The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue Published:
Deep ecology is one of about nine major approaches to our relationship with the world around us that have been mapped out by environmental philosophers in recent years.
First there are those approaches that ascribe only a use value or instrumental value to the nonhuman world. This covers the approaches of unrestrained exploitation and expansionism, resource conservation and development, and resource preservation.
Second are those approaches that argue for a criterion of moral consideration that would attribute an intrinsic value to at least some, and perhaps many, members or aspects of the nonhuman world.
This covers the sentiencebased approach that is, the animal welfare approachthe life-based approach, and the holistic integrity approach. Some of these approaches have attracted quite a lot of attention in recent years, in philosophical circles, in the wider environmental movement and beyond.
Deep ecology certainly has; for many people there is something quite intriguing about both the name and the ideas with which it is associated. Deep ecology is associated with three central ideas. The first is that we should ask deeper questions about our relationship with the world around us, and indeed it is this idea that gives deep ecology its name.
According to the influential Norwegian philosopher Arne Naesswho coined the term deep ecology init stands for a deep questioning approach to our relationship with the world around us.
In contrast, the response of the deep ecology movement is the more radical one of asking searching questions about the situation and looking for solutions to what is causing the problem in the first place rather than simply responding to the symptoms of the problem.
The second central idea in deep ecology is the attempt to replace anthropocentric that is, human-centred forms of thinking, valuing, and acting with ecocentric that is, ecologycentred forms of thinking, valuing, and acting.
This shift is held to flow from the process of asking deeper questions about our relationship with the world around us. From the perspective of deep ecology it is simply no longer rationally defensible to believe that the world and all its creatures were made for humans and that humans are the only entities on the earth that are intrinsically valuable, that is, valuable in their own right as opposed to merely having an instrumental value.
But how exactly are we to realize as wide and deep a sense of Self as possible? For Naess and the other advocates of deep ecology the answer is: They see this as the most appropriate response to our contemporary understanding, informed by ecological and evolutionary theory, that we are indeed a part of the natural order of things.
I now want to shift the focus of the discussion to consider the field of ethics in general in order to address this question. Approaches that focus on those personal qualities — those qualities of character — that make someone a good person are referred to, appropriately enough, as virtue ethics.
Focussing on the kinds of principles or obligations that people should respect and, hence, on the kinds of moral duties they should perform is referred to as deontological ethics, or duty ethics. Finally, those approaches that focus on the goodness or badness of outcomes, or consequences, are referred to as consequentialist ethics.
An interesting distinction can be drawn between virtue ethics on the one hand and the other two approaches — that is, duty ethics and consequentialist ethics — on the other hand. Specifically, virtue ethics is primarily concerned with our way of being in the world, with the qualities of character that make us who we are, whereas duty ethics and consequentialist ethics are primarily concerned with what we actually do or intend to do in the world.
Indeed, Kant is notorious for his rather extreme point of view that the real test of a genuinely moral action is whether or not a person performs the action in question against their own inclination to do so, that is, simply out of a sense of duty and for no other reason.
Needless to say, this can lead to a rather dreary and uninspiring view of moral action. From the point of view of virtue ethics, we could argue that the kinds of qualities that we might want to cultivate in our character are precisely those qualities that lead us to want to do the kinds of things that duty based and consequentialist ethics would say we ought to do.
This can lead to a much more inspiring conception of moral action, for it is one in which we seek to cultivate a questing for and love of the good in ourselves.
The fact that virtue ethics addresses itself to the constitution of our innermost being means that there is a sense in which the various approaches to virtue ethics can even be thought of as spiritual paths.
If we want to pursue this approach to ethics and to a thisworldly form of enlightenment? Not only does Aristotle provide the most famous example of an approach to virtue ethics, but the major schools of Hellenistic philosophy that followed him — the Epicureans, Stoics, and Skeptics — also developed approaches that were primarily concerned with the cultivation of certain qualities of character, particularly those held to lead to lack of mental disturbance or, more positively, mental tranquillity ataraxia, apatheia.Outline the Principle Advantages and Disadvantages of an Approach to Ethics Based Around Virtue.
Topics: Ethics Virtue ethics was first introduces by Plato and was further developed by Aristotle. Virtue ethics is based on the focus of characteristics, also known as virtues. Outline the Principle Advantages and Disadvantages of an Approach to Ethics Based Around Virtue Words | 3 Pages.
With any approach to ethics there will . Our commonsense thinking about the virtues has certain advantages over Kantian ethics and commonsense morality narrowly conceived. The latter two are committed to a self‐other asymmetry with respect to moral goodness and rightness: what harms the agent is not treated as morally criticizable in the way that what harms other people is.
By contrast, our ordinary understanding of virtues allows regardbouddhiste.com Overall I believe that Virtue ethics is a successful ethical approach because of the fact that it has universal appeal and it is flexible.
Due to these assets it is very attractive as it can be used in all situations and it isnt the end of the world is a mistake is made as it is all part of the. · Virtue ethics certainly didn’t die away after Aristotle.
Roman Stoics like Seneca and Marcus Aurelius also focused on character rather than abstract principles. And they, too, saw moral virtue as constitutive of the good life– that is, being a morally good person is a regardbouddhiste.com Virtue ethics, though, would survive the revolution untouched.
The first strength of virtue theory is therefore that it has no need of outdated concepts of moral obligation. The main strength of virtue theory, though, is that unlike other ethical traditions it affords a central role to regardbouddhiste.com://regardbouddhiste.com