Virtue Theory

A Necessary, Modern Revision Aristotle analyze and explained a wide range of subjects ranging from science to politics and is widely recognize as one of the greatest philosophers of all(prenominal) time. One of his most authoritative contributions to the study of humanities is his exploration and definition of moral sexual abstention. In his book, The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains divergent views close to the nature of life in recount to leave alone the subscriber to find what the main(prenominal) function of life is and how to successfully perform that function.For example, Aristotle states in his first book, in article one, every art and every investigation, and too every proceeding and pursuit is considered to aim at some close. Hence, Aristotle defines the good as that which all things should aim. However, what separates man from other things is the fact that humans look to the good in smart set to achieve eudemonia, or happiness. In distinguish to achi eve this result, a human must function well, and would therefore be acting with rational natural action.So, if a person performs the function of rational activity well, they gift acted with moral reasoning, acting sodding(a)ly to achieve eudemonia. In summary, Aristotle believes the good, or merit, is in a humans self-interest because of the results it produces. However, I powerfully believe that, to classical philosophers, achieving lawfulness was a broader plan that its innovative intension suggests.It is commonly kn proclaim that certain theories slew be considered obsolete all over time if non repeatd in a current day context, because as society advances, there is a need for theories and ideas to accommodate and make elbow room for such(prenominal)(prenominal) changes in order to maintain their relevance So, in order to adapt Aristotles speculation of the good, similarly known as Aristotles virtue surmisal, into current day life, different theorists and philosoph ers became interested in reevaluating the opening and adding to it in order to achieve a successful and newer possible action for humans to consider.I want to discuss the most popular theories recreated from Aristotles virtue scheme to prove that there is, in fact, a need to modernize and restate his captain concept, there is non a need to disregard it or substantially add to it. I believe that his scheme must exclusively be presented by dint of a modern mindset to be utilize as a guideline as to how humans should act or else of a set group of rules that could possible contradict each other. on that tailor atomic number 18 many different theories to consider when trying to find the lift out adaptation of Aristotles virtue heory, they range from supplementary views to non-supplementary and non-criterialists. For example, Supplementalists such as pack Rachels believe in supplementing Aristotles possible action of the good with an self-sustaining possible action of ri ght action. Whereas, non-Supplementalists can be march on split into criterialists such as Rosalind Hursthouse, who believes that happiness can be objective, and non-criterialists such as Julia Annas, who believes that virtue theory does not need any criteria of right action because a truly innocuous person would never get into a slip where a criteria of right action would be needed.These theories differ on pith principles and methods of adaptation, some even dis run with parts of Aristotles theory however, they all have some form of agreement with respect to Aristotles theory of the good and can be used to enhance it for its adaptation into modern day context. After my evaluations of each philosophers view points, I have found the most practical and least contradicting theory in Julia Annas essay, be Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing. Her essay delves into not only the original concept of Aristotles virtue theory, but also discusses the consequences of abiding by those guide lines in modern day.Her theory forgos Aristotles theory to remain intact, however she refreshes it to the modern connotation it needed to be to a greater extent commonly accepted by straightaways society. However, when looking at the other popular views, James Rachels provides a detailed argument vouching for his supplementalist view point on the theory of the good in his essay The Ethics of Virtue. In his opinion, Aristotles theory shows an excellent motivation for moral action and gives us a die perspective of our finales by enabling a different method of unhurriedness our action.Yet, he also states that through Aristotles theory alone, there would be no reason for individuals to think that characteristics are virtues rather than vices. For example, braveness could be a vice because there is no basis for asserting that courage is a virtue. Second, he adds it is difficult to see how unsupplemented virtue theory could negociate cases of moral conflict (Rachels 2). For examp le, honesty can conflict with kindness if a certain circumstance presents itself. According o Rachels, a purely virtue-based piety must al styluss be incomplete, since it could not by itself explain why certain character traits are not morally good and therefore, humans could never decipher if they are truly acting virtuously and experiencing eudemonia. In order to make such a distinction between what is and is not morally good, he concludes that a combined approach, supplementing Aristotles theory with an nonparasitic theory of right action, such as Kantianism or Utilitarianism, will allow for an adequate moral philosophy in modern day.However, there can be problems with supplementation because moral theories, such as Kantianism for example, suffer from the kindred problem of deciphering the conflict of virtues. Rachels evaluates a list of virtues such as benevolence, civility, fairness, evaluator and so on, describing them as traits of character that should be fostered in huma n beings. By doing so, he conveys to the reader the need for an independent theory of right action such as Kantianism to help distinguish whether or not it is a virtue or vice. However, he does not go into detail of the problems such independent theories of right action can run into.Say Rachels