1) RICHEL
Aristotle had the theory that those who live life in a selfish way and are not truly happy, but lack virtues. Even though a person has everything they could possibly need and want and seem to be happy, it does mean they actually are. Aristotle define virtues as hard work, integrity, honesty, compassion, generosity, and so on. Aristotle's virtue ethics is about being rather than doing. It is emphasized as an normative ethical philosophy.
A real life example is my neighbor. She is full of greed and selfishness and has everything and seems happy, although she will also be very deceitful to get what she wants. She does nothing good and certainly doesn't anything without receiving something in return. According to Aristotle, she is not a very virtuous person, she has many vices. With her attitude and virtues that are moral in her mind, she is most likely a person who will be unable to flourish and become a better person or to change at all. I have known her for eight years and she has only gotten worse with time. I am the total opposite of her and I believe in helping others to achieve something or get somewhere, but I have failed in helping her as she is as stubborn as a mule and does not take advice from me or anyone. There is only so much one person can do to try and convince another their views are wrong. The worst part is she knows she is like this and does not care to change and so her ethical and moral views are something I do not agree with because they are all negative and cruel. To this day she is very happy with herself and al the choices she makes and does not care about the people she hurts in the process.
2) KAYLA
According to Aristotle's theory, there can be people who are "flourishing"; that this person will have a golden mean between having too little and having too much of a given characteristic (Mosser, 2013). He also goes further to describe that a temperate person will have self-control and a person who has a great soul and mind has magnanimity. Having these two virtues in balance will create "flourishing" person. I agreed with our text when it asks if there is such a person that exists.
The example I would like to use is between my friend Raegan and I. As I was reading this week's material, she is who came to my mind. I really think she would be close to a flourishing person; if not she is pretty close to it. She has just the right amount phronesis; and she uses them correctly. Myself on the other hand I lack in some of these areas. I think this one is a little more difficult to distinguish a person by in regards to utilitarianism and deontology because virtue ethics deals with a person's character. How a person acts in public can sometimes just be an act. While a person can look like they are flourishing on the outside, they could be miserable on the inside so this person is not truly happy.
While I believe that my friend Raegan has great morals,great self-control, she is a very honest person, she is a fantastic mom, wife, sister, daughter, and friend, she has courage, she "practices what she preaches"; the list could go on and on. A different person might not think that is takes courage to home school two children so they might think she would lack in the courage department so she would not have a golden mean. So what about the people who are just full of greed, selfishness, very deceitful; this person might really think they have a golden mean and that there isn't anything wrong with them. I think what I am trying to say is while this theory seems good on paper, it would be hard to apply if to each individual because we all believe in different characteristics and which ones are good and bad.
3) GLEN
In Virtue Ethics, this week's instructor lead text explains what Aristotle called living a flourishing happy life eudaimonia. Aristotle's explanation of happiness is not only a feeling, but how a person fulfills life purposefully and virtuously, so not only what is done, but how and why something is done for good purpose. A person is able to achieve pleasurable experiences or material possessions but when this is achieved through ill-means such as lying, stealing, cheating or worse, but then it cannot be said that a person is living virtuously. The well know term money can't buy happiness is said due to the many examples through history. We have seen people attempt to cheat the system through political means, scams, or even murder. This destructive path often ends in disaster and unhappiness. An example is warlords or kingpins that may have power, and fancy trinkets but they have to rule by fear and constantly look over their shoulder because of the consequences of their actions, those that are around them are often in danger as well. It may make for a good dramatic story such as Netflix's famous Narcos but it does not make for a good life.
4) BEN
Aristotle teaches that we should be concerned with achieving good character. If we do the right thing out of custom, I don't see that it interferes with achieving good character. In fact, I think it is evidence that we are of good character, that we do what is right so often that it becomes habit. That does not eliminate the opportunity to make the right choices when presented with the need, to act "with knowledge" when needed.
