1. In what ways did the historical context from which virtuousness moralss emerged form its basic rules? Presocratics. regarded as the first philosophers. brought the term Son to doctrine ( actual interlingual rendition: ‘word’ ; besides denotes ‘logic’ . ‘argument’ . ‘reason’ . Aristotle’s construct of Virtue Ethics respects worlds as rational animate beings. connoting that ‘logos’ is strictly a human trait. Known as Plato’s most talented pupil. Aristotle disagreed with his teacher’s position that the “essence of world prevarications in some abstract universe of Forms or Ideas” ( Brannigan. 2005:60 ) .
Aristotle’s point of position straight contrasts his teacher’s. saying that the “source of intending comes from concrete. physical reality” ( Brannigan. 2005:60 ) . This direct contrast with Plato leads to Aristotle opening his ain school. which he called the Lyceum. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics is his literary formation of his ethical theories. Aristotle believes that moralss originate from existent universe experiences. that there is non a set of regulations to use to life that will model us into ethical existences. but instead the “individual exists in relationship with others” ( Brannigan. 2005:61 ) .
Therefore. moralss is based upon how the persons relate to each other and the cultivation of good character. How do we cultivate good character? Aristotle states we must carry through our human nature. He tells us that all things bing in nature have their ain specific terminal intent. which he refers to as telos ( Grecian term for specific terminal ) . For illustration. an apple seed’s telos would be to turn into an apple tree and bring forth apples. Aristotle tells us that merely worlds are capable of utilizing logos as a signifier of idea. and that all worlds are. by nature. rational animate beings.
Therefore. the human’s terminal intent is to “fulfill our human nature as rational animate beings by decently exerting our reason” and he besides asserts that. “only in this manner can we be truly happy” ( Brannigan. 2005:62 ) . Furthermore. Aristotle states that all worlds have one terminal end – wellbeing ( Grecian for felicity ) . and that felicity is an “intrinsic good” . Intrinsic good agencies that we seek felicity for the interest of being happy. and we do non seek felicity to obtain something else.
In contrast. instrumental good are steps we take to accomplish this intrinsic and ultimate good of felicity. For illustration. pupils take college classs to carry through a demand. addition apprehension. and so on. Regardless of the ground. ultimately pupils take classs to accomplish something. with another end in head. therefore doing it an instrumental good. All goods are instrumental. except felicity. Human excellence and telos can be acquired. “only when we realize our true natures as rational animate beings. when we decently exercise our ground throughout our lives” ( Brannigan. 2005:62 ) .
Aristotle footings human excellence with a new name – virtuousness ; echt felicity is to populate morally. and merely by populating morally can we achieve felicity. and populating morally requires doing a wont of practising virtuousness to cultivate good character. Therefore merely those with good character can be genuinely happy. To populate morally. we must avoid extremes and keep a balance. which Aristotle footings as the “golden mean” . The “golden mean” is the balance between the extremes. and we must utilize rational thought and logical thinking in a balanced manner. He distinguished two types of virtuousnesss: rational and moral.
Intellectual virtuousnesss require us to utilize out ground in two ways. one practical and one philosophical. First. “we ground in order to populate practically in our daily lives. which requires us to populate sanely through practical reason” ( Brannigan. 2005:64 ) . which Aristotle footings phronesis. Second. “we ground for the intent of detecting higher truths… so that we may contemplate higher. more theoretical truths and rules such as the thought of the Good” ( Brannigan. 2005:64 ) . Moral virtuousnesss ( which Aristotle termed ethike ) focal point on our behaviour and how we live our lives. and are the focal point of Aristotle’s moralss.
Aristotle’s belief was that moral virtuousnesss merely came about with accustomed pattern. the Grecian word for wont is ethos. which shows the nexus with moralss. In decision. a sum-up of Aristotle’s ethical beliefs: the goal/aim is to cultivate good character. which can be achieved merely through accustomed pattern of virtuousness ( rational and moral ) . which will make the status of virtuousness. therefore doing us virtuous individuals. Repeated actions lead to a status. which makes an action distinct from a status. hence intending one virtuous act does non do a individual virtuous.
Rather. Acts of the Apostless of virtuousness must be an ethos ( or wont ) . so that virtuous acts become a kind of second-nature. These perennial Acts of the Apostless of virtuous ethos lead to the status of virtuousness. and the status of virtuousness = good character. and frailty versa. Since Acts of the Apostless of virtuousness are non Acts of the Apostless of virtuousness unless logic. ground. and rationalisation are utilized to happen the “golden mean” between two possible extremes. one can non accomplish their telos and/or finally the status of felicity. without happening balance in every determination that presents itself and so moving upon this balanced determination.
