Virtue of Ethics by Aristotle

Virtue of Ethics by Aristotle

Introduction

Virtue ethics were the dominant form of ethics in ancient time or until fairly recently. However, with the advancement of time these virtue ethics were forgotten in favor of other morality approaches such as Kantian ethics and Utilitarianism. The scenario, nonetheless, has changed within last few decades. “Modern Moral Philosophy” published by Elizabeth Anscombe in 1958 excoriated Utilitarianism and Kantianism along with recommendation of returning to the Aristotelian moral virtues (Warburton, 2010, pp. N.d). This paper helped revival of virtue ethics due to which the Aristotle's approach towards virtue is considered to be one of the most important forms of modern ethical theories. This paper intends to explain how Aristotle's approach of virtue is an alternative to the moral ethics given by Kant and Mill (utilitarianism).

Thesis Statement

“Unlike Kantian and Utilitarianism Ethics, Virtue ethics of Aristotle focuses upon development of individual's character rather than judging an act being wrong or right.”

Discussion

Utilitarianism

Although, there are different formulations with little differences regarding the approaches given in 18th, 19th, and 20th century, the basic principle of utility is states that: a person or an organization is ought to act only to promote the maximum total expectable utility for the favour of the widest community which might be affected by their actions. It means that Utilitarianism seeks the greatest betterment for the greatest number of people (Haybron, 2007, pp. 1-25).

According to the proponents, utilitarianism expresses the basic sentiment behind the moral point of view i.e. benevolence, in the most accurate and realistic way. They point out that their framework has a flexibility and space for the traditional rules such as against lie, stealing, promise breaking etc.; however they also add that such rules only get their influence when they have the greatest tendency to increase the utility over the long term (Warburton, 2010, pp. N.d).

Like any other theory, this theory also gets both internal and external criticism. For instance, internally, opponents mention much difficulty with the measurement and defin8ition of basic concepts, such as “alternatives”, “utility”, and “results”. They also question if utilitarianism is really practices then whether it would lead to the utmost utility which is its fundamental principle demand (Warburton, 2010, pp. N.d).

External critics focus on the counterintuitive moral implications of utilitarianism. Certain examples are also given, hypothetical or actual, to show that the utilitarianism and people's deepest moral convictions goes in opposite directions. The strongest example involved scenarios where the maximum good for greatest number of people seems dictating the unjust treatment of minority or the innocent victims. On the other hand, replies to such critics often deny the accuracy of these assumptions or try to refine the principles of utility meet the particular objections. Utilitarians reject the rationalist approach to Kant that the universal moral law is written in our reason and as Hume, will rely on an empirical approach based on human experience to define a good act (Haybron, 2007, pp. 1-25).

The utilitarian function is often found ...