If I were a virtue ethicist my actions wouldn’t necessarily be out of decision. Making a decision may lead to an obligation or duty, as a virtue ethicist I have no obligation to perform a good, or just actions. As Aristotle states, “He seeks and choses the mean, not the absolute mean, but the mean considered relevant to ourselves.” Meaning that I’d simply act out of habit and choose the mean between deficiency and excess. An example would be if I were given the opportunity to help someone on a homework assignment. A deficiency to aide would be distraction from the real question, and an excess would be providing the answers and becoming the individual’s crutch. In a sense I suppose it is a decision, but a virtue ethicist would never choose deficiency or excess over the mean.
2. Rachels claims there are three issues that …show more content…
The first being that an ethicist is unable to provide a reason as to why we should be virtuous or why virtue is even a positive value. And when an ethicist attempt to defend his or her belief’s their explanations are suspiciously similar to other theories such as Ethical Egoism, or Utilitarianism, and even the Social Contract Theory, which can almost seem opposite to the belief of an ethicist that actions should not be performed out of duty or obligation of law, but rather that out of character. The second problem is that radical virtue ethics does not explicitly explain why something is virtuous. Because radical virtue ethics do not describe the nature of humans, or what their best interests are it fails to define what characteristics are virtues. The final problem with radical virtue ethics is that in some cases it is incapable of dealing with moral conflict. Rachels uses the example of an
2. Rachels claims there are three issues that …show more content…
The first being that an ethicist is unable to provide a reason as to why we should be virtuous or why virtue is even a positive value. And when an ethicist attempt to defend his or her belief’s their explanations are suspiciously similar to other theories such as Ethical Egoism, or Utilitarianism, and even the Social Contract Theory, which can almost seem opposite to the belief of an ethicist that actions should not be performed out of duty or obligation of law, but rather that out of character. The second problem is that radical virtue ethics does not explicitly explain why something is virtuous. Because radical virtue ethics do not describe the nature of humans, or what their best interests are it fails to define what characteristics are virtues. The final problem with radical virtue ethics is that in some cases it is incapable of dealing with moral conflict. Rachels uses the example of an