To What Extent Do Modern Versions of Virtue Ethics Address

To what extent do contemporary versions of Virtue morals get by the weaknesses of Aristotles teachings on deservingness? Aristotles idea of Virtue morals was influenced by his belief that all things and all humans induce a purpose (a telos). For him a exonerate explanation of nearlything has to include its final ca practice session or purpose which essentially is to realise its potential. Virtue Ethics itself is concerned with the characteristics of a somebody rather than how a soul behaves and it is this he outlined in his defend Nicomachean Ethics. A virtue atomic number 18 qualities that lead to a good life e. . courage and honesty. Aristotle explains for a person to adopt these qualities into their own lives is to maximise their potential to achieve a happy life and he goes on to explain Eudaimonia as creation a quality of this happiness. However Aristotle then explains that a person should not act uprightly just to achieve a particular end because he views this to be a subordinate aim. A person that acts in a way to achieve goodness Aristotle explains is a superior aim and it is these people that act good because it is the right way to act not because they ought to.Following on from this Aristotle goes on to explain the key to goodness and virtue is to follow the golden mean. This is when as a person we act between two extreme vices for example the midpoint between shamelessness and modesty is modesty, this therefore is the golden mean. Aristotle also distinguished between two types of virtue, moral virtues and intellectual virtues. The first being those cultivated through habit whilst intellectual virtues are those cultivated through instruction. In the later ordinal century Virtue Ethics suffered a revival.It was questioned whether Aristotles teachings on Virtue Ethics had any weaknesses and some current perspectives on Virtue Theory can be seen to highlight these flaws. Although not to a extensive extent, I do believe some modern versio ns of Virtue Ethics address the weaknesses of Aristotles teachings and my berth is shared by many scholars who have criticised Aristotles Virtue Ethics for being too relative, vague and self-centred. Elizabeth Anscombe believed that ethical codes laying stress on moral absolute laws are superannuated in a parliamentary procedure where effectively a belief in God has been abandoned by the majority.She believed that we take in to diminish to a morality which is based on human flourishing. However Anscombe did believe a return to achieving Eudaimonia was required and working from the basis of Aristotles work she believed morality is best based on a person (agent) rather than an act or outcome. Similarly Philippa Foot argued that although virtues cannot guarantee happiness, they can go some way to achieving it and she too uses Aristotles roots but updates them accordingly.She explains that virtues can sole(prenominal) be virtuous when used in the correct way she used the example of courage when applied to somebody robbing a bank, in this instance courage is therefore not a virtue and cannot be seen as virtuous. Alasdair MacIntyre encourages a return to the basis of Aristotles understanding of virtue and encourages the development of virtues that are relevant to contemporary times. He believed when compared to other ethical theories Virtue Ethics are more realistic and applicable to peoples everyday situations.I would add with MacIntyre here that a virtue-approach is more fitable in our society. Naturalistic theories of morals are time devour and overly complexed and therefore difficult to apply, Virtue Ethics however is not. For MacIntyre morality should be focused on developing your telos, this echoing Aristotles teachings. When referring back to the question, to what extent do modern versions of virtue ethics address the weakness of Aristotles teachings, Macintyres work can be used to show that Modern versions of virtue ethics can do the exact opposit e.Aristotles teachings are seen throughout Macintyres work so how therefore can Aristotles work be criticized for having weaknesses? However not all modern philosophers use Aristotles work in their own and many would argue against my view that it is without weakness. J. L Mackie, Louden and Sidgewick have criticized Aristotles teachings for being too vague for any application and Sidgewick went on to say it only indicates the whereabouts of a virtue. The belief that is doesnt provide accurate guidance can also be seen in Rosalind Hursthouses work.She believes Aristotles work on Virtue Ethics doesnt explain how a person would or should act but only how a virtuous person would think about the dilemma. However she like Foot and Anscombe is a supporter of Aristotles approach to morality using his work but adapting it to suit a modern society. When looking at Aristotles teachings, they can be seen as very pagan dependent. The change in culture in our society today can be seen as a barr ier for reviving this ethical theory. During the time of Aristotle communities were consistent in what they believed and this made virtues applicable to all.However in congenator to our own communities today is there this consistency? In my opinion I do not believe so. For this reason I would argue that Aristotles idea of Eudaimonia in todays society would be interpreted differently by many and one virtue for somebody may be a vice for another. From modern scholars such as Anscombe, Foot and MacIntyre we can see that Aristotles ideas are still prevalent in their own and it is for this reason that I disagree modern versions of virtue ethics addresses the weaknesses of Aristotles teachings to a large extent.Whilst using his roots but changing it to suit a modern society may be seen ,by some, to be a weakness in my opinion this is a strength. Aristotles teachings have stood the test of time and are still predominantly used in this century with only a few appropriate changes. The count er argument however would be that Aristotles teachings are outdated for the community we live in now. The difference in community now compared with that of Aristotles provide a weakness in his theory and I understand that to a small extent weaknesses can be found, using modern versions of Virtue Ethics, in Aristotles teachings.