Essay
How convincing is Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?
- Course
- Institution
A* 22/25 Philosophy A Level essay on Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
[Show more]
14 reviews
By: 17sfilipova • 1 year ago
By: marleynscott • 1 year ago
By: iviemarcus49 • 1 year ago
By: lilaparicioo • 1 year ago
By: leiya • 1 year ago
By: kululaaa10 • 2 year ago
By: katrinhesse • 2 year ago
Seller
Follow
phoebemason511
Reviews received
Content preview
How convincing is Aristotelian Virtue Ethics? [25 marks]Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is concerned with traits of character essential for human flourishing,
as opposed to duties and rules present in Kantian Deontological Ethics, or consequences, as
seen in Utilitarianism. Aristotle suggests that to be morally good, you must act well and
exhibit reasoning. And, although this arguably seems like an entirely plausible moral
solution, many issues, including those to do with its guidance, as well as conflicting virtues,
arise from it. And thus, in this essay, I will argue why I believe that Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
isn’t entirely convincing.
Arguably the necessary backdrop for Aristotle’s argument for Virtue Ethics, is the Function
Argument, in which he suggests that everything must have a ‘telos’ or, function. The
argument goes that all objects have a function, and an object is good when it fulfils its
function; for example, the function of a chair is to be sat on, and if the chair did not hold the
possibility of being sat on, then it would not be a good chair. Thus, Aristotle argues, that if
everything has a function, then humans too must have an exclusive function – a function not
shared with other things. Aristotle deduces this ‘human’ function as being the ability to
exert reason, and therefore, the good for a human, is to act in accordance of reason. From
this, arises certain criticisms – the most popular and profound being an attack on Aristotle’s
assumption that just because other things have functions, then humans must too. A critic
would argue that the fact that other things have functions is not satisfactory enough
evidence to suggest that humans also have a function; one would argue that things external
to us only have a function because we have imposed a function on them, not because they
themselves have declared such, their function. Thus, one would then deduce that if we were
to have a function then there must have been something more powerful than, and above,
us to impose such a function on all humans. Of course, Aristotle would not concede the
possibility that there may be an omni being (God) whom has decided the function for all
things, including humans. However, this seemingly is not good enough of a response, as one
cannot simply rely on the possibility that there may be a God whom has imposed functions
on all things, when the concept of humans not possessing a function is just as plausible.
Thus, Aristotle’s function argument fails, and ultimately his Virtue Ethics seem less
convincing.
In addition to this, another objection to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, may be that it doesn’t
offer clear moral guidance in what to do in certain circumstances, in the same way act-
centred theories like Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics do. Virtue Ethics neither categorises
into deontology (acting upon duties or rules) nor consequentialism (acting in regard of
consequences) and instead focuses on moral character and disposition. With this, there
comes a level of vagueness around what to do in specific moral situations. For example,
under Utilitarian or Kantian ethics, one would easily be able to follow a certain set of rules
to come towards an end in which upon to act. Whereas, if one were to follow Virtue Ethics,
it would be much harder to arrive at a conclusion, and one may have to deliberate longer
over what to do. A Virtue Ethicist might say that we can learn how to act based on our
observations of how other virtuous people would act in the same situation. However, of
course, this is easy enough said, but there still leaves a significant level of unclarity around
moral dilemmas and how to act accordingly with them. In an attempt to wholly overcome
such problem, Virtue Ethicist Rosalind Hursthouse suggests that despite being an agent-
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller phoebemason511. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for CA$5.55. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
81311 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now