Virtue Theory Essay

Virtue Theory Essay

Aristotle studied and explained an array of subjects starting from science to politics which is widely recognized as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. One among his most crucial contributions for the study of humanities is his pursuit and meaning of moral virtue. In his book, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains distinct views about the nature of lifestyle in order to permit the reader to look for what the key function of life is and how to successfully conduct that function. For example , Aristotle states in his first book, in article one, “every art every investigation, and similarly every action and pursuit is recognized as to aim at some good. ” Hence, Aristotle defines the “good” while that which all things should aim. However , what separates individuals from other “things” is the fact that humans seek out the good to be able to achieve eudemonia, or pleasure. In order to achieve this result, a human must work well, and might therefore be acting with rational activity. So , if the person performs the function of logical activity well, they have served with meaningful reasoning, operating virtuously to accomplish eudemonia. In summary, Aristotle feels the good, or virtue, is at a human’s self-interest as a result of results that produces. Yet , I highly believe that, to classical philosophers, achieving virtue was a wider concept that its modern connotation advises. It is typically known that particular theories may very well be obsolete over time if certainly not restated within a modern day circumstance, because while society advances, there is a dependence on theories and ideas to allow for and generate room pertaining to such changes in order to preserve their relevance So , in order to adapt Aristotle’s theory of the good, also known as Aristotle’s virtue theory, in to modern day lifestyle, different advocates and philosophers became thinking about reevaluating the idea and adding to it in order to achieve a good and new theory for humans to consider. I wish to discuss the most famous theories recreated from Aristotle’s virtue theory to provide evidence that there is, actually a need to modernize and restate his original idea, there is not a need to disregard it or perhaps substantially help to increase it. In my opinion that his theory need to simply be shown through a modern outlook to become used being a guideline about how humans should act instead of a arranged group of guidelines that could possible contradict one another. There are many different theories to consider when looking for the best adaptation of Aristotle’s virtue theory, they range between supplementary views to non-supplementary and non-criterialists. For example , Supplementalists such as James Rachels rely on supplementing Aristotle’s theory with the good with an independent theory of right action. While, non-Supplementalists could be further split into criterialists just like Rosalind Hursthouse, who feels that delight can be goal, and non-criterialists such as Julia Annas, whom believes that virtue theory does not need virtually any criteria of right action because a truly virtuous person would never get into a situation in which a criteria of right action would be necessary. These theories differ upon core concepts and ways of adaptation, some even disagree with parts of Aristotle’s theory; nevertheless , they all have some form of arrangement with respect to Aristotle’s theory with the good and is used to boost it due to the adaptation into modern day context. After my evaluations of each and every philosopher’s view points, I have found the most sensible and least contradicting theory in Julia Annas’ article, “Being Desired and Carrying out the Right Factor. ” Her essay delves into not simply the original notion of Aristotle’s advantage theory, nevertheless also talks about the consequences of abiding simply by those rules in present day. Her theory allows Aristotle’s theory to keep intact, nevertheless she refreshes it for the modern meaning it needed to be more commonly acknowledged by today’s society. Nevertheless , when looking at the other popular views, David Rachels’ gives a detailed argument vouching pertaining to his supplementalist view stage on the theory of the good at his article “The Ethics of Virtue. ” In his opinion, Aristotle’s theory shows an excellent inspiration for meaning action and provides us a much better perspective of your decisions by simply enabling a different method of evaluating our actions. Yet, this individual also claims that through Aristotle’s theory alone, there is no basis for individuals to feel that characteristics will be virtues instead of vices. For instance , courage is actually a vice since there is no basis for asserting that valor is a virtue. Second, he adds “it is hard to see how unsupplemented virtue theory could deal with cases of moral conflict” (Rachels 2). For example , honesty may conflict with kindness if the certain circumstances presents itself. According to Rachels, a strictly virtue-based morality must always become incomplete, because it could not independently explain why certain persona traits aren't morally great and therefore, humans could by no means decipher if they are truly performing virtuously and experiencing eudemonia. In order to make this sort of a distinction between what is and is not morally great, he proves that a combined approach, supplementing Aristotle’s theory with persistent theory of right action, such as Kantianism or Utilitarianism, will allow for an adequate moral idea in modern-day. However , there could be problems with supplements because ethical theories, including Kantianism for instance , suffer from the same problem of deciphering the conflict of virtues. Rachels evaluates a directory of virtues just like benevolence, calmness, fairness, proper rights and so on, explaining them as traits of character that ought to be fostered in human beings. In that way, he conveys to the audience the need for persistent theory of right action such as Kantianism to help identify whether or not it is just a virtue or perhaps vice. However , he would not go into detail of the challenges such 3rd party theories of right actions can run into. Say Rachels wants to health supplement the virtue theory with kantianism, and a person posses the virtue of honesty, yet , if that person were to be conflicted by Nazis asking wherever hidden political refugees are, that individual would have to