Personal Virtue - An Ethics Analysis

     In my day-to-day life, the approach that I utilize in moral contemplation entails reasoning in a teleological fashion of which revolves around utilitarianism. “Most of us find rule utilitarianism (consequentialism that establishes rules and then reasons from them) easier to work with on a day-to-day basis than act utilitarianism (consequentialism that evaluates every individual act on the bases of its consequences). But any consequentialist will insist on the point that every legitimate major premise for such a moral syllogism is based on consequentialists reasoning; we need no divine commands, unverifiable intuitions, or arbitrary pronouncements to give us the principles from which we derive the moral states of the act in question” 1.

     Admittedly, in recent times, my life has changed drastically—through the acceptance of responsibility for other life besides my own, as a father, the tendency and idea of reasoning from virtue utilizing utilitarian tradition has become more relevant to my set of moral principles. I strongly believe that “every time we act we simultaneously define ourselves (as the type of person who acts this way) and change ourselves (towards that type of person), whether for better or for worse” 2. “Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—‘How should I live?’ and ‘What is the good life?’ and ‘What are proper family and social values?’” 3.

     “It is the highest virtue of the human race, Royce argued, to make a value your own, the object of your loyalty, and devote yourself thenceforth to that. Yet we must also step back from professional or otherwise limited goals and evaluate them in terms of the larger commitments. It is our duty to be loyal and obedient; it is also our duty to be critical and to question authority; it is our duty, further, to accept the conflict between those two duties, and set a course for ourselves that incorporates both of them”4. Understanding my principle values and monitoring those principles as they develop into personal character traits, of which I reason ontologically with, defines who I am morally. Through the practice of virtue ethics and furthermore the development of important ethical principles I strive to ensure that my son can consider me a role model, and furthermore an ethically sensible person.

     “If you weigh different kinds of systems of morality against each other, sure it would be nice if morality were simple so that in all situations we could say well look--this is stealing so I can’t do it, this is lying so I can’t do it, this is killing so I can’t do it, this is physical violence so I can’t do it”5. Though more often than not, moral reasoning is not so cut and dry. An abundant set of factors, depending on whom is reasoning dictates the outcome of whatever may be the subject of contemplation. “Ethics is serious, and very difficult. If we are not to think that there are no right answers at all, our next temptation is to find one simple answer that takes care of all problems once and for all. In this error we may include the relatively simple fallacies of egoism (‘whatever helps me in the long run counts, and nothing else counts’) and cultural relativism (‘whatever my group thinks is right to do, right now, is right to do, for me, right now’). Both stop short of including human beings beyond the immediate group, and so fail as ethical theories”6. “If we are looking for constants in the human pursuit of right and wrong, we must include the recurring and sincere desire of human beings to live as they ought to live, to adhere to a standard of right conduct or virtue—to avoid the extremes of cynicism and fanaticism and to be good” 7.

     “In one sense, fanaticism is the opposite pole from cynicism: fanaticism is an excess of moral belief, and cynicism is a lack of the same. In another sense, fanaticism is exactly like cynicism: both abolish the need to reason, to think, to deliberate and debate, to agonize, to suffer remorse when your difficult choice turns out to be wrong. Both vices of moral belief are ways out of the necessary pain of moral reflection; as such, they are equally attractive and equally wrong”8. In the past, prior to what I consider a personal enlightenment period I have been guilty of a less than ethically sound thought process. This less-than-sound thought process included not only disregarding my community, but in some instances I have disregarded my individual interests as well. Thinking in a way that was not only selfish but immature in nature. From missing copious amounts of high-school to dropping out of college classes, reasoning of any sort, whether deontological, teleological, or ontological was out of the question—let alone was I rational in the way that I made my choices.

     An argument over proper tactics in which ethical contemplation should entail is a topic of debate that could extend for eternity. Though, “I think that if I have to make it really brief I would say the most important thing to focus on, is this idea that we get for the first time very clearly in Immanuel Kant, the idea of universalization. That is to say, you put yourself in the roles of everyone else in a particular ethical situation and ask yourself from these various points of view how you would want the decision to be made and what the principles are, what the values are—and you will then see by putting yourself into the situation of the recipients of your action, you will then see from their points of view the various features of the situation that are morally important. You will see what their needs are, you will see how their trust in you might be violated and so on and so forth, and that I think is probably something that many traditions for example consequentialism, deontologism would agree on, and something that at least gets you started at thinking ethically about a situation”9.

