To ask whether an action is right or wrong, and to answer with one of the two simple, banal choices, is to ignore the rich and enlightening internal quandaries that arise when one must consider morals and ethics. In John Steinbeck’s novella Of Mice and Men, dilemmas of these sort present themselves often, particularly when George makes the decision to shoot his companion, Lennie, in order to spare him great pain and suffering. It would be unfair to simply call George’s actions ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, as in order to critically examine them and deem them moral or otherwise one must examine them from unbiased points of view; look at motives and consequences, a process through which Immanuel Kant would esteem George’s actions wrong, John Stuart
…show more content…
It focuses on the person by whom the action is carried out. As per Aristotle’s theory, a petty thief who finds the self control to walk past an Esso station without robbing it is not suddenly a good person because he managed to obey the moral law once. His action, though surely appreciated, is not technically a righteous one. He has built a life around holding up convenience stores and gas stations and he is not redeemed by this singular act. The opposite is also true, and it applies to George. George has spent a large majority of his life building a good character and living by many of Aristotle’s virtues. For example, George is caring. He has taken care of Lennie since “[...] his Aunt Clara died” and is always looking out for him, keeping him out of trouble to the best of his abilities (Steinbeck, ). He is forgiving and kind, consistently giving Lennie second chances and comforting him when he needs it. Above all, George is loving. However the reader interprets it, George loves Lennie, and has for a long time. According to the framework of virtue ethics, George is not a bad or immoral person. George has built good character all his life and has flourished, according to Aristotle, and all his progress could not be discredited because of a single action, one which Aristotle may not even claim is a wrong one. It is easy for one to assume George acted out of love, and it is not irrational to suppose Aristotle may assume the same. Regardless, virtue ethics state that George did not act
It focuses on the person by whom the action is carried out. As per Aristotle’s theory, a petty thief who finds the self control to walk past an Esso station without robbing it is not suddenly a good person because he managed to obey the moral law once. His action, though surely appreciated, is not technically a righteous one. He has built a life around holding up convenience stores and gas stations and he is not redeemed by this singular act. The opposite is also true, and it applies to George. George has spent a large majority of his life building a good character and living by many of Aristotle’s virtues. For example, George is caring. He has taken care of Lennie since “[...] his Aunt Clara died” and is always looking out for him, keeping him out of trouble to the best of his abilities (Steinbeck, ). He is forgiving and kind, consistently giving Lennie second chances and comforting him when he needs it. Above all, George is loving. However the reader interprets it, George loves Lennie, and has for a long time. According to the framework of virtue ethics, George is not a bad or immoral person. George has built good character all his life and has flourished, according to Aristotle, and all his progress could not be discredited because of a single action, one which Aristotle may not even claim is a wrong one. It is easy for one to assume George acted out of love, and it is not irrational to suppose Aristotle may assume the same. Regardless, virtue ethics state that George did not act