EVALUATIVE PAPER: COURSE OUTCOMES Reference LEARNING ● To understand and evaluate the basic Concepts of Ethics Wolff, Jonathan. An Introduction to Moral Philosophy, 219-229. Read and Understand the 13th Chapter of Wolff’s Introduction to Moral Philosophy. Guidelines for the evaluative essay: 1. There is no upper limit on the number of pages, but the lower limit is at least two (2) pages. Single-spaced format, size 12 font (any legible font), 1-inch margin on all sides of the document. 2. Please focus on these two guide questions: a) what are the points in Chapter 13 of Wolff’s work and b) what are the stakes involved in the discussion. Reflections and further analysis are very welcome in this exercise. 3. Please submit your essays to me via Google Classroom (in .doc or .docx format). The Chapter 13 of the Introduction to Moral Philosophy by Jonathan Wolff identifies the problems and challenges that virtue ethics come against with relation to the point of views of various philosophers and ideologists. The chapter also reviewed some critique of the position of Aristotle on virtue ethics. The first argument notes that Aristotle's concept of morality is fairly broad and frequently concerned with how much people enjoy their own lives and with external variables like affluence, good looks, and wit. Chapter 13 addresses a number of issues. The virtue ethics of Aristotle have drawn criticism for being inimical to morals and common good. Some contend he has incorporated elements unrelated to ethics. Another criticism of Aristotle's virtue ethics is that he said that having money, family, and other external influences are all parts of living a good life, which includes living morally uprightly. This argument leads to a conflict with other philosophers over whether acquiring a good life depends primarily on chance or on external conditions. It emphasizes how difficult it will be for those who have horrible luck to uphold the greatest moral standards. The Christian tradition also gave rise to the Stoic emphasis on interior states as a result of this issue, which is best shown by Immanuel Kant's belief that only "good will" has moral value. The philosophy of Aristotle contrasts sharply with that of the Stoics, Christians, and Kantians. The core of this second issue is the disagreement over whether the possibility of leading a morally honest life should be so dependent on chance, or, to put it another way, on outside circumstances. This is relevant to the tale in the Bible about the rich man and the poor widow. This states that if you agree that a widow's gift is more honorable than a rich person's, you are backing Christians and Stoics. If not, you concur with Aristotle. My gut instinct supports the Stoics, Christians, and Kantians in this situation. In my own viewpoint on this matter, the essence of giving should depend on the intent of giving rather than a person's social or financial level. There are wealthy people who give generously, and there are impoverished people who donate but do it with resentment or malice. There is a third objection as well, but it contrasts Immanuel Kant's view of the moral conundrum. It was mentioned in this section that the majority of Aristotelian readers find his virtue ethics frustrating to read since it does not provide or point to a clear direction to assist them in resolving their moral dilemmas. Aristotle simply described or stated what a good person would do in such difficult circumstances, but in the real world, you will struggle to put those ethics into practice and be at a loss for what to do. Aristotle's ethics, in my opinion, are not particularly flawed because you can find some ethics-related inspiration in his writings. However, you are ultimately responsible for choosing what acts to do, how to take them, and who is responsible for the results of those actions. As a result, virtue theory and abortion were another topic covered in Chapter 13. Rosalind Hursthouse said, "In exercising a moral right, I can do something cruel, or callous, or selfish, or light-minded, self-righteous, stupid, inconsiderate, disloyal, dishonest—that is, act viciously." Based on Hursthouse's statement, it is clear that abortion is typically framed in terms of two main concerns: first, whether a fetus has the status of a person; and second, whether a It has some relationship to the prochoice/body campaign, which is currently a hot topic in the Philippines surrounding the legality of abortion. However, abortion has many flaws when it comes to discussions of moral behavior, since some claim that even though the pregnancy was unintentional or resulted from events like rape or an unwanted pregnancy, it was still morally wrong. Given that it is against religious teaching to abort a child, doing so is unethical. Another unexpected virtue ethics has been covered in this chapter in addition to virtue theory and abortion. Based on a social psychology experiment, it discusses our traits and personalities and how relatively unimportant "situational" characteristics like mood more accurately predict our behavior than our personalities do. If I were to assess the abortion situation, I would be pro-choice because we shouldn't carry a child for the sake of life; instead, we should consider the future life of the child. Will that baby grow up with love or with hostility from those who are meant to be his or her parents? They say we should always choose life because children are blessings, but we also need to remember that while they may be blessings to us, their parents or other caregivers should also be blessings to them. The fourth argument is supported by social psychology experiments. We could conclude that the virtue ethics method emphasizes a person's moral character. Its objective is to instill virtue in people so they learn to cherish it. This tactic is supported by the seemingly harmless concept that every individual has a unique personality that greatly affects their behavior. Imagine, however, that this is untrue and that, rather than being influenced by our own personalities, our behavior is instead determined by outside causes. If this is the case, social psychology research may indicate that Aristotle's theory is false since our acts no longer accurately reflect our separate personalities. Moral behavior comes easily. The fifth issue, which touches on the crucial and delicate subjects of race and gender, is the final but certainly not the least. Discussion of Plato and Aristotle's philosophical perspectives on women's equality with men led to Aristotle's disturbing opinions on women and slavery. Aristotle's viewpoint states that if you are a woman— or, we should add, a non-Greek—you cannot live the highest form of a happy existence. Prior to that, we can detect a somewhat elitist aspect in his perspective. On the other hand, Aristotle's own teacher, Plato, had a different take on this matter and had a different attitude on women. In the ideal Republic, women should be educated and permitted to work side by side with men without distinction, according to Plato, who was open to the possibility of gender equality. He stated that women were not equal to men in terms of strength and virtue but were. Although he claims in the Republic that women have the same potential for ruling as men, Plato appears to be an early feminist. Overall, one can therefore draw the conclusion that Jonathan Wolff wrote this chapter on virtue ethics' difficulties in order to examine some of the strongest objections to virtue ethics with regard to the various positions taken by some notable philosophers, including Aristotle, Plato, Immanuel Kant, and even Rosalind Hursthouse. This chapter helped me to understand virtue ethics better and to gain a deeper understanding of it.
