Applied Definition: Virtue Ethics Essay

1. In what expressive styles did the historical context from which faithfulness ethics emerged shape its basic principles? Presocratics, regarded as the first philosophers, brought the term reinvigorateds to ism (literal translation word also denotes logic, argument, sympathy. Aristotles concept of Virtue Ethics regards military manes as rational animals, implying that logos is purely a human trait. Kn bear as Platos ab bulge gifted student, Aristotle disagreed with his t to each oneers fit that the essence of reality lies in some abstr run world of Forms or Ideas (Brannigan, 200560).Aristotles rank of view localisely contrasts his teachers, stating that the source of fuddleding comes from concrete, physical reality (Brannigan, 200560). This direct contrast with Plato leads to Aristotle opening his own school, which he called the Lyceum. Aristotles Nichomachean Ethics is his literary formation of his ethical theories. Aristotle believes that ethics originate from real w orld experiences, that in that location is not a set of rules to apply to life that will make us into ethical universes, notwithstanding rather the individual exists in relationship with others (Brannigan, 200561).Thus, ethics is based upon how the individuals relate to each other and the cultivation of costly character. How do we cultivate healthy character? Aristotle states we moldiness fulfill our human nature. He tells us that all things existing in nature extradite their own unique(predicate) give up purpose, which he refers to as telos (Greek term for specific end). For example, an apple seeds telos would be to grow into an apple corner and produce apples. Aristotle tells us that lone(prenominal) humans are capable of development logos as a form of thought, and that all humans are, by nature, rational animals.Therefore, the humans end purpose is to fulfill our human nature as rational animals by properly exercising our moderateness and he also asserts that, only in this way can we be genuinely happy (Brannigan, 200562). Furthermore, Aristotle states that all humans agree one end culture eudaimonia (Greek for happiness), and that happiness is an intrinsic good. Intrinsic good means that we seek happiness for the pastime of creation happy, and we do not seek happiness to obtain something else.In contrast, subservient good are steps we precede to secure this intrinsic and ultimate good of happiness. For example, students confine college courses to fulfill a requirement, gain understanding, and so on. Regardless of the sympathy, in conclusion students take courses to achieve something, with another goal in mind, and then reservation it an instrumental good. All goods are instrumental, except happiness. Human excellence and telos can be acquired, only when we realize our true natures as rational animals, when we properly consumption our reason doneout our lives (Brannigan, 200562).Aristotle terms human excellence with a new name faithfulness genuine happiness is to live vestally, and only by living innoxiously can we attain happiness, and living perfect(a)ly requires making a habit of practicing meritoriousness to cultivate good character. Therefore only those with good character can be truly happy. To live virtuously, we must avoid extremes and maintain a fit, which Aristotle terms as the golden mean. The golden mean is the balance between the extremes, and we must use rational thinking and reasoning in a balanced fashion. He tell two types of virtues intellectual and moral.Intellectual virtues require us to use out reason in two ways, one practical and one philosophical. First, we reason in order to live practically in our day-to-day lives, which requires us to live sensibly through practical reason (Brannigan, 200564), which Aristotle terms phronesis. Second, we reason for the purpose of discovering higher true statements so that we may contemplate higher, more conjectural truths and principles such(prenominal) as the idea of the Good (Brannigan, 200564). Moral virtues (which Aristotle termed ethike) focus on our behavior and how we live our lives, and are the focus of Aristotles ethics.Aristotles notion was that moral virtues only came slightly with habitual practice, the Greek word for habit is ethos, which shows the link with ethics. In conclusion, a summary of Aristotles ethical beliefs the goal/aim is to cultivate good character, which can be achieved only through habitual practice of virtue (intellectual and moral), which will create the condition of virtue, thus making us virtuous souls. Repeated carry throughs lead to a condition, which makes an action distinct from a condition, therefore meaning one virtuous act does not make a person virtuous.Rather, acts of virtue must be an ethos(or habit), so that virtuous acts become a sort of second-nature. These repeated acts of virtuous ethos lead to the condition of virtue, and the condition of virtue = good characte r, and vice versa. Since acts of virtue are not acts of virtue unless logic, reason, and rationalization are utilized to vex the golden mean between two possible extremes, one cannot achieve their telos and/or ultimately the condition of happiness, without conclusion balance in all(prenominal) close that presents itself and then acting upon this balanced decision.This creates the assumption of a inborn link between who we are and what we do, between macrocosm and doing. However, doing the right thing simply because you are succeeding(a) a rule or guideline does not make a virtuous person, thus placing the emphasis of Aristotles ethics on being rather than doing, meaning that an honest person will tell the truth because this persons character/being is honest.The reverse of