In Aristotle’s student’s lecture notes compiled, “Virtue and Character”, he aims to give his interpretation of virtue and character. Aristotle also focuses on the idea that everything aims for an end (teleology) or a feeling of completeness. His theory of how to become a better person lacks procedure, which is why it fails. Virtue ethics aims to tell us how we ought to be. Although it is nice to tell us how we ought to be, it does not tell us what we ought to do (as consequentialism and deontology do), leaving it problematic because it is not action-guided.
Teleology is the philosophical attempt to study a phenomenon by the goal it has. Aristotle believes that everything has a purpose or “endiest” end. Also, for something to be virtuous, one with …show more content…
Simplified, the focus is to independently characterize what is good from what is right. This means that the action is determined by the consequences that follow, unlike Aristotle’s sole focus on getting it “right” or eudaimonia being unidentified until a human function is identified. This theory argues with Aristotle’s Virtue ethics because an action is right, if and only if, it maximizes good consequences amongst the action. To elaborate on this, there is a dilemma of the runaway train charging towards two groups of individuals, on the left there are a group of 5 people and on the right, there is one person. It is up to you to determine who gets saved from the train by pulling a lever. So, what do you do, listen to the theory of virtue ethics, and do what gets you to the endiest end of saving them, or perhaps wait for your mysterious exemplar to determine what is virtuous enough. No, there is no time for that because either way you would be unaware on WHAT to do. Instead you can turn to consequentialism with the provision of principle of right conduct to value the importance of who to
Teleology is the philosophical attempt to study a phenomenon by the goal it has. Aristotle believes that everything has a purpose or “endiest” end. Also, for something to be virtuous, one with …show more content…
Simplified, the focus is to independently characterize what is good from what is right. This means that the action is determined by the consequences that follow, unlike Aristotle’s sole focus on getting it “right” or eudaimonia being unidentified until a human function is identified. This theory argues with Aristotle’s Virtue ethics because an action is right, if and only if, it maximizes good consequences amongst the action. To elaborate on this, there is a dilemma of the runaway train charging towards two groups of individuals, on the left there are a group of 5 people and on the right, there is one person. It is up to you to determine who gets saved from the train by pulling a lever. So, what do you do, listen to the theory of virtue ethics, and do what gets you to the endiest end of saving them, or perhaps wait for your mysterious exemplar to determine what is virtuous enough. No, there is no time for that because either way you would be unaware on WHAT to do. Instead you can turn to consequentialism with the provision of principle of right conduct to value the importance of who to