The Perception of Character and the Dangers of Trust - Research Paper Example

The Perception of Character and the Dangers of Trust The theory of virtue ethics is concerned with the character of a person over the actions that are taken by that person. While it is true that what a person does can reflect the ethical considerations that form the personal code of an individual, the theory of virtue ethics suggests that character and action are not necessarily connected. If one has a virtuous character, it is likely that actions that are taken can be trusted and will therefore be virtuous. This would mean that an action taken is defined as virtuous, not by its moral implication, but by the person who has committed the action. There are many instances in history where acts that might seem immoral were committed by moral individuals, thus redefining them as moral obligations to a higher cause. These incidents are specifically defined by the person who committed them over the nature of the actions themselves. Darwall suggests that is possible that there are a universally accepted set of moral laws through which a person is then obligated to respond (1). However, the problem with the simplicity of this assertion is that the morals and ethics of a culture will change the defining characteristics of a person. One who lived in ancient Rome, for instance, will have different point of view on the value of all human life than will someone who lives in contemporary society. Morality and ethics are relative to place and time, despite the idea that they are defined by a general human experience. As an example, Thomas Jefferson owned 200 slaves at one point thinking they were a valuable investment (Douglas 61). In our current time period it is considered morally reprehensible to consider owning another human being. However, despite this fact, Thomas Jefferson is seen in history as a moral man. This in no way negates the validity of the theory. It does, however, change the way in which the theory can be approached when examining the considerations that are relevant to the theory. In the example of Thomas Jefferson, he once declared in court while representing a young African American man who was seeking his freedom that “Under the law of nature, all men are born free, and every one comes into the world with the right to his own person, which includes the liberty moving it and using it as his own will” (Douglas 61). Despite his beliefs, he owned slaves. According to Douglas many of the young revolutionaries of the time both believed in the innate freedom of all men and participated in owning slaves (61). This is similar to the way in which in current society one may have a very ’green’ outlook on conservationism, but will still use gasoline and electricity. The moral and ethical values may not be feasible to be completely reflected through actions because of the structure of society. Aristotle discusses the concepts of morals and ethics at length. He divides ideals into concepts of being noble or base, noble ideals having virtue while base ideals have no virtue. Darwall states that “character (is) concerned with choices that are themselves guided by a human ideal of excellence” (2). Therefore, a person’s character is defined by choices that are made about how virtue is defined as it is compared to social norms. This can make for a widely diverse perception of who is virtuous and who is not virtuous. The foundation of virtue is the imbued concept of trust. Trust is given to the person who is virtuous that any decision that they make is made on the premise that it is for the best. However, this is defined by the needs and distinctions of the society within which those decisions are made. According to Devettere, Aristotle believed that “we have both rational and non-rational desires, and that the task of ethics is to shape and manage the non-rational desires as well as to eradicate ignorant and false beliefs” (20). The concept is that in order to attain the ideal set of virtues, one must be able to eliminate false ideas that will shape thought in ways that is contradictory to the ultimate sense of right. Examples of this type of reshaping of thought would be to eliminate prejudicial concepts in order to fully understand that the human race may be defined by ethnic markers that are geographically relevant, but that superficial looks do not create separations between people. In other words, skin color is irrelevant to any other judgment that can be made about a person. This is, of course, a choice about what is ethical thought and what isn’t ethical thought. Pomerleau mentions that Aristotle believed that extremes of either excesses or deficiencies would affect the moral character of a person (40). If one is impoverished then the morality of certain actions would change because of the circumstances. If one was facing death from starvation, for example, the morality of theft of food may change in order to prevent death. This type of change in morality may seem ambiguous and find many different points of view. However, what if the impending death was that of a child and the only way to thwart those consequences was to steal a loaf of bread? The ambiguity is now changed and a stronger point of view would most likely rise to the surface during a survey of