philosophy essay

Discussing virtue ethics, I will argue that virtue ethics does not show the aspect of someone’s being right in a certain action. This essay will discuss whether virtue ethics show the aspect of what it takes someone to be morally right. The article will make use of Aristotle’s book the human good to discuss virtue ethics that in modern scenario.

According to Aristotle, a virtue is the middle range between two extremes of deficiency and excess, he value the highest human good as a fundamental principle that resides in happiness. The main reason for this is that he believed that the goal of a human being is to be happy and live a happy and moral life thus a person has to have a virtuous character in him or her. Happiness comes from the aspect of self-sufficiency which when isolated will make life better in many aspect and also one lacks nothing and this is what happiness comes in. Thus, happiness is something final and self-sufficient, and also it is the end of an action. However, when one notes that happiness is great is not right but a clear account of what it is still desired by a man. As a result, according to Aristotle, if one states the purpose of a man to be a definite kind of life and this to be an act of the soul which in this case implies a rational principle and also the functions of an excellent man to be useful and do noble performance in accordance to the appropriate virtue. Then, a right which is exhibited in a human being is seen to an activity of soul exhibition virtue. Comment by Yuelin Zou: compare Good in itself vs Instrumental good Then give some example

Aristotle continues to note that happiness can be acquired through learning or by habituation or even through some training. Furthermore, through divine providence or by chance. Thus this shows that virtues can be obtained through all these ways leading to two kinds of virtues namely intellectual and moral values. Comment by Yuelin Zou: For example, on how to learn those good traits, according to Aristotle(courageous tempernace ) from daily actitivetis

Intellectual virtues owe its foundation and development to teaching; thus it necessitates experience and time. On the other hand, good virtue is acquired as a result of habit. Therefore, according to Aristotle, none of the virtues arise in a human being by nature because nothing which exists in nature can form a pattern which is contrary to its environment. For example, a stone which naturally moves downwards because of gravity cannot be habituated to move upwards not even when one trains to throw it so many times. Also, fire cannot be adapted to move downwards nor can anything else in nature behave contrary to how it does in life. Thus, it is evident that virtues arise in human beings rather than being adapted by environment to acquire them and they are usually made flawless by routine.

Furthermore, of all things that come to human beings by nature, we as human beings first of all get the potentiality and we are able to show the action for it was not by regularly seeing or hearing that we got that sense. However, on the opposition, we as human beings had the virtues even before we used them and thus, us human beings, we did not come to have them by using them . However, the virtues that we get by exercising them for example men become players by playing the lyre. It is therefore for the same cause and same means that every virtue is usually produced and destroyed. Similar to every art because for example, through playing the lyre, both bad and good lyre players are generally provided.

A common objection against Aristotle's virtue theory is that it does not provide adequate guidance and universal standard for our actions. Utilitarianism and Kantianism, on the other hand, the goes can give a clear answer as to whether a given action is morally permissible but virtue ethics cannot do so. The main reason for this is that Aristotle believed that virtues are important than doing one's duty or even acting in a way that leads to good consequences thus virtue ethics is both an antithesis to both utilitarian and Kantian ethics. The reason behind this is that utilization ethics offer a straight forward way of deciding what is morally right. Furthermore, under this ethics one has to first come up with the different forms of action that can be performed. However, Kantian ethics is very different from utilization because it states that a person is terrible or right depending on the activity they do and not on the goodness of the consequences of the actions. Also, Kant points out that what urges one to do the moral act is what has good work. Whereas utilitarian notes that the greatest consequences for the most significant number of people are the best. Therefore, this is a fair objection. For example, if a person given a lot of money and decides to give a big chunk of the money to the church. The people of her community will think she is a great person for helping the church. For Kant, this actions of the person can be interpreted as a person who would not be moral because she did not think about the good of the act done, but she is only thinking about how the money will benefit others. On the other hand, utilitarianism would interpret the action as being right because according to Kant, a person is good or even bad depending on the work they do. Therefore, this action of helping the church is seen as the right action.

In conclusion, my position on this issue of virtue ethics is that I support Aristotle's theory about virtue theirs. For me, moral standard could be ambiguous, yet I still enjoy the moment of happiness. The main reason for this is that according to Aristotle, a virtuous person is a person who will act kindly and well in very many different situations in the life of that person because it is the character of him or her. Furthermore, this does not have to do with gaining favors or notability. However, according to Kantian and utilitarian theories, virtue ethics don't claim that universal principle in all kinds of ethical situations. Comment by Yuelin Zou: explain more