Virtue Ethics Meets Natural Law Essay Example



As I begin I'd like to note that I still have much to learn of the details surrounding the philosophical study of Morality and Ethical theories. I find Ethics to be a topic we as human beings should educate ourselves on substantially. As well as educate others the same once, and only once a solid established understanding has been made, however. Ethics and all about the subject I feel are a primary and fundamental basis to things I ask myself daily. Deep and internal question of whether or not I'm living life the way it's meant to be lived. If I'm providing a continuing positive addition to the world or if I'm morally and environmentally providing a life for my children one that is truly laced with fundamentals that hold the correct moral value to provide a good life as one is meant to be good and not the life I was misguided and lead to believe was right or "good." As an adult, brand new to the philosopher's table of the future committee I stand to support and encourage as much constructive criticism as one can provide, to take it. As much information as you become in contact with, absorb it and share it with anyone you can. With an open mind and nothing less than a willingness to expand my understanding of ethics, I move forward.

I'd like to continue by briefly summarizing the incompatible points for each ethical theory as I've learned them and how they conflict leaving only Options of strictly A or B grounds for moral norms. In doing so I aim to support my later supportive statements claiming my concluding belief of the two Ethical theories I find to be Compatible and supporting of one another's overall grounds of moral norms to be the same, a combined ethical theory. The two theories being identified as Virtue ethics and Natural Law Ethics.

Ethical Egoism accepts human existence as the theoretical or general norm of moral assessment. Generally speaking, what advances one's existence is good, that which harms or depletes its advancement is bad. The entire way of thinking from which this grounds of morals stems, sees human existence as essentially individual. Needing to be lived and fulfilled by every person through his actions. If Ethical Egoism makes every individual's own life as his compelling norm of significant worth. This would leave both, Utilitarianism theories- about grounds for moral norms being any action that promotes the best outcome for the most people and standards of living by no set moral code perse and Deontological ethical theories ideas of an overall duty to specific rules and consequences for not abiding by them incompatible since it is not stated that actions that end up promoting your life are moral, and actions that end up damaging it are immoral. Also, It says that the way humans gain general or conditional knowledge–knowledge that can be applied to predict future consequences–is by forming rational principles from experiences. The theory holds that the fundamental job of morality is to guide human choices in the context in which states we cannot predict all the exact consequences of our actions enough to promote a set standard.  To me, this is an incomplete theory as is. We exist in a world as a whole, it would lead to chaos if we all truly lived surrounding moral norms around mere independently appropriated standards to promote individual happiness or the order of society set by one ruler's determined the quality of life and what adheres to. Comparatively all three-fall inconsistent with Virtue Ethics as the happiness that serves justly in harmony as a society or a culture. And if one's grounds for moral norms are true as an ethical egoism serves then utilitarianism and deontological theories are false and all three are left incomplete. In theory, I see claims of principles surrounding general statements of facts as their discovered or rules that are used to determine a proper course of action that uses the chosen action of morality, moral only if it represents an action of a life-promoting moral principle to the acting individual's current circumstances.

Finally I proceed to my final conclusion to summarize the idea posing the last two Objective ethical theories as not only compatible but one in the same theory overall. Natural Law holds that there is an objective morality that humans can all aim for and that good and bad are not merely relative. The relation expressed through Aquinas' expressed belief that every individual has a purpose and function that is God-given and unchangeable, could be overseen of its compatibility of overall grounds for moral norms being, although extended, a variation of virtue ethics standard for harmony and justice. "Every individual to do their job or duty," that doing so leads to the good life for everyone And justice for all. I note that where natural law defines as incomplete comes a compatible alternative to pick up and add onto the standard with that of one of virtue ethics.. were unalterable, these differences that stand out to me are merely the objections while the end thesis of both Virtue ethics and natural law complement the overall standard of one another. Where Virtue ethics implies the What factor, Natural Law provides the How factor to reach the what. I acknowledge how complex and open-ended these standards can be is a possible criticism.  Also adhering to them being criticized incomplete as individual theories.  This leads me to the concluding idea of Virtue Ethics and Natural law Ethics being, after alterations modernizing minute details to appropriated circumstances, the same ethical theory completed and the others still incompatible in regards to the completed set of grounds for normal norms they represent. Providing the virtues expected and the situations one must go through to live by the virtuous standards is truly a commitment to life in itself. Every decision made your facing an immediate weighing of pros and cons and adding debates of internal dialogue whether or not it's the right thing. If you decide yes, you then ask, the right thing by you or right by all involved? Is there a benefit to be had? And then who does that benefit belong to? Who is worthy of benefits? Who am I to delegate worthy or not worthy? Are they weighing the same standards to making decisions as I am? The complexity comes from the hopeful assumption that everyone else is abiding by the same standards of morality that you are and that alone is a huge leap of faith especially in the state of the world we live in. Abundantly it's a relief to find two comparative theories that work alongside the other and formulating what I viewed as a footprint to the other's next step. The completeness of the two theories give potentially what I believe to be an indication of majority rules making the standards of morality easier to belong in and abide by; since it has more leverage in knowing odds are in favor and that others are making decisions based on the same ethical standards as you. This enforcement of standard is assuring to proceed in future decisions resulting in a successful and complete set of grounds for moral norms concluding in the best overall possible outcome of Good life that justice, as I believe it to be, can procure.