     Humans are social in nature, and because humans are social in nature “we are capable of helping or harming. What is more, we are theoretically capable of understanding when we are doing the one and when the other. This is so because we have the capacity to put ourselves imaginatively in the place of others and recognize how we would be affected if someone were to act toward us as we are acting toward others”10. The reality that people are social, are embodied, and are rational in nature are the essential principles of which the traditions of ethics are founded upon. Personally, I believe said principles to provide ample reason for utilitarianism centering on the welfare of community and society to be of value to myself, and a majority of society’s ethically reasonable population. “The strength of Utilitarianism is its immense practicality. It tells you how to go to work immediately to do some good: find out what people need, and get it for them; find out what’s hurting people and make it stop. In a world full of famine, war, political prisons, and welfare hotels, that is enough direction to consume a lifetime very profitably”11.

     The notion that some members of any given community are not reasonable in nature is a societal reality. A societal reality that moral reasoning is not of value to some creates the need for a system such as a prison system/correctional system. In many cases, mental health treatment, or even simply education may solve the lack-of moral belief/utilization in an individual’s thought process. Some members of society simply do not believe the same moral principles to be of importance as other members do. These differences ensure a variety of principles in society and furthermore community of which any given person’s virtues may be based on.

     I personally am thankful at this point in my life for the principles in which my character has developed from, and am even thankful for the character traits of which I’ve eradicated from my process of moral reasoning. In the way that Kenneth S. Pope, Ph.D. describes professional ethics as such, “Ethical development is, for most, a career-long process. Ethical development that stops at graduate school can be a little like the professor relying on the same yellowing lecture notes decade after decade, never bothering to update, rethink, or renew”12--I believe personal ethics to evolve just as professional ethics often do. In my experience, evolved ethics are improved ethics. However in the case of say, extremists, whom of which come from non-extreme backgrounds and have been upstanding members of society prior to ethical evolution—the evolution of ethics is non-beneficial to society. The systematic ethical evolution of ethics from my point of view is a natural process, though in some cases the process is a forced phenomenon (the prison/correction system for example). With this evolution comes the notion that societal standards of sound ethics are forever changing. Considering the reality that society’s understanding of sound virtue is changing rapidly (gay marriage rights for example), I believe the future ‘definition’ and standard of any given community’s moral ‘correctness’ can only be known with time.

Endnotes

1 Newton, Lisa H. Ethics In America: Study Guide. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1989, 2004. Print. 24.

2 Newton 24.

3 Athanassoulis, Nafsika. “Virtue Ethics”. Keele University, United Kingdom. http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/.

4 Newton Study Guide 213, Source Reader 133-137.

5 Professor Pogge. An Introduction to Ethical Reasoning. Ethics In America. Columbia University, 1989. Audiocassette 13. 22:45.

6 Newton Study Guide 211-212.

7 Newton Study Guide 212.

8 Newton Study Guide 212.

9 Professor Pogge 51:24.

10Linda Elder and Paul Richard. “Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education”. Foundation for Critical Thinking. November 19, 2011. Web. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/ethical-reasoning-essential-to-education/1036.

11 Newton Study Guide 38

12 Kenneth S. Pope, P.hd. ABPP. “Developing and Practicing Ethics”. Web. http://www.kspope.com/ethics/ethical.php#Note

Works Cited

Athanassoulis, Nafsika. “Virtue Ethics”. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Keele University, United Kingdom. Web. http://www.iep.utm.edu/virtue/.
Elder, Linda and Paul, Richard. “Ethical Reasoning Essential to Education”. Foundation for Critical Thinking. November 19, 2011. Web. http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/ethical- reasoning-essential-to- education/1036.

Ethics In America: Source Reader. Ed. Lisa H. Newton. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1989, 2004. Print.

Friendly, Fred W. Ethics In America. An Introduction to Ethical Reasoning. Columbia University, 1989. Audiocassette 13.

Newton, Lisa H. Ethics In America: Study Guide. 2nd ed. New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 1989, 2004. Print.

Pope, Kenneth S. “Developing and Practicing Ethics”. Web. http://www.kspope.com/ethics/ethical.php#Note

Image by https://pixabay.com/users/Tumisu-148124/?utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=2991600