To address the prompt about soldiers who are told wat to do. Yes, soldiers are told what to do, however there is also a standing requirement to ignore orders that the soldier believes to be illegal or immoral. Even in the heat of the moment a soldier if told to do something it is incumbent upon them within the situation to judge the morals and legality of the action. For example, if a soldier is told by someone in a position of authority over them to kill what appears to be an unarmed noncombatant the soldier needs to make the judgement call of whether the person issuing the order is in a position to know more about the situation than the soldier does. For example suppose there is a woman wearing an abaya who just walked around a corner into a soldier's view. That woman could be known by the soldier's supervisor to be concealing a suicide vest under her abaya. Because the supervisor no longer has an opportunity to engage but knew the woman presented an imminent threat, the supervisor ordered the soldier to shoot her. Anybody placed in the soldier's situation would question the order, the soldier must trust that the person issuing the order is issuing a legal order, and engage the target with lethal force.
The soldier might would be operating somewhere between knowledge and belief. The soldier receiving the order would not have a way of knowing that order was legal, and the behavior was virtuous but the soldier would be operating under the belief that the supervisor was issuing a legal order therefore making their actions virtuous. Therefore the soldier would be operating as Robinson said, "he considers properly what others have to say, and knows when to follow their advice and ignore his own inclinations, just as he knows when to discard that advice and follow his own will (Robinson, 2009).
5) RICH
Aristotle said that moral virtue is learned through habit rather than reasoning or being instructed to. I think there could be a fine line about a virtuous person because someone may be doing what they think is right, but others don't see it that way. It may be how a person was brought up or based on their moral views. We all have the choice to change our views as we grow older and find our own way of understanding things.
Soldiers are trained to follow orders from their superiors. A soldiers virtues of courage generally overlap their assumed former virtues of happiness and compassion because they may not like certain things they have to do to stay a soldier, such as, take commands from their superior or kill. In order to protect what they love they have to think fast and critically. My brother was in the Army and before he left he was kind and generous to everyone. When he came back he was cold to everyone and had no empathy or compassion. But he was courageous and brutally honest at times. Although he was not the same person I knew before I understood why. He went through things that no one would want to go through ever. He told me stories of him fighting for our country and I was appalled. I will never forget it and I have the upmost respect for those who are in the military.
Do you think you would change your moral and ethical views if you were in a situation of being told what to do such as the military, or would you try to keep your composure and stay the same as you have always been?
6) KAYLA
Aristotle states that virtuous actions are done because the person doing them knows that the act is good. In my opinion, the problem with this is that what one person might think is a good act, another person might not. So, I think virtual ethics is a hard one to draw a line on good morals and bad. I think this theory as well as the deontological theory are tricky because they both aren't just easy to distinguish between. With this being said, a person who is very greedy, only does things for other people to get something in return, makes fun of friends behind their back (and so on) might really think that they are flourishing, that they have a golden mean of courage but to many others, this person is not a good moral person at all.
I think that Aristotle was right to put this condition on virtuous behavior because it deals with a person's character. Leading into the next thing, I think people grow up doing and acting a certain way and when you do for so many years, it just becomes custom to that person; it becomes a habit. I could use an example of recycling. I was raised in a family that recycles (to help our environment) and my husband's family did not recycle. So, I am forever going to throw something away in our regular trash can and see something that my husband threw in there that he should have recycled so we start the whole argument over again. We both grew up doing different things out of habit so is he right in not wanting to recycle because it is a "habit" to just throw everything in the trash (which he thinks is the right thing) or am I right because I have different knowledge and I think it is the right thing? I think it is a hard argument because, here again, I think I am doing right because it is safe for our environment; I think it shows I have good character but my husband doesn't think it matters and it has nothing to do with having good character.
About soldiers, I think just like with the deontological theory where any lie is not acceptable this one is a tough one. I would have to go with Robinson here. Soldiers are trained to follow orders. I tell my son who likes to argue about me "bossing" him around that he will always have rules by someone even after he leaves the home. I think soldiers will ultimately listen to what they are being told but yet listen to their gut feeling, just like Robinson states. They will know, or have some recognition of, when something is not right like maybe they have orders to shoot someone that really isn't an immediate threat. For example, what if a soldier is watching a kid walk across the road and his Sargent yells "he's reaching for his gun" but the soldier was watching this child's every move and knows without a doubt that the child did not reach for a gun. This soldier might follow his own will and not shoot the child.
So, I think it is our good character that helps us choose what is right and wrong and because we do so often, it becomes the "right thing to do" or a "habit".