Post #6 Ethics – Critiques of Virtue Ethics

    Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics was a novel piece for its time, in a way that Aristotle taught how to live the honorable lifestyle which many sought to live. Though it cannot be denied that virtue ethics is a theory with considerable strengths, that is not to say it is without its weaknesses. The three problems that tend to be faced in the theory of virtue ethics are the problem of applied ethics, the problem of tragic humans, and the issue of moral backsliding.

    The first objection to look at is that of applied ethics. This issue arises in that the general moral principle of virtue ethics is that "an action is right if and only if it is an action a fully virtuous person would perform", which sounds appealing and reasonable at first, until it is realized that there is no determined constant in the principle. For example, the vagueness of someone saying that the fully virtuous person would not be cowardly nor rash, but courageous sounds reasonable, but it would feel off to say that the fully virtuous person would or would not support the violation of patient confidentiality rights. This is because there is no well-enough defined notion of virtues which can be applied, as motives of virtues cannot be routinized as Aristotle expects. 

    The next objection of Aristotelian virtue ethics is the issue of tragic humans. This issue is that one cannot best determine the sometimes inevitable and tragic outcomes of human actions, and can best be described in the story of Oedipus. Oedipus was a man who grew up as a virtuous individual, yet inevitably committed the acts of patricide and incest with his mother. According to the story, Oedipus was destined to perform these actions. Oedipus knew of this and ran away from his (unknown to him) adopted family, where he met his biological parents and and performed these actions. However, a virtue ethicist would experience a dilemma in determining the rightness or wrongness of these actions. Oedipus, when performing these actions, did so with virtue and as such should make the actions right, but they are obviously terrible actions to commit. As such, some cases provide tragic outcomes despite being virtuous people.

    The final issue, moral backsliding, is not as important of a concern as the first two objections, but nevertheless should be mentioned. The issue of moral backsliding is that in the long-term pursuit of virtuous character, it might be inevitable that one slips up, and as such minor misdeeds might be excused or ignored. As these minor misdeeds get excused, however, more and more misdeeds might be excused, leading to moral backsliding or regression.

    Aristotelian virtue ethics are a theory of which many ethicists find value, but there are many flaws which puncture the validity of virtue ethics' use, but the theory still holds its value in enforcing the ideas of a moral lifestyle which can help form better theories for the future.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Post #3 Ethics – Utilitarianism

      For the next moral theory we look at in the ethics series, we will now look at utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a very popular and well-known moral theory because it is applied almost every day in our lives. Where other theories such as categorical imperative are used occasionally in our lives, utilitarianism is used the rest of the time when making moral  decisions, almost guaranteed.       Utilitarianism tends to have different offshoots, which we will discern later, but for now we will focus on the same overall idea between every form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, meaning that, alternatively to Kant's categorical imperative, the rightness and wrongness of an action can only be determined by the consequences of that action. Utilitarianism is a combination of three theses: hedonism, maximalism, and universalism. Hedonism is the idea that pleasure is the highest good, and as such is the only thing...
Read more

Post #7 Free Will – Hard Determinism

      One issue that is given just as much light as ethics is the debate of free will. Since the time of the original philosophers, the question has been posited as to whether the actions of man and the universe have been predestined since the original impetus, or if destiny is malleable enough that we control our own individual fates with all events being anything but  certain. The first theory that we will look at is that of hard determinism.     Hard determinism is one of two  incompatibilist theories. I ncompatibilism  is a form of theory in the free will debate which claims that free will and determinism are unable to exist simultaneously, and one is necessarily true while the other must be necessarily false. Hard determinism is the theory which states that determinism must be true and any belief in the existence of free will is false. Hard determinism views reality almost like an endless line of dominoes. One event occurs, necessitating...
Read more

Post #4 Ethics – Criticisms of Utilitarianism

      Utilitarianism is a common moral theory, used by government's and others who oversee a population of people such that their community might thrive. However, in a moral system purposed towards the pleasure of the majority, there are bound to be problems found within the system that need to be acknowledged before ruin.     Robert Nozick is one of the most notable objectors to hedonistic utilitarianism, though more of an opponent to the hedonism part than the utilitarianism part (though it is important to note that Nozick didn't necessarily believe pleasure wasn't of intrinsic value, just that it wasn't the only intrinsically valuable thing). Nozick was the creator of one of the most difficult challenges hedonism faces today: the Experience Machine. In Nozick's Experience Machine, imagine that a machine exists that, when activated, will give the user all the experience they could want, meaning if they want all...
Read more