Virtue Ethics: An Aristotelian Approach

In other words, it goes against the existing traditions, and any established authority or norms: social, religious, political and any moral principles. Nihilistic philosophers deny any basis of objective truth thus, any ground of law to checkmate human actions are condemned. For them there is no rational justification for moral principles, and as such, they do not encourage any form of loyalty to norms. Radical nihilism argues for the conviction of the absolute un-tenability of existence when it comes to the highest value one can recognise; plus the realization that we lack the least right to posit “a beyond, or an in-itself” of things that might be divine or morality

In this essay, I will examine the ethics of virtue. To begin, I will outline the most evident differences between virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism. I will go forth to explain in depth what virtue ethics are according to Aristotle and provide an example of how they may be applied in reality. Part two will look at the perception of virtue ethics over the course of history and ask whether virtue ethics are valuable and complete enough to reintroduced in society today. In part three, I will outline my objection to the theory of the ethics of virtues and its flaws as result of moral luck.

Since the ancient Greeks had no legal system in its modern sense, the justice is exercised not in its normative sense, but in moral sense. Since judging each as he deserved was the main principle of ancient perception of justice, the egalitarian character of the justice is one of the main questions that have to be asked when compare with its contemporary meaning. The concepts such as deserve, merit, talent or division of labor bring justice into a conditional situation. There is no doubt that the justice offered by either Plato or Aristotle, was neither inclusive nor absolute. Similarly when thinking the justice with its relation to equality, they did not

Utilitarianism is a relativistic ethic because each time the outcomes of each ethical questions will be different. Utilitarianism considers the consequences of the action as an assessment of whether an action is morally right or wrong. The beginnings of utilitarianism are often accredited to Jeremy Bentham. Bentham adopted the view of Hedonism which states that the only thing intrinsically good, or right, is pleasure (Nathanson, n.d.). Bentham stated that “nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.

One known proponent of such level is Immanuel Kant, who gave rise to some of the most influential philosophy in Western history. Kant believes that most people know right from wrong; the problem most people have is not in knowing what is morally, but in doing it. Kant also argued that rightness or wrongness of particular acts is determined by rules; these rules could be determined by his principle of universalizability. He also argued reason require not only that moral duties be universal but also absolutely binding. For instance, when lying is the only option to save someone’s life, still we shall not lie for it is morally wrong to lie.

The myth though fails because it does not embody the whole of American society or an accurate account of history. This is prevalent in Washington Irving’s Rip Van Winkle which satirizes America’s need for a myth, having Rip embody negative aspects

Pursuing one 's own happiness at the expense of social happiness would not be moral under this framework. One of Mill 's replies to oppositions about utilitarianism is that the given analysis is not distinctive to utilitarianism, that any ethical theory would have such limitations. What are the strengths and weaknesses of this tactic? Does it really satisfy Mill 's stated objective, to dispel misconceptions about his theory? Might such a reply undermine all ethical

People have been left to believe the theory in which they believe mostly applies: either evolution or creation. This paper will discuss moral individualism versus traditional morality, the view of scholars and scientists on evolution theory and biotechnology versus natural means of procreation. James and Stephen are in a sharp conflict on the issue of value and importance. Stephen argues that the Darwin’s theory does not address issues of value. The Darwin theory does not provide a basis for conclusion of who is important between an animal and a human being.

Will to power and political thought If we are to understand Nietzsche’s important contribution to political thought , we must examine the way he under stands the close link between immorality and idea of human betterment. Nietzsche as is often mentioned mistrusted a tragic worldview because he considered man in a significant ethical struggle usually ending in ruin or profound disappointment. He does not espouse a conventional morality defined by the antimony good/bad, but proposes a way of living ( an ethics) that is intended to better the human condition. However he sees this proposal as a rife with difficulties, making life as such a trial of suffering and pain and does not see an ultimate inevitable redemption for man but rather ultimate failure is more common. The individual is seen as severely limited in capacities and the world as broken or possessing no clear, simple and unified order.

Scientists should address the ensuing ethical values both in general and particular terms. The word, ‘ethics’ coming from the Gk word, ‘ethos, ' means custom or behavior. Since the time of Aristotle, who originally proposed the concept of ethics and ‘ethical theory’ – dealing with the study of human behavior, ethics plays a major role in Western Philosophy when social and individual values are in debate. Today, ‘ethics’ means moral which arises from the Latin word, ‘more, ' meaning custom and behavior likewise. Moralists like Nietzsche, Santayana, and Russell claim ethical values as personal deliberations rather than general perception.