Monday, 24 June 2013

ETHICAL ANALYSIS OF MORAL DILEMMA (Aristotelian Virtue Ethics)

 In the telenovela “Maging Sino Ka Man..”, on which the three main characters face struggles, there were these problems arise regarding ethics that tackles about the small risk from the past. Edward who graduated from a prestigious university along with John and Elizabeth is a heart throb architect. On the other side, Elizabeth graduated as an academic scholar and currently working as a call center agent and John is a friend of both Edward and Elizabeth but what’s more interesting is that John is not only a batch mate of Edward but also a best friend.
                Here’s how the complication encountered by them started as time goes by.  Edward had several sexual relationships with both men and women. When he was about twenty-five, the AIDS crisis occurred. Eventually he stopped but when he learnt about the safe sex, he began once again to have sex with men only. Unfortunately, Edward met Elizabeth and soon realized that he was gradually falling in love with her. Then, they began to see a lot of each other. Because of her changing him, Edward stopped having sexual relationship with men. In the midst of this decision, Edward saw a problem.  When the time came for them to make love, Edward is confused, undecided, undetermined and thoughtless. Have he got the guts telling Elizabeth about his past relationship? Would this end their relationship?
                I will begin by reflecting this particular situation by saying, ‘Good actions are defined in terms of what a good person would do’. On the first place, with all respect, Edward is not a total good person. Therefore, we will never expect a good outcome and a good did. Since from the very beginning, we acknowledged him being not a good guy; it doesn’t mean to say that because he was not a good guy we will conclude that he is a bad guy. Given the argument, it will take for a while in order for Edward to become aware that something isn’t right inside him. Take note: from the very first instance.
                 It follows that in Aristotle’s Virtue ethics, being a good person is about doing right actions, not about knowing something. Also, the broad implication of what it means to be ‘virtuous’ and how we will acquire these kind of virtues emphasize that we have to promote good—admirable qualities through possessing what makes a person good and what will form this kind of actions. According to Aristotle, a good person has the characteristics like honesty, bravery, generosity, courage, chastity etc. But in our present time chastity was disclaim as part of this ethical theory for some reason. One, society’s effect and for two, the context of changing time within changing circumstances—no permanent. Therefore, in Edward’s case, he is not a person who doesn’t know what the right thing to do and is not doing it but instead he is an evil person who is simply ignorant or mistaken about what the right thing to do. Ignorance is a mere reason of evil people or evil things. On the other way around, the avoidance of existing vices is unpredictable. We can’t withhold these things. Vices as we all know are practices or outsets that are immoral. For example, a jealousy is a vice while patience is a virtue. Quite big difference as you will notice.
                Consequently, Elizabeth who is unwittingly innocent on what’s going on has the right aspect to know about Edward’s past relationship. On the slightest sense, I figure out by virtue of ethical theory that we always do have a ‘feeling’ for right and wrong. Thus, this only implies that only we really feels when we experience the right value of our lives—that’s when we receive the concept of what we so –called the ultimate happiness. When nothing seems inconvenient and unsuitable, when everything we undergo please us.  In fact, Edward loves Elizabeth and so Elizabeth does. On that account, it is properly the right way to do so. In fact, it was described in Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, every single entity must be in accordance with balance. It means, we should not meet excessive or deficient manners in any way possible because this theory shows us that we must avoid it. Initially, virtue is a midpoint between excess and deficiency. A mean over the extreme. We must learn so that it could happen. It reminds me of Aristotle’s quote: Those that know, do. Those that understand, teach.  Somehow, there’s a part of it that says we should start in engaging or practicing the skills in our own virtue. Aristotle stated that ethical concerns don’t give a formula for right actions. It doesn’t give us an easy way to know what the right thing to do. It would say, the right thing is what a virtuous person supposed would do.
                Before I’d say what is wrong with the second argument I am going to present to you, I want first to elaborate the essence of virtue in improving our lives and contributing to our overall well-being—the good life. This will help you understand more about my point in proving my statements as we go on. All men by nature desire knowledge. But what commonly happens are these: people resist on their own selves the good attitudes and characteristics they acquire in them. In reality, this usually happens. What’s funnier is that they will find out later on that it gets complicated as time flies.
                Let’s take for an example Edward developed his virtues though constant practice and his qualities of mind enhanced through habitual instruction. Hence in moral facet, Edward then will be as courageous as he might be, meaning he works without fear but not as much as rash. He is appropriately afraid as well as appropriately brave. He is now courageous it is only because he slowly overcome his fears. Therefore, I say, Virtue Ethics talks about ‘characteristics not actions’. Thus, I assent to Aristotle’s approach—a kind of a person you should be. Now, it is morally acceptable for Edward to withhold the information considering the new Edward with good virtues. Otherwise, it is not. While in intellect facet, seeing the mere fact that whatever the decision Edward will come up with as long as it will lead to happiness, still, it is good to withhold the information. To clear things up, this is in relation only for the sake of individual benefit—Edward’s.
