Threats on Virtue Ethics

Situationist theories is now known to pose a threat on to virtue ethics like Aristotle’s. Aristotle’s theory is very simple and straight forward, once people have the ‘right’ or ‘proper’ virtues, with practice it will never change. In this paper I am going to argue against Aristotelian ethics because people do not always keep their virtues in certain situations. Aristotle claims that once a virtue is learned, ‘come to light’, practice and lived by, the person practicing it will never change it.
Aristotelian ethics is the practice of virtues, a median between the two vices that is “right”, also known as virtue ethics. Once someone finds the correct balance or the golden median between the extremes, vices, it becomes a virtue once practiced. This is something someone can practice and it becomes habit. Once done enough, it becomes who you are, the very thing you stand for and “will never change”. An Aristotelian argument would go something like this:

(P1) A golden mean is practiced.
(P2) Golden mean becomes a virtue.
(P3) Virtue is something that is never broken.
(C1)Virtue is practiced and never broken no matter the situation. This is where I do not agree, “Will never change”. I will provide an example of what I perceive as virtue ethics. This can be related to boot camp. Kids go to boot camp because they are misbehaving, or not acting the way their parents think they should. They don’t value the right things, they have no virtues. Once at boot camp, they are supposed be ridded of these bad habits, negative vices, and replace them with good ones, golden medians. Through the months at boot camp, kids practice these and it becomes virtue. Then they return back home and never act up like the way they did before. This does help a lot of families and kids appreciate their parents.
Situationist believe that people, even with correct virtues and that have been practicing them for a long time will not and cannot maintain those same ethics in certain situations. That kid I talked about in the previous paragraph that went to boot camp to get rid of his misbehavior, let’s pretend his name is Johnny and his bad conduct was being too violent or aggressive toward everyone. (1) Let’s say that Johnny has always been against violence once he finished boot camp, which is a virtue to him now. (2) Then this happens, someone comes up to him with a gun and tells him, “If you don’t go punch that kid in the face, I will shoot you”. (3) Johnny goes and punches the kid in the face in order to live. Now according to Aristotle’s theory, he will stay put, physically and virtue-lly, and let the man shoot him. I think we can all agree that no one will stay put in order to keep their virtues in a situation like this, We all know that the action, punching the kid in the face, can and will be explained once the situation has been diffused and the threat of the man with the gun has been eliminated. No situation is the same and there is an unlimited amount of factors in the real world. A saying that I hear a lot and say a lot my self is,” In theory”. I say this a lot when I’m working on my car, “In theory”, changing my thermostat should take about twenty dollars and thirty minutes. Complications could arise and rusty bolts can break or be striped, threads could be stripped and housing’s could crack. Leading to hours of labor and hundreds of dollars in parts. “In theory”, people should always keep their virtues but situations, complications can arise and cause you to change those for the time being.
Aristotle or virtue ethicist could respond to my argument by telling me that the dilemma that Johnny was in, is just part of the practice and that this virtue still isn’t a part of him yet. Virtues do not become part of you as soon as they come to light. It takes years and lots of practice for it to really sink in. Even in response to the whole car thing, they would ask me, are you a skilled mechanic? How long have I been working on cars? If you still can’t tell when you should let some rust penetrate sink in the hole and onto the bolt before you try to take it out, or what combination of swivels and extensions to use to get to the tricky bolt then it isn’t a “virtue” in this perspective. If I had been working on cars my whole life and practicing a lot then that thermostat should’ve only taken me twenty dollars and thirty minutes. The only way I could respond to that would be, does one ever really stop learning? Can you ever get to a point of perfection? Even expert mechanics mess up every once in a while, it might not even be their fault. The bolt could have been way too rusty to take out, or the previous person could have put way to much lock-tight on the bolt. Are their people that have been put in Johnny situation, if anyone has been, all dead because they stuck to their virtues? Being able to stick to virtues and overcome human survival instinct to be the “right” person is inhuman of us, seems to be improbable and unrealistic.
Situations can change how everyone behaves, no doubt in that. Virtue ethics can only be reached through the inhuman reaction like some sort of computer with set parameters, or an equation with a set domain and range. The only one question I can bring up again from my last paragraph is, do we ever stop learning, practicing our virtues? Can anyone say that they have perfected a virtue? These adapt to the situation and will for the rest of humankind.
Bibliography

Kraut, Richard. "Aristotle's Ethics." Stanford University. Stanford University, 01 May 2001. Web. 01 May 2014.
Nadelhoffer, Thomas. "Virtue Ethics and the Situationist Challenge." The Situationist. N.p., 23 Aug. 2010. Web. 01 May 2014.