Analysis Of After Virtue By Alasdiar Macintyre

This paper is going to discuss Ethics and Ethical Theories. It will include an introduction to ethical theories, virtue ethics, and care ethics. There will be sections discussing absolutism versus relativism, consequentialism versus deontological ethics, and lastly, free will versus determinism. It will also include a discussion about the study of morality and identify which of the approaches (Scientific, Philosophical, or Theological/Religious) are closest to my own personal beliefs. There will be a discussion regarding the three sources of ethics

In our society today, we are mostly challenged by two questions: ‘is it right to do this or that? And ‘how should I be living in society?’(Bessant, 2009). Similar questions were greatly discussed in the history by our ancestors in their philosophical discussions. The most ancient and long-lasting literature on moral principles and ethics were described by Greek philosopher Aristotle. He had an excellent command on various subjects ranging from sciences to mathematics and philosophy. He was also a student of a famous philosopher. His most important study on ethics, personal morality and virtues is ‘The Nicomachean Ethics’, which has been greatly influencing works of literature in ethics and heavily read for centuries, is believed to be

Ethics is the study of right and wrong and can be thought of as almost identical to moral law. The word Ethics comes from the Latin word mos and the Greek word ethos, meaning ‘the way things are done’. Thomas Nagel, a professor of philosophy and Fiorello LaGuardia Professor of Law at New York University is a well-known writer of Ethics who provides an insightful perspective to ethical reasoning. Nagel believes there are objective moral truths; he claims one can perform a moral act that is defensible from "an external point of view" and cannot be reduced to an act arising simply from subjective or personal preferences. Objectivity and subjectivity must be clarified in order to grasp Nagel’s assertions. Objectivity is external and naturalistic; a universal sense for everyone. Subjectivity is internal and does not need any external authority. Given that the essence of objectivity and subjectivity is now understood; by looking at the argumentative evidence Thomas Nagel provides in his book The Last Word, one must examine how he establishes his belief of objective moral truths in natural law, reason, reflection, language, intentionality; and whether or not he is successful in doing so.

There is a constant war waging between good and evil in everyday life. It may be a war between two fractions that feel they are both in the right or an internal battle of good and evil. In William Shakespeare’s Macbeth the titular character and his wife are battling against the true nature of themselves and in each other. Although they are known and seen by others as virtuous, their unsatisfactory greed and ambition lead both characters to become immoral.

In “Morality and the Distinctiveness of Human Action”, Korsgaard does not agree with the veneer theory and proposes that human beings are originally acquisitive, but they become moral beings through the process of living and growing up under the circumstance of society. In this paper, I will defend this argument. I will first explain in detail what “self-government” is and why it is the most important to human morality. Then I address two opposing arguments. The first one challenges the theory of “deepest level of intentionality”, and the second one used the example of children to attack the “self-government” theory. I will point out the weaknesses of these arguments to show the validity of Korsgaard’s theory.

In his paper The Concept of de (“Virtue”) in the Laozi, Philip J. Ivanhoe discusses three distinctive characteristics of de as found in the Dao De Jing, namely its attractive power, its effect on others, and its relationship to wuwei in governance. I will outline these qualities in turn and then attempt to show how they manifest in the character of Forrest Gump.

Emotivism is a meta-ethical theory developed by AJ Ayer and agreed upon by C.L Stevenson which says that ethical sentences do not possess moral propositions but only emotional attitudes. This theory surged in the late 20th century, and was commonly known as the hooray/boo theory. I will discuss why I believe that this theory is correct and will discuss the problems that Emotivism faces, and I will give reasons on how emotivism can overcome these challenges. I will also be discussing why I think more people should follow Emotivism, and discuss the benefits of this philosophy.

Ethics and virtue have been a very contentious issue facing society for centuries. Many argue over the merits of various theories, each with its own philosophies and assumptions. It is this argument that has given rise to many popular and followed theories of ethics and virtues. The theories discussed primarily in this document include the virtue theory, utilitarianism, and deontological theory. Each is very distinct to the others in regards to its principles and assumptions regarding human behavior. Each however, has merit in regards to question of ethics and virtue, and how it should subsequently be valued.

There are many differences between Simple Subjectivism and Emotivism. This paper will compare and contrast both theories, as well as explain why Simple Subjectivism cannot explain moral disagreement, and Emotivism can but incorrectly. By arguing these two ethical views, I can better explain or make a claim on how one ought to understand occurrences of moral

As time goes by, ethical and moral issues have been brought up for long periods of time and these issues are recently becoming the rising problem to be discussed in society, business area and daily life. Most of people generally understand that the general meaning of ethics equals to the meaning of moral. However, moral is basically a matter of individual conscience without forcibleness, but ethics are related to social system with forcibleness. The academic definition of ethics is described as a stem of philosophy which raises moral questions and is demonstrated what is the main characteristic of morality and the way in which moral standards are decided (Gray & Webb, 2010).

Ethics can be defined as "the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs with the aim of improving, extending or refining those beliefs in some way." (Dodds, Lecture 2) Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as discuss why I believe Kant's theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.

Virtue Ethics is neither deontological nor teleological, since it is concerned with neither duty nor consequences, but rather the state of the person acting. Aristotle believed that once you are good, good actions will necessarily follow, and this belief is at the centre of Virtue Ethics. Rather than defining good actions, Virtue Ethics looks at good people and the qualities that make them good. The non-normative theory, although very effective in determining the morality of individuals, is particularly flawed when applied to whole societies. This weakness is largely due to its imprecision and abstraction; however, before these weaknesses can be considered, it is necessary to give an account of the theory itself.

Summary: The Virtue Theories focus on two main ideas. The first idea is to develop good habits of character such as wisdom, courage, temperance and justice.The second idea is to avoid acquiring bad character traits such as injustice and vanity. In addition to this two main ideas, Virtue theory emphasizes moral education since virtuous character traits are developed in one’s youth and emerge from within social tradition.

Philosophy is one of the most interesting subject. Many people assume and confuse it with psychology. Philosophy is completely different from psychology. Psychology is how a person feels about a topic, while philosophy is how you ought to feel about the topic. The purpose of philosophy is to understand an argument, not emotional, but logically. Only by truly understanding an argument, one can improve his/her thinking. Within philosophy, there are many ethical theories. Such theories include: the Divine Command Theory, Hedonism, Desire Theory, Ethical Relativism, and much more. In this term paper, I will discuss which theory I believe is the strongest and which theory I believe is the weakest. Regardless, there is no perfect theory. Each theory is without flaws.

The aim of this essay is to examine the following question. Does it make a difference in moral psychology whether one adopts Aristotle's ordinary or Immanuel Kant's revisionist definition of virtue as a moral habit? Suppose it is objected, at the outset, that these definitions cannot be critically compared because their moral theories are, respectively, aposteriori and apriori, and so incommensurable. Two points of commensurability and grounds for comparative evaluation are two basic problems that any theory in moral psychology must address. They are moral ignorance (I don't know what I ought to do) and weakness (I don't do what I know I ought to do).(1)