox (2012) argue that the most appropriate scale in determining the morality of actions is lining up a range of activities according to virtues and acceptability and settle on the highest according to the ranking. The judgment of the prospective of moral rightfulness of an action lies on the individual good sense in moral status. Moral deliberation evokes particular virtues such as generosity, which are judged on rightfulness of an action as perceived by other people. Virtue ethics would be contrasted with the theory of utilitarianism, which holds that rational people would exploit any behavior that produces higher happiness or utility and reduces suffering (Slote, 1992). John Stuart mill as well as Jeremy Bentham have been cited as the main contributors to the classical utilitarianism theory and the morality of the theorem is understood with the outcome of an action where the greatest happiness and to the majority of the people determines the wrong or rightness of an act. The theory is therefore a complete contrast of the deontological theory of ethics, which does not appreciate the outcome of an act to determine the virtue in the same. Besides, Mill and Bentham would interpret the application of the ethics of utilitarianism in political field through advocating for democracy where higher happiness for the majority in governance would only be realized through democratic structure of governance. This therefore has a direct implication in determining morality of actions and as such, the most moral acts has the virtue of producing happiness to the majority of the people. Various persons have contributed towards the philosophy of morality and ethics as being an accepted code of behaving by people. Bentham is remembered on his account towards moral philosophy where according to his argument; ethics and morality would be understood through principles of greatest happiness or utility that a person would derive from an act. His position was therefore on morality that would be confirmed through the capacity of an action to produce the greatest happiness (which is interpreted through pleasure and or absence of pain. Accordingly, the principle justifies every act that would be interpreted to result to higher pleasure for the majority as against the pain it causes. In other words, morality would have an act being embraced if at all it results to pleasure to persons and be discarded if the outcome is pain and suffering to people. Utilitarianism holds that the tool to be used in ‘measuring’ the morality of an action is considering the proportion of people who are made happy by the action as against those people who are made unhappy (Slote, 1992). It therefore holds that the most moral act should produce happiness to the majority while an immoral act produces suffering to the majority of the people. Public interest and happiness to the majority overrides personal interests in any act committed according to utilitarianism. According to Lyons (2006), moral judgment is a prerequisite in determining happiness and the judgment is based on pleasure and or pain. This therefore compares with deliberation and judgment as are used while determining virtue in ethics. In fact, classical utilitarianism perceives distribution in principle as a direct determinant of maximization of happiness. Objectivity is therefore a major principle that is depended upon while analyzing utilitarianism as it aids in determinitation and assessment of the value of institutions and governance structures institutions, theories as well as laws. The members of the society would therefore determine the appropriateness of such acts and structures of the government in influencing the goodness or otherwise to the subjects. In analyzing practical ethics, Singer raises an argument and it purports that the basis of moral thinking is on utilitarianism and he reasons that some sort of standards guards ethics in life. Nevertheless, the individual must first judge the standards before others judge them. Ethics define acceptable behaviors or acts in the context of a social set-up and as such, the interpretation of ‘ethical’ acts would be contrasted with ‘unethical’ acts, which would only be understood in living without set standards. Critical analysis of this argument however shows flaws in universalizing personal interests while making decisions on virtue ethics (Buckle, 215-217). Utilitarianism understands people in the sense of having ability to feel pain and or pleasure and in its hedonistic nature; it holds that the motivations to an action are less important to the actual outcome in reference to triggering pleasure and or pain to persons (Slote, 1992). Self-gratification is not the main drive to morality in utilitarianism but rather, the good for the majority explains the standards in such determination. Nevertheless, critics of the theory reason that pleasure as well as pain are irrational and as such would not be logically ascertained hence the intrigues in ascertaining morality in actions (Dubuque, para 1-3). In an objection however, mill argued that utilitarianism is not equal to hedonism and that life is not all about pleasure or otherwise pain but there are other attributes that must be brought to account such as virtue and knowledge. While utilitarianism ideology only considers physical pleasures to humans, critiques argue that beyond the physical pleasures are pleasures in the higher faculties, which would equally have a higher count in general pleasure to a person. Moreover, one would reason that differences in human beings would hinder utility comparison, as while one person derives higher utility from an act, it may not be the complete replica with another person. The lack of such an empirical measure or standard of utility points to the main challenge that would be pointed towards understanding utilitarianism as a theory for morality. Overcoming the challenge would however be pointed through application of ethics, which are relatively universally acceptable across the board. This is because while there lacks such a universal measure of utility, ethics are universally accepted as codes of behavior and as such, any act that would not be in line with such accepted behavior line would be defined as immoral (Slote, 1992). Besides, the application of norms and socially defined standards of behavior would lead to the higher pleasure of all. Conclusion In understanding virtue ethics, one takes an insightful analysis of the normative theories as are instrumental in understanding the different perceptions on morality and ethics. Happiness in general context stem from individual acts and the character of the person and thus the lack of ‘good’ character frustrates the happiness of all as deemed necessary in other theories in morality like utilitarianism. Virtue ethics however does not rely on a person’s actions but rather on morality that stems from an individual’s identity and or character. A major challenge that have been developed in the discussion above however is on the standard of measurement and judgment of virtue for ethics as subjectivity and objectivity must come into play for effectiveness in defining and understanding the moral theorem. References Buckle, S. (2011). Assessing peter singers argument for utilitarianism: Drawing a lesson from Rousseau and Kant. Journal of Value Inquiry, 45(2), 215-227. Cox, D. (2012). Judgment, deliberation, and the self-effacement of moral theory. Journal of Value Inquiry, 46(3), 289-302. Dubuque C,(2013) Kantian Ethics vs. Utilitarianism. Retrieved from: http://phi120s13sec5.blogspot.com/2013/02/kantian-ethics-vs-utilitarinism.html Hacker-wright, J. (2010). Virtue ethics without right action: Anscombe, foot, and contemporary virtue ethics. Journal of Value Inquiry, 44(2), 209-224. Huang, Y. (2010). Respecting different ways of life: A daoist ethics of virtue in the zhuangzi. The Journal of Asian Studies, 69(4), 1049-1069. Lyons, D. (2006). Review of Rosen’s classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Utilitas, 18(2), 173-181. Shanahan, K. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2003). The development of a virtue ethics scale. Journal of Business Ethics, 42(2), 197-209. Slote M., (1992). From Morality to Virtue: Virtue ethics. Oxford University Press Read More