Robert Louden's Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
I agree with Robert Louden's criticisms of the Virtue Ethics theory because they are correct. In this essay, I shall examine and evaluate Louden's allegation against virtue ethics in his book 'Virtue Ethics and Anti-theory,' as well as provide important reasons why I believe his arguments are valid and should be taken into account. Throughout his work, he assumes that Virtue Ethics (VE) can only provide a single point of reference for action, which is to do what a virtuous agent would do in any given situation. As a result, VE is incapable of providing adequate action guidance. Unlike other theories such as Deontology which is based on responsibilities and rules, or Utilitarianism that is focused on our action's consequences, VE as a theory is based on positive character. This is a character which is generally agreed to be good by everyone, thus making anyone who possesses it to be considered as a good person. The theory is focused on a moral agent. I believe that VE does not supply us with enough moral guidance that is sufficient enough to meet the requirements of moral theory.
Virtue Ethics and Actionable Direction
Virtue Ethics is not able to provide actionable direction because its primary focus is on character rather than action. Judgment should neither be based on actions nor their consequences but instead on showing good and honorable dispositions, sensitivities, and intentions. I suggest that the theories that are developed by VE should incorporate feelings and experiences. This is because, in most instances, rules tend to have their origin in moral intuitions, sensitivity, and feelings of goodwill. These rules are usually very efficient since they are used when making decisions that concern unique ethical situations. Furthermore, rules are very rigid and they are always generalized, in most cases, rules may be complicated to apply and inappropriate to particular circumstances.
Moral Dilemmas and Virtue Ethics
The issue of moral dilemmas is not comprehensible by VE as it alleges that people cannot solve them. It is very cynical on the classical and traditional theories that offer ways of addressing these dilemmas. As much as VE recognizes that moral dilemmas are inevitable and should be therefore tolerated according to ethics, it does not believe in any unity of intrinsic worth. I wonder why VE completely rejects the solutions offered by classical and traditional theories because I think that any approach can help in finding out how to deal with moral dilemmas. According to me, it is not right to just assume that these dilemmas are irresolvable. I suppose that if people can judge themselves and others on what is wrong or right, they should also have clear answers as to what is ethical or not. Hence they should find a way of judging the moral dilemmas and find a way of solving them. It is natural that when people have a problem of any type, they always try to solve it at all costs. Typically, they do not just sit back and give up without even trying. Therefore, I agree with Louden when he suggests that we should take action before conceding defeat.
Virtue Ethics and Decision Making
Virtue Ethics points out that morally good people do not need to engage in rule-guided deliberation, it is therefore against the procedure of rational decision making. So I ask myself how these good people arrive at their decisions. I wonder if they use intuitions, their experiences, or choose legal actions from their virtues. It is true that they could use what I have stated to make their right decisions but what is clear to me is that, for most of us, rules are needed for guidance without which we would be confused. Many people make wrong decisions from the intuition of 'sense of morality.' In fact, some people rape and maim others and, according to them, it is the right thing to do since they are following their intuition. I would advocate for rule-based decisions as I would feel safer with them because they are predictable and are viewed to be right by most people.
Objectivity and Virtue Ethics
On matters of objectivity, VE is a loser as compared with traditional ethics. All theories have a challenging goal and desire to expound their concepts on ethics to authenticate their claims to be objective. Many contemporary ethicists argue that no ethical theory can be accurate and substantiated. Therefore this shows that the concept of universal right should be abandoned because there is no epistemological foundation of truth which is reliable. Thus what is right in my opinion could only be correct according to me but may not be right according to other people. In my view, what is right is subjective. In my understanding, I am the judge of what is right for my well-being and hence, decide what is practically good or bad for me. The foundation of what is morally good depends on each person's perspective of what suits them best. So the basis of what is ethically good must rest upon what each person perceives as the good of their well-being. It is true that everyone has expectations of what they want from another person, so the moral choice we make will be the solution for satisfying our well-being.
The Role of Character in Decision Making
I persuade VE to try and see that the people who are considered to be of good character could base their judgments on purely personal reasons. For instance, other people may not like you and could take the action of moral beliefs that VE would consider to be 'right,' for purely personal reasons and not their 'good character.' This would alter their behavior and decision patterns. No one is perfect and everyone makes mistakes at some point in their life because human beings are prone to errors. According to me, I find it unacceptable for VE to base its entire theory on a person's character to make a decision that is considered to be right. I believe the intentions that are perceived by a person's actions clearly show their character. Therefore, in my view, founding a theory on actions rather than a character could make the assumption more substantial.
Questioning Ethical Theories
Throughout the philosophy's history, Vocalists, Feminists, Virtue theorists, and other contemporary anti-theorists have always questioned the ethical theories. They have raised issues concerning rules of reasoning, moral judgment, and procedures followed in making decisions. Most of the time, these rules are questioned because they are found to be; rigid, wrong, unreasonable, unnecessary or even impossible to apply. The change we need is within us and it is upon us to rise up and act towards establishing the change we want in our society. It is no longer acceptable in this era to just accept everything that is passed down to us from the past generation. We should instead question everything as most of the principles that were applicable in the past decade cannot hold in this era.