opinions. In order for an accurate measure to be made, an understanding that theft was the only method of getting food and no other method of acquiring food would be available. The point is, extremes will define what is moral, thus avoiding extremes allows for a better opportunity to make moral choices on how what is virtuous. A better example would be to use the example of torture as it has been opened as an avenue by the United States towards gathering intelligence on potential terrorist targets and objectives. During the years before the events on September 11, 2001 it would be hard to find a single person in the United States who would openly sanction the use of torture against an enemy. However, the moral code changed for some because of the effects of the experience of seeing the nation attacked in such a direct manner as was done through the hi-jacking of planes and running them into national monuments (White 87). This opened the door for those who were inclined to implement some policies that would have been taboo previous to those events. Once again, both sides of this issue can declare virtue. Those who support torture techniques for terrorism can claim they are acting in the higher good to protect citizens. Those who are against the use of torture can declare so on global humanitarianism. Siding on either side of this debate cannot diminish the concept of virtue within the character of the individual who has picked a side. Therefore, what matters is who a person decides to declare as virtuous and how actions are then supported. Virtue is a series of decisions that are made in regard to what an individual deems as important and worthy of consideration as a higher level of nobility. One can look at the individual who believes they must sacrifice the personal dignity and safety of one individual for the good of an entire nation as noble. Americans did it every week when they watched Jack Bauer from the television program 24 make decisions for national security reasons that flew in the face of what most would consider righteous. However, what happens when the sacrifice must be ten, or twenty, or an entire nation of people. The concept that can be appreciated through the example of the television program 24 is that the exception that is made in what is moral is made by a person who is considered virtuous. Therefore, the virtue of Jack Bauer allows him the support for decisions that would otherwise be considered immoral, but under the specific circumstances he is given the trust to make that exception for the greater good. This is the essence of virtue ethics. The decisions and actions of those we deem as ethical are held as sacrosanct simply because of who makes the decision to act. The trust that has been put into an individual is made absolute by the absolutism with which that person has proven their sense of virtue. Obviously, this has dangers. Many very terrible acts have been committed by leaders who were given this kind of trust by their people. This type of trust has also been abused by those who are followers of ideals because they believed that extreme action in the support of their ’noble’ cause was deemed righteous. Followers of Christianity have at one time or another declared war on Arab nations and women. The Crusades and the trials of the Inquisition were committed by those who had developed a morally righteous code which they believed gave them a sense of virtue, thus justified actions that they took. The act of giving blind trust to those who are perceived as virtuous can be a dangerous prospect. Virtue ethics is designed with the idea that the morals and ethics that are adapted by a person will define their character and guide the way in which decisions and actions will be made. This theory defines the actions of human beings by either rational thought or non-rational thought that has been treated and redefined with reason. In examining the virtue of those one knows, of leaders who will lead, or of authorities that have power, the act of turning over trust is made as defined by a judgment that is made on the virtues and character of those who would be trusted. Virtue and character are defined by the perceptions that exist on what is noble and what is base within society. Therefore, those who are trusted and represent those virtues are given the leave to act. The danger in judging the person rather than their actions is that the actions may be seen as necessary despite their negative moral or ethical nature. Giving over blind trust based on the perception of good moral character can lead one into an abyss where moral ambiguity opens the door for immoral behavior to be excused. Works Cited Darwall, Stephen L. Virtue Ethics. Blackwell readings in philosophy, 10. Malden, MA [u.a.: Blackwell, 2003. Print. Devettere, Raymond J. Introduction to Virtue Ethics: Insights of the Ancient Greeks. Washington, D.C: Georgetown Univ. Press, 2002. Print. Douglas, Carlyle C. “The Dilemma of Thomas Jefferson.” Ebony Magazine. August 1975: 60-66. Print. Pomerleau, Wayne P. Twelve Great Philosophers: A Historical Introduction to Human Nature. New York: Ardsley House Publishers, 1997. Print. White, James E. Contemporary Moral Problems: War, Terrorism, and Torture. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2009. Print. Read More