Virtue ethics are one of the less precise aspects when studying ethics because virtues and morals are things that are not the same for any two people. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “the most significant aspect of this mindset [of virtue ethics] is the wholehearted acceptance of a certain range of considerations as reasons for action.” One could make the argument that most situations that require ethical choices involve one’s personal virtues. Virtues such as honesty, not stealing, truthfulness, and respect of other’s property are some major players in the arena of virtue ethics in the world or global politics.
Since Aristotle’s original research, the concept of virtue ethics has progressed to a higher degree of complexity. Eudaimonia describes the idea of this complex mindset and how “possessing a virtue is a matter of degree, for most people who can be truly described as fairly virtuous, and certainly markedly better than those who can be truly described as dishonest, self-centred and greedy, still have their blind spots — little areas where they do not act for the reasons one would expect” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
Aristotle presents an argument in the second half of our selection that talks about the "golden mean." This idea supports that in order for something to be good, it must be the mean between 2 vices. For example, courage is the mean between rash (too much) and cowardice (too little). This mean is qualitative not quantitative and it depends on the situation and the person
We were all between 8 and 13 at the time of the terrorist attacks in New York. Before September 11, 2001, the United States had a very positive image of itself as the dominant world power. We believed that we possessed all the idea virtues that a country should have behaved ethically in world politics. In short, we were haughty and egotistical. Immediately after 9/11, we found ourselves searching for answers and going to war with unknown enemies looking for non-existent weapons. Is it possible that we found ourselves at one extreme and then the other? Where do we fall now?
The idea of countries having virtues that follow the same rule of golden means as human virtues is a very interesting one. I had been thinking of his theory only from an individual human perspective, but the analogy to societal values matches up quite well.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of America pre and post 9/11, I think rather than a dramatic swing of our virtues from one extreme to the other, we have simply experienced the same virtue's response to different situations. Before 9/11, we were so confident in ourselves and our place in the world that we could barely fathom the idea of someone attacking us. After the attack, instead of truly reevaluating our national status, we immediately went about violently securing our status as the kind of country that wouldn't just stand by and allow such tragedy to occur. Although the two attitudes are superficially different, the same motive of American exceptionalism underlies both.
There has been philosophical discussions on the nature of patriotism. After the attacks, the benefits of patriotism were immediately seen. However, as time has moved on we've seen the negative implications of this patriotism. Various laws have been brought into effect which conflict with our underlying constitution. Leo Tolstoy defined patriotism as the principle that allows for and justifies the training of murderers. Gustave Herve also came to be recognized as highly anti-patriotic. He believed that patriotism was a superstition much like religion. It is a created principle that is maintained through lies, and robs individuals of dignity and modesty. America did reach this form of extreme patriotism, reaching its pinnacle in the form of war and assassination.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I want to point out something in your first paragraph. "Virtues and morals are things that are not the same for any two people." I have issue with this claim. I do not understand how we can say that virtues and morals are different for individuals and can be ranged differently, yet we have a common set of laws and common assumptions of what virtues are (honesty, not stealing, truthfulness, and respect of other’s property). Maybe I am just confused so please let me know if I sound completely off (which I probably am). However, my thoughts are if we can apply a common set of laws from those virtues than can we not assume that it is more than just a personal set of virtues? Two people could definitely have the same morals, and it might even be possible that whole communities and societies have the same morals, values, and virtues as well.
ReplyDeleteI am confused as well Liz, i do not see the difference between virtues and morals.
ReplyDeleteI do feel that although 9/11 was an extremely traumatic event, based on the way most people act and what i personally believe, is that we are still one of the world's biggest power. Immediately after 9/11, however, there was a flip of these values and we found ourselves under attack and many people went to the extreme of violence and patriotism and let it influence their decisions rather than their rationality.