In this paper I have argued that the best option in this time of great moral crisis is a return to the virtue ethics of the ancients. Moral rules are too abstract and too rigid, and it is difficult to apply them to complex situations and decisions. They, however, still retain their normative force for use the application of national and international law. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, fails to distinguish between qualitative values of the virtues and external quantities of pleasure, and sometimes the hedonic calculus produces unrealistic and even absurd moral obligations.What's next--a quote from Socrates, Aristotle, or Jesus?
As opposed to a rule based ethics, where the most that we can know is that we always fall short of the norm, virtue ethics is truly a voyage of personal discovery. Ancient virtue ethics always aim at a personal mean that is a creative choice for each individual. Virtue ethics is emulative--using the sage or savior as a model for virtue--whereas rule ethics involves conformity and obedience. The emulative approach engages the imagination and personalizes and thoroughly grounds individual moral action and responsibility. Such an ethics naturally lends itself to an aesthetics of virtue: the crafting of a good and beautiful soul, a unique gem among other gems.
Nope.
[thanks to Online Papers in Philosophy, a fantabulous site]
3 comments:
Footnotes!!!!! Where are the footnotes!
Oh, and that was very sneaky. You know nothing is next. The quote is from the end of the paper......
Yah, virtue ethics. He manages to make them sound completely subjective, as if they cannot co-exist with norms of any kind. Given Aristotelian metaphysics, though, this seems wrong. Attempts to divorce Aristotle's virtue ethics from his metaphysics have generally failed. The language of "personal discovery" and "creative choice for each individual", then, mislead. There are parameters on what one can choose, possibly even certain "oughts" implicit in the system (i.e. insofar as one seeks to flourish, one "ought" to fulfill his function). I don't know enough to know whether Hindu ethics fits in to this, but I'm doubtful.
I posted Gier's article because it surprised me. Since I've been schooled primarily in Western philosophy, the thought of "Hindu virtue ethics" was entirely outside my range of ethical thought.
I think you're misreading the work, which is attempting to show only a "rough similarity" between Eastern systems and Aristotle's though, not to equate them. After all, Hindu ethics weren't developed under an Aristotelean metaphysic. I don't think Gier would disagree with the second part of your claim, for he writes, "I believe that the most constructive response to this crisis in moral theory has been the revival of virtue ethics, an ethics that has the advantages of being personal, contextual, and, as I will argue, normative as well."Perhaps the paper will be published later on, with footnotes? :)
"I think you're misreading the work, which is attempting to show only a "rough similarity" between Eastern systems and Aristotle's though, not to equate them. After all, Hindu ethics weren't developed under an Aristotelean metaphysic. I don't think Gier would disagree with the second part of your claim, for he writes, "I believe that the most constructive response to this crisis in moral theory has been the revival of virtue ethics, an ethics that has the advantages of being personal, contextual, and, as I will argue, normative as well."
I don't (of course!) think I'm misreading it--just pointing out that his characterization (here, at least) of virtue ethics seemed to misrepresent them. I didn't catch the quotation you put, which I would agree with. It really depends upon how far the similarities go. I'm not sure exactly why you're surprised. I wasn't. Then again, I've been reading Abolition of Man a ton this semester....
Post a Comment