This Week's Reading Assignment Completes Our Discussion Of E

This Weeks Reading Assignment Completes Our Discussion Of Ethics By G

This week's reading assignment completes our discussion of ethics by going back to the second half of chapter six and taking a look at Aristotle's approach to ethics. As you are reading this material, note that Aristotle's approach to ethics differs in an important way from that of the Utilitarians and Kant. For the latter, the primary question is what should my conduct be? That is, should I do action A or action B? The Utilitarian answers this question by evaluating the likely consequences of my action and picking the one that will lead to the best results (i.e., will "maximize utility").

The Kantian answers the question by attending to our moral duty, as identified with his categorical imperative. For Aristotle, however, the primary question is, not what should my conduct be, but what kind of person should I be, what sort of character should I develop? Then my actions will following naturally from my character. You might want in this week's Discussion Forum to think about which approach is preferable. Also, what do you think of Aristotle's notion of happiness, or "eudaimonia" as it is called in Greek?

Does his conception of virtue sound familiar and reasonable? Someone once called Aristotle the "common sense philosopher." Do you agree?

Paper For Above instruction

Aristotle's approach to ethics offers a distinctive perspective that shifts the focus from external actions to the development of virtuous character. Unlike Utilitarians, who prioritize outcomes, and Kantian deontologists, who emphasize moral duties, Aristotle advocates for a virtue-centered ethic. This approach concerns cultivating qualities such as courage, temperance, and wisdom, which in turn guide one’s behavior naturally. By emphasizing character, Aristotle proposes that ethical living is about becoming a good person, rather than merely performing morally right acts or calculating utility.

In his concept of virtue, Aristotle introduces the idea that virtues are mean states between excess and deficiency—a concept often called the Doctrine of the Mean. For example, courage is a virtue lying between recklessness and cowardice. This moderation fosters harmony within the individual, ultimately leading to eudaimonia, often translated as happiness or flourishing. Eudaimonia, for Aristotle, is the highest good and the ultimate aim of human life. It is achieved not through fleeting pleasures or external successes, but through a well-ordered soul characterized by virtuous dispositions.

The preference for character-based ethics offers several advantages. It provides a practical framework that emphasizes habituation and deliberate practice, making moral development an ongoing process rather than adherence to external rules. Aristotle's ideas resonate with common sense understandings of moral life because they recognize human tendencies and the importance of inner virtues that shape outward conduct. His conception of happiness as living a life of virtue and reason aligns with instinctive notions of well-being rooted in personal integrity and fulfillment.

However, critics argue that Aristotle’s model may be limited in addressing social and cultural diversity, as conceptions of virtue can vary across societies. Despite this, Aristotle’s emphasis on character formation remains influential, inspiring contemporary virtue ethics, which seeks to integrate moral psychology with ethical theory. In today’s context, cultivating traits like empathy, resilience, and honesty can be viewed as modern extensions of Aristotle’s virtues, contributing to a well-rounded and meaningful life.

In summary, Aristotle's focus on virtue and character offers a holistic approach to ethics that emphasizes the importance of developing a good person as the foundation for ethical living. His concept of eudaimonia continues to be relevant as a guiding ideal in personal formation and moral philosophy, advocating for lives guided by reason and virtue rather than extrinsic rewards or mere rule-following.

References

• Annas, J. (2011). Aristotle: Critique of the recently proposed "Nicomachean" sort of virtue ethics. In J. Annas (Ed.), Essays on virtues and virtues ethics (pp. 35-54). Oxford University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). Aristotle: Writings on ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Irwin, T. (1999). Foundations of ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Reynolds, R. (2019). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.
• Sedley, D. (2013). The philosophy of Aristotle. Routledge.
• Ann Hartle, B. (2009). Virtue ethics. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University.
• Hursthouse, R. (2013). Virtue ethics. Routledge.
• Nicomachean Ethics (translated by Terrence Irwin). (1999). Hackett Publishing.
• Harrison, J. (2010). Aristotle's virtue ethics. Philosophy Compass, 5(9), 743-754.
• Broad, C. D. (2001). Five types of ethical theory. Routledge.