wants to supplement the virtue theory with kantianism, and a person posses the virtue of honesty, however, if that person were to be conflicted by Nazis asking where hidden refugees are, that person would have to tell the truth because that is what the matte imperative deems. Therefore, supplementing the virtue theory proves unnecessary and contradicting when trying to maintain employ the virtue theory in modern day. Next, I chose to compare a theory opposing the supplementalist view such as the non-supplementalist view that Rosalind Hursthouse agrees with in her essay Virtue Theory and Abortion. However, she also adds a criterialist view point in that an action is right, if and only if, it is what the virtuous agent would do in the circumstance (Hursthouse 225). In her paper, she primarily uses the example of abortion to demonstrate her check of the virtue theory and discuss what is needed to be applied to the theory for it to promote the correct virtuous answer in modern circumstances. She states that virtue theory cant get us anywhere in real moral issues because its bound to be all instruction and no argument Hursthouse 226), therefore, she addresses the need for clear, virtuous guidance about what ought and ought not to be done when a person is stuck in a unconnected decision of virtues. In her example of a womans decision of whether or not to have an abortion, she emphasizes the necessity of that guidance. However, in the evaluation of Hursthouses paper, she states nine separate criticisms of virtue theory, demonstrating what she believes to be an inadequate grasp both of the structure of virtue theory or what would be involved in thinking about a real moral issue in its terms.She clearly makes the point that Aristotles theory of the good does not allow for a blatant answer in circumstances in which a person could either only do wrong or buttock the decision of acting for the good of human kind or for their own self interest. But, what she does not grasp is the simple fact that a virtuous person would never be in such situations to begin with, as Julia Annas later states. Hursthouses example of abortion scrams invalid with the realization that a virtuous person would not have irresponsible sex to nation herself in a situation of whether or not to have an abortion.She in the main disagrees with Aristotles overall concept therefore, her need to recreate it in a more(prenominal) understandable method is diluted and consumed by her overall stopping point of asserting the need of a virtuous guidance for those stuck in unvirtuous situations. Julia Annas further addresses the contradictions Hursthouse makes in her essay Being Virtuous a nd Doing the Right Things, in that she does not follow the criterialist belief that Hursthouse believes is necessary to make the virtuous decision.As stated before, she uses the main contradiction that the circumstances where there is no right answer a virtuous person wouldnt be in to begin with. Also, she believes that we are not blank slates we already have a firm views about right and wrong ways to act, worthy and unworthy ways to be (Annas 66), and we pass away knowledgeable of what is right and wrong through a developmental process, not through some technical method of deciphering right from wrong. She believes that you become good at being virtuous the same way you become good in everything else, for example, in order be good at playing the piano, you must practice.Her statements help relate Aristotles virtue theory to those confused about how to apply it in everyday life. She is providing the excuse of understanding and development for the vagueness of his original theory i n order to make it more practical and achievable for those wanting to act with virtue. Overall, Annas proves her view metricly and assertively throughout her paper. It becomes apparent that befitting a virtuous person requires a developmental process much like other activities in life.Also, through defying other theories, such as Hursthouses, she shows how uncomplicated making a virtuous decision can be, instead of making such a decision seem unachievable and complicated in modern context. I agree with her statement that it is wrong to force our everyday moral thoughts into a dodging of one-size-fits all kind, virtue ethics tells us to look elsewhere at what happens when we try to become a builder or pianist (Annas 73), because I believe that is how I came to learn what was morally good, and how I am clam up learning what is right or wrong in todays society.She revives Aristotles virtue theory for modern day by allowing its original vagueness to remain intact and not trying to r ewrite the theorys initial context, while at the same time describing it as more of a guideline for humans to live by and a way to improve practical judgment in everyday life. In conclusion, Annas non-supplementalist, non-criterialist outlook on Aristotles virtue theory provokes thought and consideration, but also relates to a reader, because if looked at closely, the virtuous developmental process can be easily recognizable in any readers childhood.Also, her uninflected methods of revealing the problems in other theories help the reader to comprehend her theory easier. Annas leaves the reader stating When it comes to modeling to find the right thing to do, we cannot shift the work to a theory, because we, unlike theories, are forever learning, and so we are always learning and aspiring to do better (Annas 74). Overall, Annas provides the best adaptation to Aristotles theory of the good and provides a positive outlook on the methods of becoming virtuous without constraining the reader to believe that there is exact and deliberate steps a human must make in order to gain eudemonia.Her revision allows Aristotles concept to live on into modern day, and thus provides a well-rounded and current guideline to the betterment of todays society. Works Cited Annas, Julia. Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (2004) 61-75. Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. 325 B. C. Hursthouse, Rosalind. Virtue Theory and Abortion. Philosophy and Public personal matters 20. 3 (1991) 223-246. Rachel, James. The Ethics of Virtue. 1996. Norman R. Shultz. November 2010 .