This paper will critically assess the virtue ethicist account, arguing for the notion that there is no more to moral action than abiding by certain rules or principles. This conclusion is reached through a consideration of various issues, including the theory’s psychological requirements, it’s inability to provide clear action-guidance, and the cultural and temporal relativity of virtuousness.
Virtue ethicists maintain that an action is morally right if it is what a virtuous person would do in a situation of moral choice. On this account, the primary focus is the moral agent and an evaluation of their character. Eudaimonism, the classical formulation (Aristotle, 2004), holds that the ultimate purpose for human life is eudaimonia (‘flourishing’), …show more content…
Stronger objections are necessary, therefore, to demonstrate that there is no more to moral action than abiding by rules or principles. One such criticism argues that the psychological requirements for the possession of virtue are too high, since Aristotle maintained that the virtuous person not only chooses morally, but that there is no conflict between this and their personal interests. As such, the truly excellent human must control and regulate their emotions, as well as act virtuously (Driver, 2007). What then, for those with chronic mental illnesses, who fundamentally cannot do this? MRI studies have shown us, for example, that dysfunctional brain regions in people with borderline personality disorder prevent them at a biological level from being able to emotionally regulate. It seems counterintuitive and cruel to suggest that these individuals are not capable of possessing virtues at all – they often overcome a tremendous degree of internal conflict to act morally, and it seems unjustified that this warrants no moral credit; or that the existence of the struggle alone prevents them ever achieving virtue. This is a significant criticism of virtue ethics in that it goes further to marginalise and devalue the mentally ill, for whom a fully harmonious individual is an unachievable ideal. A moral theory cannot be correct if it excludes a significant proportion of the …show more content…
A social contract theorist, Hobbes believed that the state was justified if every individual over which it had authority had tacitly consented to be governed. In Leviathan, Hobbes hypothesised the natural condition of mankind, hoping to convince his readers of the benefits of government. He concluded that life in the state of nature would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’, since there would be a ‘warre of everyone against everyone’ in the plight for resources. If individuals are unrestricted in doing whatever will help them survive, it seems reasonable to infer that notions of morality have no application in the state of nature. Indeed, it would compromise their own survival. Implicit in Hobbes account is that morality is a product of law - it is brought into existence through the exercise of political power and through rules restricting our behaviour. If morality only exists through codification, then clearly there is no more to morality than abiding by rules and
Virtue ethicists maintain that an action is morally right if it is what a virtuous person would do in a situation of moral choice. On this account, the primary focus is the moral agent and an evaluation of their character. Eudaimonism, the classical formulation (Aristotle, 2004), holds that the ultimate purpose for human life is eudaimonia (‘flourishing’), …show more content…
Stronger objections are necessary, therefore, to demonstrate that there is no more to moral action than abiding by rules or principles. One such criticism argues that the psychological requirements for the possession of virtue are too high, since Aristotle maintained that the virtuous person not only chooses morally, but that there is no conflict between this and their personal interests. As such, the truly excellent human must control and regulate their emotions, as well as act virtuously (Driver, 2007). What then, for those with chronic mental illnesses, who fundamentally cannot do this? MRI studies have shown us, for example, that dysfunctional brain regions in people with borderline personality disorder prevent them at a biological level from being able to emotionally regulate. It seems counterintuitive and cruel to suggest that these individuals are not capable of possessing virtues at all – they often overcome a tremendous degree of internal conflict to act morally, and it seems unjustified that this warrants no moral credit; or that the existence of the struggle alone prevents them ever achieving virtue. This is a significant criticism of virtue ethics in that it goes further to marginalise and devalue the mentally ill, for whom a fully harmonious individual is an unachievable ideal. A moral theory cannot be correct if it excludes a significant proportion of the …show more content…
A social contract theorist, Hobbes believed that the state was justified if every individual over which it had authority had tacitly consented to be governed. In Leviathan, Hobbes hypothesised the natural condition of mankind, hoping to convince his readers of the benefits of government. He concluded that life in the state of nature would be ‘nasty, brutish and short’, since there would be a ‘warre of everyone against everyone’ in the plight for resources. If individuals are unrestricted in doing whatever will help them survive, it seems reasonable to infer that notions of morality have no application in the state of nature. Indeed, it would compromise their own survival. Implicit in Hobbes account is that morality is a product of law - it is brought into existence through the exercise of political power and through rules restricting our behaviour. If morality only exists through codification, then clearly there is no more to morality than abiding by rules and