The Suggestion of Virtue-based Criteria
The suggestion provided by the criterion based on virtues is that the outcome of the activities we take part in is well provided that reason remains the basis through which moral decisions are made. Such criteria are in support of the idea that people live virtuously. It is for this reason that we have to consider living in line with the surrounding nature and enhance the accomplishment of the purposes set for in place for execution. Aristotle is broadly acknowledged for his remarkable knowledge and he provides an example using a razor. Whenever it is used appropriately to serve the purpose it was developed to accomplish, like shaving, it does it well and the case is different whenever it is used to carry out a different role from the ones it is intended to serve (Cushman et al., 50).
The Purpose of Human Beings and Virtuous Living
From the teachings of Aristotle, the purpose that human beings have lies within the utilization of mental faculty associated with reasoning. This is because we are the only beings that have this ability. The implication is that no other beings apart from humans owns the reasoning faculty. The belief is that applying reason in every task is the nature of humans. This is an indicator that human beings live virtuously as required by nature. Additionally, the criterion that's virtue-based is significant in the determination of the moral ethics of activities we partake. It makes the process simple. In the event that whatever we partake has an explanation as to why it has to be moral. The suggestion of such a criterion is that the final decisions we reach are well provided we continue to live virtuously. Therefore, Aristotle will remain in history for developing the criterion (Staub " Ervin).
Manners of Behavior and Virtue-based Criteria
In addition, such a strategy associated with determining the nature of behaviors entails three ways through which an individual could act. Such manners can either be balanced or balanced with regards to the intentions that human nature possesses.
Customs, Reasons, and Subjectivity
Such a criterion had its basis in line with the idea that every being accomplishes some task and whenever such achieves such set purposes, it implies that whatever they are doing is remarkable. With regards to Aristotle, the reason as to why humans exist is primarily to make use of reasoning so that they can make quality moral decisions that are well-rooted. With regards to the teachings of Immanuel Kant, anytime we have the urge to understand the actual definition of good behavior, it is wise to seek an answer that's flexible and thus can be applied in different scenarios and times. Custom is another thing whose teachings inform us that they keep changing from one place and time to another. For instance, people consume human flesh while in others, various events take place in a distinguished manner.
Thus, it is, for this reason, some can neither imagine nor go by what others follow as a path of their lives. Research has it that customs are a result of individual reasons. Such an instance was provided within the essay of Montaigne related to the custom of the French connected to making use of their hand to wipe ten noses. Initially, Montaigne considered the customer irrational. However, the moment he got an explanation behind the custom, he understood and finally accepted it. As a result of this illustration of the changing customs that are generated as a result of reason, the subjectivity of the individuals is visible and get restrictions from every individual that has an understanding. Thus, the virtue criterion whose pillar is largely established on reason hardly becomes applicable across the globe. This is the case because people apply their reasons in making decisions and living righteous lives associated with virtues that make them proud of themselves and the activities they participate in. The reasons that people possess for their customs keep varying depending on locations. This is another barrier towards the likelihood of universal applicability of such reasons (Harris and Sam).
Duty-based Criteria and Ethical Actions
This concept proposes that: "For whatever length of time that one carries on in this way, planning through the power of his/her will to do carry out their obligation towards kindred individuals, this implies acting ethically, regardless of whether the results of the activity really advantage the individual towards whom the activity is coordinated or not".
To put it plainly, this measure proposes that we have the obligation to treat people the way we need to be dealt with, and as long as we expect to do great our activities are moral; paying little mind to whether our activities have profited individuals or not. The duty-based basis encourages us to decide the ethical estimation of our activities based on the goals we had for doing such activities. The basis recommends that if one completes an activity with a great plan, the result does not make a difference. Along these lines, as indicated by this basis, the activities done are moral, in the event that they are planned to be. This basis also shows how to treat others the way we would need to be dealt with, along these lines, if the activities executed are among those which we would be satisfied to get, the fact is that they are moral. This foundation was produced by the lessons of Immanuel Kant.
It was created in light of the fact that Kant trusts that "One must treat someone else well, not on the grounds that that individual may one day give back where its due, or on account of some other outcome, but since that individual's status as a judicious being makes him or her genuinely meriting the sort of treatment you would interest for yourself." This basis shows how to do unto others what we feel that they should do us in return. It is important to do this despite the fact that it might fail to generally deliver the wanted outcomes. Additionally, we can't depend on expectation alone as apparatuses to decide the ethical quality of an activity.
Good Intentions and Moral Actions
For instance: Robert Dilts of NLP University lets us know, "A mugger who burglarizes and maybe even murders another to get cash has a positive goal for himself yet no distinguishing proof with the casualty. The European pioneers who murdered Native American fathers and their families with a specific end goal to secure their own families had positive intentions."
Therefore, the implication is that however individuals may have great expectations, their activities are not generally moral. It is obvious to see that great expectation don't generally make ethically redress activities.
So while the strategy is generally material, in that, in any circumstance one could have the desire to set up significant outcomes, in this way have great expectations; not all the time do the great goals deliver moral outcomes. This paradigm recommends that, all together for an activity to be great/moral, the aftereffects of them must expand bliss, and also decrease trouble among at least one of the gatherings included. This implies the need of not just utilizing reasoning and having great aims to come to great outcomes, yet there is an opportunity of similarly making a move that guarantees the result of the activities in line with the expectations (Bandura " Albert, 123).
Works Cited
Bandura, Albert. "Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action." Handbook of moral behavior and development. Psychology Press, 2014. 69-128.
Cushman, Fiery, Liane Young, and Joshua D. Greene. "Our multi-system moral psychology: Towards a consensus view." The Oxford handbook of moral psychology (2010): 47-71.
Harris, Sam. The moral landscape: How science can determine human values. Simon and Schuster, 2011.
Staub, Ervin. Positive social behavior and morality: Social and personal influences. Elsevier, 2013.
