virtue ethics

virtue ethics

Contrary to traditional ethical theories, whose basis is primarily people’s actions, virtue ethics evaluate the moral agent’s nature with a specific focus on their virtue. In this case scenario, virtues are considered to have intrinsic value. There is some fundamental good associated with every virtue ethics identified. The primary definition of virtue ethics involves activities or life aspects that are primarily good such as a morally good person and derives secondary definition from the relationship between these activities and other undefined concepts (Ross, pp 50-56, 1956). The most definitive difference between virtue and traditional ethics is the former’s unrelenting focus on moral agents in preference to moral actions. Furthermore, virtue ethics are different from traditional ethics concerning how practical reasoning is applied as they are more focused on the long-term effect over immediate results. Additionally, it is critical to understand that under virtue ethics, the virtue itself has intrinsic value and thus motivates a moral agent, who ultimately seeks it for its own sake.

Aristotle establishes that habit is associated with ethos generated from the word ethical. Habit can also be loosely translated as a character, and Aristotle examines the correlation between habit and character. Aristotle explains that character is comprised of virtues defined as skills people practice acquiring. Virtues are not innately born. Aristotle establishes that even the innate capacities such as the ability to taste, see or acquires a capability such as driving expertise, they are useless until they are put to good use (Ross, pp 50-61, 1956). Aristotle emphasizes the difference between having a capability and putting that capability to good use.

Aristotle distinctly differentiates between actions and states and establishes that true virtues are a product of both. An individual may involve in a just action for wrong reasons. Nevertheless, if the individual adopts the just actions as a habit, they eventually conduct themselves in the right way and for the right reasons and consequently assume a just character. With a just character, doing the right thing will be considered natural or the norm, as it is an embodiment of the person, just the way they are (Ross, pp 89, 1956).

Hill Jr.’s establishes a correlation between virtue and environmental ethics in regards to having ample emphasis on long term patterns. Environmental consciousness primarily involves the realization that today’s actions have amplified consequences and connections that may not be realized at the point of action. This is to imply that a moral agent who is focused on the long term effect generated by their actions tend to make environmentally sound choices. Hill presents environmental virtue ethics as the tendency for individuals to take on actions that replicate an ecological way of life and thinking (Hill, pp 20-28, 1983).

Environmental enthusiasts claim that the existing environmental crises are mostly contributed to by the shortsighted patterns adopted by humankind. Therefore, environmental virtue ethics are motivated by the desire to adopt new habits in terms of thinking that translates to action in the moral agent. With the new habits, not only does the moral agent get the immediate decision right but also reorients all subsequent decisions to reflect a holistic model of thinking (Hill, pp 15-23, 1983). Nevertheless, imparting such an ethic requires input from ecological crusaders to influence moral agents to think and act according to the desired environmental paradigm.

In regards to the intrinsic value attributed to virtue ethics, environmentally conscious moral agents generate motivation to do virtuous actions for what they stand for or are in themselves. Similarly, traditional ethics involved doing actions considered to have direct consequences or actions that represented noble actions. Contrary to environmental virtue ethics, traditional environmental ethics encompassed immediate good. The former, however, involves executing environmentally sound actions because they are virtuous as virtues have intrinsic value themselves (Hill, pp 10-17, 1983).

Conclusion

Hill and Aristotle are similar in that they both agree that character defines human action as either right or wrong, as a character is reflective of what defines an individual. However, the two differ as Hill regards an individual destroying the environment as having a defect in character. Moreover, Hill suggests that the moral significance of natural environment preservation is not entirely a matter of rights and social utility (Hill, pp 5-11, 1983). Hill acknowledges that an individual’s positive attitude towards nature maybe a result of acquired virtues and excellences. If a question is posed on what part of humankind would seek to destroy the natural environment or visualize different aspects of the environment on the basis of profit only, different answers exist. However, in light of virtue ethics, the willingness to harm the environment can be loosely translated as the absence of traits that instill humility, gratitude, and appreciation of the good in others. Synonymously, Aristotle establishes moral virtue as the only sure way of achieving effective action. Aristotle exemplifies that whatever an individual with a good character loves is a product of true desire and is therefore considered beautiful before other considerations (Ross, pp 55-60, 1956). This is to mean that, a virtuous person visualizes and judge’s life aspects rightly as people of good character envision all things as they indeed are, without bias.