inform the truth mainly because that is what the “categorical imperative” deems. Therefore , supplementing the virtue theory proves unneeded and contradicting when aiming to maintain making use of the virtue theory in current day. Next, I chose to evaluate a theory opposing the supplementalist perspective such as the non-supplementalist view that Rosalind Hursthouse agrees with in her composition “Virtue Theory and Child killingilligal baby killing. ” Nevertheless , she also provides a criterialist view point in that “an action is correct, if in support of if, it is what the virtuous agent could do inside the circumstance” (Hursthouse 225). In her daily news, she mostly uses the example of child killingilligal baby killing to demonstrate her criticism in the virtue theory and talk about what is would have to be applied to the theory for it to market the correct positive answer in modern situations. She states that “virtue theory can’t get us anywhere in real moral issues because it’s bound to always be all affirmation and no debate. (Hursthouse 226), ” consequently , she address the need for obvious, virtuous guidance about what should and really need not to performed when a person is caught in a conflicting decision of virtues. In her example of a woman’s decision of whether or not or to never have an abortion, she focuses on the necessity of that guidance. Yet , in the analysis of Hursthouse’s paper, the girl states eight separate criticisms of advantage theory, displaying what the girl believes to become an inadequate grasp either of the framework of advantage theory or what can be involved in considering a real meaningful issue in the terms. She clearly makes the point that Aristotle’s theory of the great does not allow for a blatant answer in circumstances where a person can either simply do incorrect or deal with the decision of acting for the good of human kind or perhaps for their own self interest. But , what she will not grasp is the simple fact a virtuous person would never take such scenarios to begin with, since Julia Annas later states. Hursthouse’s sort of abortion becomes invalid with the realization that a virtuous person would not include irresponsible sexual to property herself in times of whether or not to come with an abortion. Your woman mostly disagrees with Aristotle’s overall principle; therefore , her need to recreate it towards a more understandable method is diluted and consumed simply by her overall goal of asserting the necessity of a desired guidance for all those stuck in unvirtuous situations. Julia Annas further address the contradictions Hursthouse makes in her essay “Being Virtuous and Doing the proper Things, ” in that your woman does not the actual criterialist opinion that Hursthouse believes is essential to make the positive decision. Mentioned previously before, the girl uses the main contradiction the circumstances high is no proper answer a virtuous person wouldn’t be in to begin with. Likewise, she believes that “we are not bare slates; we all already have a strong views regarding right and wrong strategies to act, worthy and unworthy ways to become (Annas 66), ” and we become knowledgeable of precisely what is right and wrong through a developmental procedure, not through some technological method of comprehending right from incorrect. She is convinced that you become good at being virtuous the same way you become good at everything else, for instance , in order do well at playing the keyboard, you must practice. Her assertions help connect Aristotle’s virtue theory to the people confused about the right way to apply it in everyday life. She actually is providing the excuse of instinct and development for the vagueness of his original theory in order to make it more practical and attainable for those attempting to act with virtue. General, Annas shows her watch deliberately and assertively throughout her newspaper. It becomes noticeable that becoming a virtuous person requires a developing process very much like other activities in life. As well, through defying other hypotheses, such as Hursthouse’s, she displays how simple making a virtuous decision can be, instead of making this sort of a decision seem unachievable and complicated in modern framework. I agree with her affirmation that it is incorrect to “force our day-to-day moral thoughts into a system of one-size-fits most kind, virtue ethics tells us to look elsewhere by what happens when we try to become a builder or perhaps pianist (Annas 73), ” because I really believe that is the way i came to learn what was morally good, and exactly how I am still learning what is right or wrong in today’s society. She revives Aristotle’s virtue theory for current day by permitting its first vagueness to stay intact and never trying to spin the theory’s initial circumstance, while at the same time explaining it since more of a guideline for individuals to live simply by and a way to improve practical judgment in everyday life. To conclude, Annas’ non-supplementalist, non-criterialist prospect on Aristotle’s virtue theory provokes thought and concern, but also relates to a reader, since if looked over closely, the virtuous developing process could be easily familiar in any reader’s childhood. Also, her deductive methods of exposing the problems consist of theories help the reader to understand her theory easier. Annas leaves you stating “When it comes to trying to find the right thing to do, we are unable to shift the job to a theory, because we, unlike hypotheses, are always learning, and so we could always learning and aspiring to do better (Annas 74). ” Overall, Annas offers the best edition to Aristotle’s theory of the good and supplies a positive perspective on the techniques of becoming desired without constraining the reader to trust that there is precise and strategic steps a runner must make in order to gain eudemonia. Her revision permits Aristotle’s concept to live upon into modern day, and thus supplies a well-rounded and current guideline to the betterment of today’s society. Functions Cited Annas, Julia. “Being Virtuous and Doing the proper Thing. ” Proceedings and Addresses in the American Philosophical Association (2004): 61-75. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. 325 B. C. Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Theory and Illigal baby killing. ” Beliefs and Open public Affairs twenty. 3 (1991): 223-246. Rachel, James. “The Ethics of Virtue. ” 1996. Norman R. Shultz. November 2010 .

Related Essays