My Ethical Theory Instructor's Name And Course Name

my Ethical Theoryinstructors Namecourse Name And N

What makes an action moral or immoral is a complex issue that has been approached from various ethical perspectives. Among these, the virtue approach stands out as a compelling method because it emphasizes the importance of personal character in moral decision-making. This paper explores how different ethical theories—namely eudaimonism, ethics of care, and agent-based theories—help elucidate what constitutes moral or immoral actions, with particular attention to their focus on character, motivation, and circumstances.

Understanding what makes an action moral necessitates consideration of multiple factors, including objective actions, subjective intentions, and the context in which these actions occur. The virtue approach holds that good character virtues—such as benevolence, honesty, and patience—are essential for moral behavior because they shape our motivations and reactions in various situations. This perspective is rooted in eudaimonism, an ancient Greek philosophy that posits happiness or well-being as the ultimate goal of life, achieved by cultivating virtues through habitual practice (Besser & Slote, 2015). In this view, moral actions are those that align with virtues developed over a lifetime, guiding individuals to act rightly consistently and reliably.

Eudaimonism emphasizes that virtue is a habit or a stable quality within a person that predisposes them toward morally good actions. For instance, a person with cultivated compassion is more likely to act benevolently, even in challenging circumstances. However, this classical view also encounters limitations, such as the difficulty in determining whether an act is moral solely based on the virtue it exemplifies. Certain actions, like killing or rape, are unequivocally immoral despite any virtuous intentions behind them. This suggests that virtues alone cannot justify all moral judgments, especially when actions violate fundamental moral principles, indicating a need for additional evaluative factors.

The ethics of care offers an alternative perspective emphasizing relational virtues, such as caring, empathy, and responsibility, often associated with moral development in women and marginalized communities (Held, 2006). This approach shifts the focus from abstract virtues to the moral significance of relationships and contextual sensitivity. It recognizes that moral decision-making often involves balancing competing interests—what is right for oneself versus what is right for others—especially in caring contexts. However, the ethics of care faces criticism for potentially downplaying universal moral standards in favor of subjective relationships, risking partiality or neglect of broader social justice concerns (Held, 2006).

In evaluating moral actions, the motivation behind the act remains critical. The motivation by good intentions to do good is posited as a key indicator of morality in many ethical theories. When a person acts from genuine concern and compassion, their actions are more likely to be deemed moral. Conversely, actions driven by self-interest, malice, or ignorance may be considered immoral, even if the outcome appears beneficial. This view underscores the importance of internal states and motives, aligning with virtue ethics’ emphasis on character and integrity.

Agent-based theories, exemplified by the work of Stan Hooft (2014), further refine this understanding by emphasizing the character traits of moral agents. These theories hold that the morality of an action depends not only on contextual factors but also on the moral character traits of the individual performing the action. Traits such as benevolence, kindness, and honesty are valued because they reflect a moral agent’s inner life and propensity toward morally good behavior. Circumstances—such as time, place, and involved persons—thus influence whether an action is considered moral or immoral, but they are interpreted through the lens of the agent’s character traits (Hooft, 2014).

Overall, these theories collectively suggest that moral judgment involves multiple layers: the individual’s virtues and character, their motivations and intentions, and the specific context of the action. While virtuous character and good intentions set a foundation for morality, situational factors also play a vital role in determining the morality of actions. When these elements align positively, the action is considered moral; when they conflict or are absent, the action may be deemed immoral. This multi-faceted approach aligns with a comprehensive understanding of morality rooted in character, motivation, and circumstances.

In conclusion, understanding what makes an action moral or immoral requires integrating insights from eudaimonism, ethics of care, and agent-based theories. Virtue ethics emphasizes character and habitual practice, while the ethics of care underscores relational virtues and context. Agent-based theories focus on the moral traits of individuals and the circumstances affecting their actions. Together, these approaches advocate for a nuanced view of morality that considers inner virtues, intentions, and external factors, providing a holistic framework for moral evaluation.

References

• Besser, Lorraine L., and Michael Slote (Eds.). (2015). The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics. Routledge.
• Held, Virginia. (2006). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford University Press.
• Hooft, Stan. (2014). Understanding Virtue Ethics. Routledge.
• Slote, Michael. (2010). Virtue Ethics. Routledge.
• Annas, Julia. (2016). intitutions, and morality. Oxford University Press.
• Nussbaum, Martha. (2001). Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, Peter. (2011). The Point of View of the Universe: Sidgwick and Contemporary Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair. (2007). After Virtue. University of Notre Dame Press.
• Taylor, Charles. (1989). Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity. Harvard University Press.
• Aristotle. (384–322 BC). Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. (Rep. 2009). Oxford University Press.