This creates the premise of a natural nexus between who we are and what we do. between being and making. However. making the right thing merely because you are following a regulation or guideline does non do a virtuous individual. therefore puting the accent of Aristotle’s moralss on being instead than making. intending that an honorable individual will state the truth because this person’s character/being is honest.
The contrary of this would be a dishonorable individual will be dishonest. or a dishonorable individual will state the truth because social rules/guidelines say it’s the virtuous determination – either manner. a dishonest person’s being and character is still dishonest. regardless of whether this individual tells the truth or non – one act of virtuousness does non be a virtuous individual. “Virtue so is a province of calculated moral intent. dwelling in a average relation to ourselves. the average being determined by ground. or as a prudent adult male would find it.
” ( Brannigan. 2005:88 ) 2. What would virtue moralss propose should be done in response to the quandary of the school kid who was made to turn his shirt inside out? Why? Virtue moralss truly focuses on “the aureate mean” . which is achieved through rational and logical thought. By avoiding extremes habitually when doing determinations. “the aureate mean” can be achieved. taking to a virtuous individual. and finally happiness and telos ; this is the lone manner to truly accomplish the ultimate end of felicity and virtuousness.
Blindly following regulations. without rationalisation and an attempt to avoid extremes. does non do a virtuous individual or accomplish “the aureate mean” . Therefore. being virtuous leads to virtuous and ethical actions. but non frailty versa. In the instance of the principal. a virtue ethician would reason that the principal was simply following a regulation. therefore the action was non virtuous. However. the principal besides exhibited balance between extremes. by doing the kid turn the shirt inside out behind a tree ; the principal could hold made an utmost pick by either disregarding the child’s shirt ( and the regulation in topographic point ) and allowing
him/her wear this shirt through the remainder of the school twenty-four hours ( shortage ) . or by directing the kid place for the twenty-four hours ( or longer ) as penalty for have oning a shirt that breaks the frock codification. When you look at the parents actions and picks from a virtuousness ethicist’s point of position. they have missed “the aureate mean” when doing determinations. In respects to the pick of dressing their kid in a University of Michigan shirt. a virtue ethician would province that this determination showed ignorance ( since they were provided with a pupil enchiridion. which has frock codification guidelines ) . but merely if they neglected to read regulations that they were provided with.
If they merely weren’t provided with such regulations. they still exhibited ignorance. but non because of being nescient. If they read these regulations and opted non to follow them because they did non hold. so they should be applauded for non blindly following regulations for the interest of following them. However. the determination to direct their kid to school in a shirt that breaks the regulations could be argued as a balanced determination. The shortage determination would be directing the kid in all Oklahoma college dress. merely to remain within the guidelines ; the extreme would be directing their kid in a completed University of Michigan football uniform.
It is clear that the parents miss happening the “golden mean” when make up one’s minding how to show their feelings about the regulation. by traveling to the extreme and conveying it to the media’s attending ( they could hold met with school boards. or even the principal. to seek to compromise ) . They besides are on the utmost side of things when they accept gifts from the university ( who certainly appreciated the attending brought by the media ) . 3. Using your ain personal ethical beliefs. in what ways do you hold or differ with the determination and the logical thinking used to make the determination in the above inquiry?
I agree with the concluding statements brought out by taking a virtuousness ethical position. such as the principal doing a balanced pick when taking action about the shirt. the parents perchance being ignorant of the regulation through personal disregard or disregard from the school. and the picks the parents made following the shirt issue being utmost. However. I do non needfully hold with how these results were achieved through this position.
First. I agree that there is a balance that needs to be achieved ( or atleast attempted to be achieved ) in most of the determinations and actions we make day-to-day. but I do non thing that non-ethical picks and actions are made because the person’s “being” is bad. I feel like good people can and make do ignorant. unethical. or bad picks ; frailty versa being true every bit good. While I believe that being and making decidedly shape each other. I do non experience that one is formed finally by the other. Equally far as what I feel should hold been done in this state of affairs. I agree with the principal’s determination.
Possibly the codification demands refined a small. but your 5 twelvemonth old holding to turn his/her shirt inside out is a much better option than your 5 twelvemonth old acquiring shooting because the shirt holds a different significance to a pack member. In category. it was argued that the University of Michigan’s logo held no significance to the local packs. but that does non extinguish the possibility of the logo being mistaken for something else. or even act uponing a pack we don’t cognize about. The possibility that your child’s safety is in inquiry should be plenty adequate ground for the parents to. at the really least. complain to the school board alternatively of the media.
The fact that the parents brought the media into the state of affairs. I feel. decreases the credibleness of their ailment. particularly since they finally prospered from the incident and the ensuing media attending ( game tickets. university dress. and so on ) . If the principal had ignored the shirt. allow the kid wear it throughout the twenty-four hours. and so the kid became the victim of gang-related force because of his shirt. I’m sure the parents would keep a different view-point about the regulation – and still stop up conveying the issue to the media’s attending.