Aristotle tells us that we are most likely to learn virtuous behaviour from watching others. If we experience others being kind to us and see the happiness it creates we are more likely to practice it then if we were just told to do it. For example, if we were told to be courageous we may occasionally stand up for small things that we disagree with, but if we see someone telling others off for not doing the right thing then we are more likely to not allow bad behaviour towards ourselves. Aristotle said that the best way of becoming virtuous was to follow in the footsteps of a virtuous person, e.g. Mother Theresa.
Plato focused on virtue ethics in his book ‘Euthyphro’ whereby Socrates and a young man discuss whether goodness is independent of god. Plato originally set down the cardinal virtues of courage, justice, temperance and wisdom. Modern philosophers then further enhanced these virtues.
Virtue ethics today is similar to Plato and Aristotle’s view on virtue ethics. For example MacIntyre said that to judge a man is to judge his actions, this is because the way in which we behave towards one another in society shows other people our vices and virtues. He also claimed that other modern philosophers do take into account the lives of real people as the virtue theory because they spend too much time trying to define good or bad. The virtue theory is therefore better suited to real life as the definition of a word doesn’t always matter if people understand it any way without an exact definition. MacIntyre is also trying to find a way of enabling everybody to face or cope with different moral situations even though virtues improve or become clearer over time. Therefore what was seen a virtuous in the past may no be relevant in today’s society because of changes to it, so virtues must adapt to suit the times, however this does not mean that virtues haven’t been picked up and passed on and MacIntyre has identified this.
‘Moral relativist theories are too vague to be used as guides to decision-making.’ Discuss.(17)
Many people would agree with this statement and argue that natural law theories are better to be used as a guide to decision-making as it is an absolute deontological view of morality. Natural law enables people to establish common rules in order to structure communities. Natural law goes beyond and religion or culture and works in the same way for every nationality. Natural law lays down rules that many people need to be able to walk in the right direction throughout life. Without these rules many people would not have any idea and would not be able to work out what is right from what is wrong. Natural law isn’t simply just a set of rules, but a way of living.
Therefore, Moral relativist theories like situation ethics for example, which are just simply saying that different actions are right in different situations, and that there is a not necessarily a definite right or wrong in every situation. If we used these moral relativist theories as a guide to decision making then surely according to some people, there would never be a wrong and people would get away will killing people, stealing and committing any crime because that could be the right thing to do in their eyes, but we all know that it is wrong.
In the same way although many common moral decisions can be easily solved by a person of the “right” moral character, the fact of the matter is that many moral dilemmas require a great deal of careful reasoning and thinking. So having the right moral character obviously cannot be enough to make the right decision. Many virtue theorists say that we determine right virtues by asking a virtuous person, but then this is also uncertain, because how do they know what is right and how can happiness always agree with virtue because they will not always agree on what is good, there is no real way of actually determining what virtue is. Also virtue ethics believes decisions should be acted only on what you indeed see good or right. So how can we make full moral decisions with not knowing the full information involved in the situation.
However others would disagree with this statement and say that moral relativist theories like situation ethics and virtue ethics are not too vague to be used as a guide for decision making as they give people freedom of choice and there are no set of rules for right and wrong, but the right and wrong depends on the circumstances religion and culture. Situation ethics encourages people to think for themselves and use their common sense instead of just following rules. Situation ethics also lets people decide on what is the most loving thing to do in a situation.
Virtue ethics also places much less emphasis on what rules people should follow in their everyday life on earth an instead focuses on helping people develop their character such as kindness, caring and generosity. Therefore we are made into a better person. Certain virtues are necessary for correct moral decisions is to say that correct require correct motives. Also virtue theories promise that once we are successful in creating the sort of person we want to be, then arriving at and making decisions will come to us naturally for the rest of our lives as we have achieved the good person we want to be.
Therefore many people would argue that natural law and absolute theories are too vague to be used as a guide for decision making as they does not give people the opportunity to be independent and make moral decisions using their own common sense in the same way as moral relativist theories do. Instead it just lays down rules that we should all follow without giving any independency or choice of what we believe is right and wrong.
