Modern Virtue Ethics Essay Example for Free

Modern legality Ethics EssayTo what extent do red-brick virtue ethics address the weaknesses of Aristotles teaching on virtues? (35) Virtue Ethics come acrosss at a soulfulnesss good traits, known as virtues and negative traits, known as vices a person is considered to be a good person if they are virtuous and a morally bad person if they have authentic lots of vices. Deontological and teleological ethicists argue that good or bad behaviour is far more substantial than a persons good or bad characteristics whereas Virtue Theory argues it is only by becoming a better person that we will engage in the right behaviour Virtue Theory looks at the agent in itself and rather than the action. The key concepts of Virtue Ethics were first penned by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle and in more recent times have been adapted and added to by Alasdair MacIntyre. Aristotles theory is made up of many key features, including Moral Virtues, The Doctrine of the Mean, offbeat, and F riendship and the Community.According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose, for example, pens, their purpose is to write, if the pen fulfils its purpose and writes well, it is a good pen. In the equal way, if we equate Eudaimonia to the pen, Eudaimonia is the supreme goal of human life, if a person reaches Eudaimonia, they are a considered a good person as the purpose was to be happy, therefore they have reached their purpose, just as the pen reaches its own. He besides argued that every action comes down to this aim, every human being desires to be as happy as possible.An example of this is to ask a Doctor or a Lawyer why they chose such professions, the bulk would answer that they chose this profession because it pays well and they believed that being paid well would lead to an easier and happy life, or Eudaimonia. Aristotles theory also says that relationships and friendships play a very important role in how we behave as people and how our actions are determined we should al l aim to individually achieve Eudaimonia, which would therefore achieve the sterling(prenominal) good for society as a whole as everyone would be happier Aristotle sees our communal friendships and relationships as a vital cancel of our moral code and flourishing as a virtuous being.As previously mentioned, a good life involves developing a good character and these are known as moral virtues which are cultivated by habit one must practice these good virtues in order to adopt them. Some of the key virtues Aristotle spoke of include modesty, generosity, patience, truthfulness and friendliness. Aristotle also spoke of quick-witted Virtues and Cardinal Virtues. Aristotle believed that we should aim to be virtuous people and avoid vices.Aristotles theory is centered nigh the concept of The Doctrine of the Mean this states that there are two different vices that accompany every virtue- the frailty of Deficiency and the Vice of Excess. The Vice of Deficiency refers to a distinct lack of virtues, whereas the Vice of Excess refers to in like manner much of the virtue being present. For example, modesty, if there is a distinct lack of this virtue, it may result in shamelessness and if there is too much of this virtue, it may result in shyness. Aristotle argued that the Golden (or Virtuous) Mean is the nerve of these to extremes and that is what people should aim to have.Aristotles theory is very logical and encourages people to adopt good characteristics which in an ideal world would result in every individual being as happy as possible however there are many criticisms of this theory. For example, it is somewhat un induce of what is considered a virtue and what is considered a vice and it is also unclear of who is responsible for deciding these as well as this, it could be argued that it is not possible to measure these virtues. It could also be argued that if every individual had exactly the same characteristics, everyone would be the same and the world be bec ome mundane and monotonous. Virtue Ethics also does not provide clear guidelines or rules of how to act in specific circumstances and is vague and subjective.Alasdair Macintyre is a Scottish philosopher, whose writing dates to the twentieth Century CE. He made an attempt to alter Aristotles theory in order to start out it more relative and contexualise the ideas. Macintyre felt that morality had become lax and felt that they had become far hypothetical. He felt that people focused more on how an ethical theory would hold up below uncommon and unrealistic circumstances rather than situations where morality counts. He believed that we should understand the context of ethics in the first place attempting to fix modern moral dilemmas.Macintyres belief in context as the central part to ethical decision making shows us that he is relative in his ideology. He believed that virtues would change everywhere time naturally, for example, bravery for us is a person that confronts a gang of y ouths, throwing rocks at windows, or a police tackling a burglar, however 2000 years ago, bravery was considered as a man dying in battle, for his country. This is an attempt at addressing a weakness of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, as it would encourage the person to look at the time and place before deciding whether the character traits are good or not. It has to be said that what may be considered good in the Congo may not necessarily be considered good in Brixton, London.Finally Macintyre addresses the issue of External and inborn goods. Internal Goods are what he calls, the qualities of a persons character. The External Goods are the things that a person relies on, for example,food or a decent quick arrangement. He states that although these are valuable to the human nature, they can be considered good or bad. However the Internal Goods are the most important. This gives more relativism than Aristotelian Virtue Ethics which can be considered an improvement.In culture I whole tone that Alasdair Macintyre has made a good attempt to improve and change Aristotles form of Virtue Ethics, however we can still see some weaknesses. For example, it is even more relative than Aristotles version and this can lead to ambiguity when facing a moral dilemma. This has not been addressed, in the modern version by Macintyre. It also does not eliminate the idea of universal virtues to achieve Eudaimonia. This is problematic. So, I feel that his attempt must be congratulated but I do not feel that it has been entirely winning as there are still elements which could be improved further.