Question/Prompt: Summarize either Virtue Ethics or the Ethics of Care.
My answer/response: Simply defined virtue is “the quality of a thing which enables it to perform its’ function well”. Taken a step further, moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” In addition it is important to know that character is “the enduring state of ones person moral identity”.
Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom went through different aspects of virtue theory. It is not a new idea although there are modern applications. To understand virtue ethics more completely it is important to have an understanding of how it has been described in the past and how it is applied and carried out today. Dr. Clifton-Soderstrom began his summary by describing the “Spheres of the Moral Life”. These spheres included; forming the moral conscious, making moral decisions and forming moral identity.
The situations which virtue ethics apply to have changed since its origins in ancient Greece. Virtue ethics in Ancient Greece was founded in human nature. The virtue ethics fell into the following categories: Eudemonia – human flourishing, Ethos – character, Arête – virtue, excellence AND Ethos – habituation.
The main question that is being asked in trying to figure out a lifestyle by which to live is “What is the best possible life for all human beings?” This question is quickly followed by “What does the life of one who is truly, and deeply, happy look like?”
A virtue ethicist would argue that a life of virtue would result in a life that was truly and deeply happy. To know what happiness is we can look to the wisdom of both an ancient and modern philosopher. “Happiness is some kind of activity of the soul in conformity with virtue.” (Aristotle). Stanley Hauerwas would say “Happiness is not so much the end, but the way.”
These quotes give excellent insight into what a truly happy life would be like. But these quotes are based on a set of virtues that should be carried out in everyday life. The following list of virtues are things that should be found in a person who is living a happy life: wisdom, courage, compassion, humility, purity, patience, faith, prudence, justice, mercy, simplicity, gentleness, piety, hope, temperance, generosity, gratitude, tolerance, humor, loyalty, love. (virtues in italics are associated with Greek thought, words in bold are associated with Christian thought).
It would drive you crazy trying to remember to do each of these things everyday through your typical routines. These virtues come about as a result of practice as was stated earlier moral virtue is “a settled and lasting disposition of character to act in excellent and praiseworthy ways, cultivated over time through habit.” This is what someone who desires to be happy should strive after.
Showing posts with label virtue ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtue ethics. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Jotting #14 Applying Virtue Ethics
Question/Prompt: Evaluate case #20, page 235 of HARRIS, as a virtue ethicist or care ethicist would.
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
My Answer/Response:
My default view of overpaid CEO’s has never been favorable. The fact that one man or women could be paid 160 more times than the average American employee seems just plain wrong. But it is not enough to rely on the way things seem. Furthermore just because I may feel it is not right that so much money is given to this one person does not actually make it wrong. There is always an opposing view on issues even if it seems that the issue is obvious. The fact of the matter is the CEO is benefiting greatly from the high salary and could probably give good reasons justifying the amount they are paid.
Some of the arguments supporting high CEO wages are outlined in the case itself. “If highly qualified people occupy these positions everyone will benefit; even the lowest-paid worker will be better off than he or she would be otherwise, because there will be ore and better-paying jobs.”
In applying virtue ethics we must first determine what the alternative options are in the situation. One alternative is a pay cut for the CEO. In turn this money could be distributed among all of the people that work for the company. The redistributed money would bring an increased level of living for those employees. However, a paycut may bring poor results to the company as well. The lower pay of the CEO will make the job less attractive for qualified individuals. If a lesser qualified person gets the job the company may in turn suffer as a result. This suffering could manifest itself in many different ways one of which being job cuts. Job cuts are worse than a low paying job for the person.
If the CEO were in fact a virtuous person they would enjoy being virtuous. This virtue of course is not cut and dry. To the CEO it may seem virtuous to take the pay because they know that they are the only ones that can do the job that they are doing. This gets into the situation of virtue pluralism. Virtue pluralism, according to Harriss, “recognizes that different people can emphasize different virtues and that there may not be any way to establish one virtue or set of virtues as superior overall.
The best way to handle this situation is to apply the final point of the checklist Harriss provides in his book. If you do in fact feel that both options (paycut or keep the pay) are equal than you can appeal to this; “select the action that represents the most desirable virtues in the situation.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
