DB Wk 3 Ethics
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Brandman University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
200
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by MateRamPerson3857
Virtue ethics seems to imply that human beings have a purpose for their existence. Do human beings have a purpose for their existence? Is the moral life a matter of achieving the purpose of human existence? Can someone who denies that there is any purpose to human life be a moral person?
Virtue ethics, a theoretical advance toward ethics that highlights a individual’s character as the key element of ethical thinking, does suggest that humans have a purpose for their existence. The
purpose of virtue ethics consists of traits such as honesty, courage, compassion, generosity, integrity, fairness, discipline/self-control. According to virtue ethics, it is a matter of achieving the purpose of human existence. That is because virtue ethics is not primarily about applying ethical rules, but more so about building character traits and getting rid of the bad ones. Good character is the best way of leading a good moral life. Yes, someone who denies that there is any purpose to human life can be a moral person. Morality
does not require you to believe in a specific purpose in life. A person can object that life has a built-in purpose, yet still attach to moral principles such as fairness, honesty and respect for one another. These principles aren’t important because they satisfy a purpose, but because they make life much better and easier for individuals and societies. What (if anything) is wrong with this argument? Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins compares the idea of trying to give people what they deserve for what they have done to Basil Fawlty (of Fawlty Towers fame) bashing his car for failing to start. Is this a good analogy, or not?
The issue with this argument varies based on perspective. We can assume that if our actions are the result of a chain of events, then how could we be held responsible for them? Making this a controversial point. Many people will argue that even if our actions are determined by prior events, we can and should still be held morally responsible for them. Dawkins's analogy is intriguing, but I don’t completely agree. The connection of a person to a car is lacking depth in the difficulty of humans and how their decisions are made. A car is an object without consciousness or feelings and do not have the ability to make decisions. Humans being the exact opposite with the ability to make decisions, even if those decisions are influenced
by things that have happened previously. So although the analogy is stimulating, it doesn’t fully illustrate the suspicion of the debate around moral responsibility.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help