...Explain how Anscombe and MacIntyre developed Aristotle’s ‘Virtue Theory’. [30 marks] Aristotle’s ‘Virtue Theory’ is an ethical theory that emphasizes on an individual’s character as a key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves (deontology) or their consequences (consequentialism). Thus making ‘Virtue Ethics’ and deontic ethical theory. Both Elizabeth Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre believed that modern ethical studies have lost their ways. The philosophers felt that they were too concerned with normative rules and this doesn’t help to fill the moral vacuum of society. And that ‘Virtue Ethics’ was the only solution to the moral vacuum in society. According to Anscombe, the best way to fill this moral vacuum is to chart our moral virtues. Virtues help ordinary people be moral and must be based on good will; similarly to Aquinas’ internal vs external goods idea in Natural Law. Anscombe believed that society needed the return of Virtue Ethics because she was critical of deontological ethics as she felt they had become outdated. She was also critical of teleological ethics as she believes the end doesn’t justify the means, which we can understand from when she says, “The concepts of obligation, and duty – moral ‘ought’, ought to be jettisoned.” In 1981, MacIntyre wrote a book titled ‘After Virtue’ in which he traces he history of ‘Virtue Ethics’ and attempts to establish a system of the ethical theory appropriate for the modern age. He...
Words: 447 - Pages: 2
...agreeing at the more abstract level of a general normative theory such as Utilitarianism, so too may people who disagree at the level of a general normative theory nonetheless agree about the fundamental existence and status of morality itself, or vice versa. In this way, metaethics may be thought of as a highly abstract way of thinking philosophically about morality. For this reason, metaethics is also occasionally referred to as “second-order” moral theorizing, to distinguish it from the “first-order” level of normative theory. Metaethical positions may be divided according to how they respond to questions such as the following: * Ÿ What exactly are people doing when they use moral words such as “good” and “right”? * Ÿ What precisely is a moral value in the first place, and are such values similar to other familiar sorts of entities, such as objects and properties? * Ÿ Where do moral values come from—what is their source and foundation? * Ÿ Are some things morally right or wrong for all people at all times, or does morality instead vary from person to person, context to context, or culture to culture? Metaethical positions respond to such questions by examining the semantics of moral discourse, the ontology of moral properties, the significance of anthropological disagreement about moral values and practices, the psychology of how morality affects us as embodied human agents, and the epistemology of how we come to know moral values. The sections below consider...
Words: 21310 - Pages: 86
...The Moral Compass Leadership for a Free World Lindsay J Thompson Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 2 THE MORAL COMPASS Leadership for a Free World Table of Contents introduction page 5 core learning page 9 the leadership labyrinth page 11 the m oral com pass page 27 values and global value creation page 73 corporate citizenship page 93 bibliography page 109 the case lab page 113 Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 3 Leadership Ethics Course Manual ~ © 2005 Lindsay J Thompson ~ All rights reserved 4 introduction Moral Leadership for a Free World If you read a newspaper this morning, you almost surely read something related to morality, leadership, and freedom. From international relations to neighborhood and family life, concerns about leadership ethics and human welfare are the focus of news, political movements, and civic initiatives. Emotionally engaging terms like “moral leadership,” “the free world” and “human freedom” are often used in the media without much explanation or clarification. Momentous decisions are made and life choices established in the name of values attached to these and similar terms. What do we really mean by “moral leadership,” or “freedom?” If two people use these terms in a conversation, do they explicitly share a common understanding of them or just assume common ground? For instance...
Words: 29833 - Pages: 120
