Virtue ethics is a complex theory. It focuses on analyzing the values that are instilled in any given human being at birth, the values they learn through contact with the outside world, family, friends, co-workers, school teachers and other relationships, principles and scenarios they encounter in effort to determine the rightness or wrongness of any situation. Instead of focusing one's level of moral competence on the basis of the action, which is common in deontological theories, or focusing moral competence based on the outcome, which is common in consequentialism theories, moral virtue believes that morals are rooted in the person from the very beginning and can neither lead to a good or bad situation, but rather what is right or wrong to a moral agent. The key to this theory is establishing a strong moral ground point in order to progressively make sound decisions.
[...] But honesty is rewarded with praise. In this situation we can use the consequential theory in deciding whether or not to be honest. We have been programmed to recognize honesty as better for us. This is true, honesty is the best policy, because only with transparency can we flourish, but just because we are taught something doesn't mean that these are our virtues. For example, most of us would consider ourselves to be reasonably honest, and if the person walking in front of us dropped a wallet on the ground, we wouldn't think twice to give it back to them. [...]
[...] Using moral ethics in a situation as intense and complicated as abortion can be seen as not ideal from society's perspective, but virtue ethics eliminates society from the decision making process, although it realizes that society plays a role in determining the morals that carry you from dilemma to dilemma. From an individual standpoint, abortion is about the choice. I am hard-pressed to believe that anyone is actually in favor of killing fetuses, unless they are psychologically deranged, but I do believe that there are people who are pro-choice are actively acknowledging that they do not know everything and cannot contest a person's right to make the right or wrong decision. [...]
[...] To fully examine virtue ethics and how it relates to abortions, the first step is to remove the law. Not to counteract what we have been taught, but the law is not the ultimate determinate in the morality of an issue. For this reason, in America we have laws that favor a woman's right to make a decision. Because we have legal premises like this, it shows that while we live in a nation of vices, we also live a nation of freedom. [...]
[...] Individuals who are against using virtue ethics as the means for deriving an answer on the issue of abortion focus on the notion that virtue ethics can't truly address the problems of abortion because of the nature of virtue ethics. For example, one could argue that virtue ethics can't be applied because it cannot provide a truly ultimate answer, since virtues are subjective to the cultures in which they are created. I offer two possible arguments to this. The first is that the differences in virtues between cultures can each be refuted to an extent such that a single set of virtues, regardless of culture, would be viewed as the most logically correct. [...]
[...] Debates about virtue ethics are futile because they vary from person to person, even when applied to major issues and social concerns like abortions. First, it should be known that the virtue doesn't lie in within a nation, but rather within an individual's definition of right and wrong. Using consequential and deontological methods with this method would not be ideal, because it is a topic so vast that we cannot all agree on a right or wrong way to behave. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