this would be a dishonest person will be dishonest, or a dishonest person will tell the truth because societal rules/guidelines say its the virtuous decision either way, a dishonest persons being and chara cter is stock-still dishonest, disregardless of whether this person tells the truth or not one act of virtue does not equal a virtuous person. Virtue then is a state of deliberate moral purpose, consisting in a mean copulation to ourselves, the mean being determined by reason, or as a prudent man would determine it. (Brannigan, 200588) 2. What would virtue ethics suggest should be done in response to the dilemma of the school child who was do to turn his fit out in spite of appearance out? Why? Virtue ethics really focuses on the golden mean, which is achieved through rational and rational thinking. By avoiding extremes habitually when making decisions, the golden mean can be achieved, leading to a virtuous person, and ultimately happiness and telos this is the only way to truly achieve the ultimate goal of happiness and virtue.Blindly pursuit rules, without rationalization and an effort to avoid extremes, does not make a virtuous person or achieve the golden mean. Thus, be ing virtuous leads to virtuous and ethical actions, but not vice versa. In the slip-up of the jumper lead, a virtue ethicist would argue that the principal was merely takeing a rule, therefore the action was not virtuous. However, the principal also exhibited balance between extremes, by making the child turn the shirt in typeface out behind a tree the principal could have do an extreme extract by either ignoring the childs shirt (and the rule in place) and lettinghim/her erupt this shirt through the slackening of the school day (deficit), or by sending the child menage for the day (or longer) as punishment for wearing a shirt that breaks the discerp grave. When you look at the parents actions and choices from a virtue ethicists point of view, they have missed the golden mean when making decisions. In regards to the choice of dressing their child in a University of Michigan shirt, a virtue ethicist would state that this decision showed ignorance (since they were provided w ith a student handbook, which has dress code guidelines), but only if they shake offed to read rules that they were provided with.If they simply werent provided with such rules, they still exhibited ignorance, but not because of being ignorant. If they read these rules and opted not to follow them because they did not agree, then they should be applauded for not blindly following rules for the sake of following them. However, the decision to send their child to school in a shirt that breaks the rules could be argued as a balanced decision. The deficit decision would be sending the child in all Oklahoma college apparel, and to stay within the guidelines the extreme would be sending their child in a completed University of Michigan football uniform.It is clear that the parents miss finding the golden mean when deciding how to express their feelings about the rule, by discharge to the extreme and bringing it to the medias attention (they could have met with school identity cards, o r even the principal, to try to compromise). They also are on the extreme side of things when they accept gifts from the university (who surely appreciated the attention brought by the media). 3. Using your own personal ethical beliefs, in what ways do you agree or disagree with the decision and the reasoning used to reach the decision in the above question?I agree with the final statements brought out by taking a virtue ethical perspective, such as the principal making a balanced choice when taking action about the shirt, the parents possibly being ignorant of the rule through personal neglect or neglect from the school, and the choices the parents made following the shirt issue being extreme. However, I do not necessarily agree with how these outcomes were achieved through this view.First, I agree that there is a balance that needs to be achieved (or atleast act to be achieved) in most of the decisions and actions we make daily, but I do not thing that non-ethical choices and act ions are made because the persons being is bad. I feel like good people can and do make ignorant, unethical, or bad choices vice versa being true as well. While I believe that being and doing definitely shape each other, I do not feel that one is formed ultimately by the other. As far as what I feel should have been done in this situation, I agree with the principals decision. peradventure the code needs refined a little, but your 5 form old having to turn his/her shirt inside out is a a good deal better option than your 5 year old getting sweep because the shirt holds a different meaning to a gang member. In class, it was argued that the University of Michigans logo held no meaning to the local gangs, but that does not eliminate the disaster of the logo being mistaken for something else, or even influencing a gang we dont know about. The possibility that your childs safety is in question should be galvanic pile enough reason for the parents to, at the very least, complain to t he school board instead of the media.The fact that the parents brought the media into the situation, I feel, decreases the credibility of their complaint, especially since they ultimately prospered from the disaster and the resulting media attention (game tickets, university apparel, and so on). If the principal had ignored the shirt, let the child wear it throughout the day, and then the child became the victim of gang-related violence because of his shirt, Im sure the parents would hold a different view-point about the rule and still end up bringing the issue to the medias attention.