according to radical virtue ethics, how should we determine what the right thing to do is

Virtue ethics is one of the top four or 5 ethical theories. Ethical theories are ways of organizing information regarding right and wrong. Typically, in scientific discipline, theories tin can exist shown in merely ane or 2 experiments or studies to be "false." However, when it comes to ethics, it's a chip more nuanced. The other major theories go past names such equally utilitarianism, deontology (duty-based ethics), and religious ideals. Other contenders for the Top 10 include ethical subjectivism, consequentialism, relativism, chicanery, and authority-based ideals. Virtue ethics is 1 of my favorites for sure, and I volition share some thoughts and perspectives well-nigh it in this blog. In the end, hopefully, the readers gain some appreciation for it, meet how it is different than competing ethical theories, and recognize how to "employ it" in real life (making ethical decisions, facing moral dilemmas, etc.).

Ane tin can tell what ethical theory they favor by filling in the blank in the sentence below when a moral decision is upon them (i.e., determine a real result in real time—considering engaging the emotions is necessary to get a "good read"). That sentence is: "Information technology is incorrect if I did Ten because this is an instance of the principle that (fill in the bare) ____________________." Basically, one goes from the specific state of affairs to the general rule. Hither is an example. You lot are thinking of quitting your job because your boss is driving yous crazy. You are asking yourself if y'all can just get up and walk out, or if you lot should give observe. Now, all considerations of practicality aside (which is typically the case when deciding right from wrong), what should you do?

If you come up up with a reason to non walk out that sounds like the post-obit, you are thinking ethically—you lot're considering the moral dimensions of a problem. "If I quit, Becky is going to have to deal with all my files until my lame boss gets someone new hired and trained. I don't want to do that to her because I wouldn't desire her to exercise that to me if our roles were reversed; or considering information technology is going to destroy her emotionally, whereas it is going to suck less for me if I just give notice and give two more weeks; or because a stand-up person isn't the kind of person who walks out on jobs," or the like.

Equally the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy puts it: "Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one's duty or acting in order to bring nearly skilful consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give yous this kind of moral advice: "Act equally a virtuous person would act in your situation."

The phrase, because a stand up-upwardly person (a loyal person, a person with character and integrity) doesn't walk out on jobs, is a good exemplar of this particular theory: virtue ethics. Hither, the question: "What is the right matter to do in this state of affairs?" is answered by the following: The right matter to do is to do that which a person of virtue would practise in a situation such as this. We are talking about censor hither, and equally the famous ethicist John Stuart Mill wrote, "It is not because men'southward desires are strong that they human action ill; information technology is because their consciences are weak."

Looking in on oneself considerately is important. The famous Adam Smith, a moral philosopher, was not bad on the idea of an observer—to consider  an objective person viewing oneself: "We endeavour to examine our own conduct as we imagine whatever other off-white and impartial spectator would examine it." Thus, to better ane's conduct, imagine that you are being observed – not simply by some private, but by one who is upstanding, good, wholesome, truthful, admirable. In a discussion, a person with graphic symbol. He likewise wrote: "We suppose ourselves the spectators of our own behavior, and endeavor to imagine what result it would, in this light, produce upon the states. This is the only looking-glass by which we tin can…scrutinize the propriety of our own conduct."

Likely you have seen this principle in action in modernistic culture. Have yous heard the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" It was a popular thing for a while in that location, and yous would come across Due west.W.J.D. on bracelets and the like. That includes a religious chemical element, simply basically information technology is virtue ideals because information technology is asking: What would a person of loftier moral integrity, of adept character, of excellent virtue, do in this exact state of affairs? It's   sometimes reminiscent of, say, asking what your grandad or your mom would do, or remembering their voice in your head (because generally, we learn well-nigh virtue ideals – and other theories, also—in the home).

There is also a swell, negative arroyo to this theory of right and incorrect. What I mean is, you are likewise preventing wrong beliefs by request yourself what yous should not do. Case: "I won't cheat on my husband considering then I would be a cheater, and cheaters are not skilful people." Or "I don't desire to take the coin out of that wallet I but found because what kind of human being steals someone's money when they are in the vulnerable position of having lost their wallet?"

It isn't like shooting fish in a barrel to ascertain virtues such every bit loyalty, honour, integrity, goodness, graphic symbol, honesty, fidelity, and moral praiseworthiness, but we know them when we run across them. I would besides propose that you research these values a bit in The Wisdom Archive, which is the fruit of all my labor at collecting quotations, poetry, and proverbs almost values, ethics, and "a life of value." But in one case y'all get more adept, more used to, doing the right thing co-ordinate to virtue ethics, similar Aristotle suggested was how character is formed, and so information technology becomes a fleck easier to execute ane's decision. It'due south never easy for a good person (who is morally less committed than a Jesus or a devout member of Jainism or the Dalai Lama) to do good acts. All the same, over time, if i concentrates on a version of the WWJD reminder (in this case, "What Would a Moral Person Do?"), and so information technology gets a flake more than 2nd-nature. The Dalai Lama, for instance, arguably, goes through his moral decisions daily without much hesitation, regret, or uncertainty because his sense of ethics is thoroughly engrained.

Now, 1 does not demand religiosity to be a skillful, secular, moral determination-maker. Though, permit'due south face information technology, it might exist easier. Religious adherents believe a significantly ethical effigy is watching them all the fourth dimension, and cannot be subconscious from! If I am non mistaken, I too believe that Thomas Jefferson was an admirer of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

So how does virtue ethics differ from the two biggies – utilitarianism and deontology? With utilitarianism, information technology's easy to describe. Utilitarianism was a 19th-century invention of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill that sought to reform society past considering more than just the special people—the aristocrats and the politically connected and those on the religious side of the equation. They looked around and saw plenty of suffering in Charles Dickens' England, and idea: There must be a better fashion. There was: it was to consider what a decision would mean for the majority. Basically, an action is right if more people will be better off if you exercise X than if you do Y. So, if y'all drive boozer and hit someone, you have wronged them not because good people don't harm others by becoming impaired and driving a vehicle and having an accident, but only because that victim is going to suffer because of acts or omissions on your part. It's why terrorist bombings are wrong: considering pain and destruction are rained down on innocent peoples' heads. Or consider a tax raise—societal issues are very amenable to using a utilitarian calculus.

Or, consider a revenue enhancement increase—societal issues are very acquiescent to using a utilitarian calculus. The question is, Would raising an additional ten billion dollars by raising the tax charge per unit ane% exist correct or wrong? Well, people don't like to be taxed, just the money could be used for position and prosocial things. It would have to all be weighed and counterbalanced to notice out if it'south right. Virtue ideals is harder to utilize with such a question.

Deontology was an invention of German philosopher Immanuel Kant, besides from mode-dorsum-when (though, virtue ideals can be traced to Confucius and others who are much older than either utilitarianism or deontology. His philosophy of correct and incorrect is a bit like virtue ethics. It is duty-based ethics. In other words, one should make upwards one'southward own rules of bear alee of fourth dimension, and and then in moral situations, employ them rigorously and without exception. To do one's duty. How does one know if doing X or doing Y is a moral act?

Ane, all utilitarian considerations are dispensed with: it doesn't thing how it turns out, what the results of an action are. It only matters what one's intentions were when they fabricated their moral decision. Lying is an illustrative example: for Kant, ane should never lie. One can decide this by asking about the chiselled imperative: should lying become a frequent and universally-done matter? Or would that not be something that you would similar to see happen? If you lie easily and everyone else does as well, so what you have is truth having virtually no meaning. That is not a good land of diplomacy. Truth should be truth and lies should be lies. Admittedly, this is somewhat similar at this point to a virtue ethics approach, in that both are trying to go at proper behavior for the sake of the beliefs, and not because the act would be praised, approved of, successful, or create great results. Ane of the problems with deontology is when duties disharmonize: like, should you prevarication, or should you plough your friend in – you can't avert one of those in a situation where your friend was caught cheating on an exam.

The other hallmark of deontology is to care for others as ends in themselves, and non as means. For case, according to duty-based ideals, it is wrong to utilise people. Thus, whereas a utilitarian would torture a terrorist if the terrorist knew where a ticking time bomb was subconscious in a crowded urban setting, a deontologist would lament the loss of life, simply wouldn't torture considering torturing is incorrect. Why? Because i cannot practise wrong to a person to bring about some positive stop. The ends don't justify the means. One can't do 3 wrong acts and cease up with a positive/moral outcome. Positive moral outcomes must be the stop of a string of correct actions. The careful reader might see that this is somewhat reminiscent of virtue ideals, too: good people don't torture people. However, virtue ideals would suggest that a skilful person might decide that a lowly terrorist waste of space does non deserve to sit down at that place with a grin on his face while authorities chase in vain for the ticking time flop, because, later all, good people save lives.

Ethics is truly interesting, almost fun—at least for me. Knowing (believing) that there is no God who wrote laws down in stone for obedient humans leaves us open to a earth of possibilities. From a more than existential perspective, the fact that we are the masters of our fate; that we have the power to decide right from wrong—is bracing. We must face the consequences of our actions and decisions, also, though. That makes morality a loftier-stakes game, and it can quicken one's pulse to have to deal with moral dilemmas and make garden-variety decisions of correct and wrong. In the end, one would exercise very well to study both positive values (truth, justice, accolade, etc.) and try to behave in keeping with those virtues. A person of character rarely does incorrect, non because they are of superior stock, but considering they have developed the habit of behaving in a way that would exist described as "the right matter to practice." Act like a virtuous person, and your moral decisions volition non be very difficult to solve.

Here is an external source for learning more virtually the thought of ethical theories.

ortizdiestlyped.blogspot.com

Source: https://valuesofthewise.com/virtue-ethics-1/