                Straightaway, If Edward was tested HIV positive, and then his moral duties may not differ and change from time to time. The utter basis that we decided in as much as Edward achieved already his habitual state or disposition where the doing of his virtuous act has become a kind of second nature on the part of the human person is our main point. Yet, the arena of ethical activity has disadvantages also. It is relativistic. On the contrary, its advantages still took over. First, a virtuous person thinks differently. Second, he/she looks upon the world in a different way by thinking through virtue ethics. Next, he/she tries to understand how a virtuous person sees a situation. Hence, I affirmed that Edward will manage to handle the situation although for instance that problem may arise. Thus, his moral duty is to avoid having sexual affairs from this time on because he is a good person. He should remain good.
                Moreover, John has a moral right and duty to tell Elizabeth that entire he knows about Edward. In consequence of the fact that Eudaimonia which refers to happiness or rather excellence based on Aristotle’s findings, the triads we need to deal with are the golden men or the just middle—friendship, modesty, courage, ambition, self-control, honesty, liberality, and god humor. These works best to the best result. These only suggest that John having one of those personalities, no matter what action he may act is good.  Being a human who dominates ‘good qualities’ and a power of thought add the reason why should he tell to Elizabeth what actual scenario is happening. Fortunately, John is an acquaintance of both Elizabeth and Edward. There’s no guarantee hiding; therefore, John not only wants the happiness of Elizabeth but also John helping Edward in making the situation lighter as possible it could be. On this case, it is good unlocking the definite and unequivocal truth and John is absolutely good. He harms no one.
                While on the case of Edward on the other hand having a moral right and duty to privacy concerning his sexual life is quite connected to personal convictions. Yet, it is not held by society but rather held by individuals alone. Believe me, Edward is self-sufficient. Once Edward has it, it is good to have. I will now defend this claim in a gentle initiation focusing the argument not in a broader process. We judge people in terms of something that are done in a right way. Yes, we should. And not just telling the truth that matters. Since Edward have already this nature of habitual sex engagement, we mold his character through ages by doing things habitually so that he will become as an individual with a character development. Likewise, Edward is attainable. He is real and accessible.  Again, Aristotle stated in his virtue ethics that his theory ‘doesn’t tell you what to do and doesn’t tell you what actions you should take’. In order for one to acquire these virtues, you must be willing to learn and then put what you learn into practice. That’s what matters the most. Using cardinality, virtues work together and cannot exist on their own—temperance, courage, wisdom and justice being the most prestigious virtue of them all, as it is only achieved after years of learning. Besides, it passes through us in the right time, right person, right place, right manner etc. Until then, helping Edward would be charitable and benevolent.  This entails and agrees without doubt in Aristotle’s ethics.
                Given that a virtue is such a multi-track disposition, it would obviously be reckless to attribute one to an agent on the basis of a single observed action or even a series of similar actions, especially if you don't know the agent's reasons for doing as Edward did (Sreenivasan 2002). Moreover, to possess, fully, such a disposition is to possess full or perfect virtue, which is rare, and there are a number of ways of falling short of this ideal (Athanassoulis 2000). Possessing a virtue is matters 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-centered and greedy, still have their blind spots—little areas where they do not act for the reasons one would expect. So someone honest or kind in most situations, and notably so in demanding ones may nevertheless be trivially tainted by snobbery, inclined to be disingenuous about their forebears and less than kind to strangers with the wrong accent. (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 18th July 2003)
                Further, it is not easy to get one's emotions in harmony with one's rational recognition of certain reasons for action. John may be honest enough to recognize that He must own up to a mistake because it would be dishonest not to do so without Edward’s  acceptance being so wholehearted that He can own up easily, with no inner conflict. Following (and adapting) Aristotle, virtue ethicists draw a distinction between full or perfect virtue and “continence” or strength of will. The fully virtuous do what they should without a struggle against contrary desires; the continent have to control a desire or temptation to do otherwise.
                Clear judgment, self-control, symmetry of desire and artistry of means—the concepts that might describe a man possessing these masculine sort of excellence further supports the claim that comes from practical or moral wisdom. Since, John’s knowledge of Edward’s homosexual relationships came through shared confidence between close friends. To end, it is not a violation to disclose the information taken the place of every character on this telenovela. Henceforth, their characters will be the guiding path—‘respect and right’ that will lead us on a very accurate conclusion.
                Describing the continent as “falling short” of perfect virtue appears to go against the intuition that there is something particularly admirable about people who manage to act well when it is especially hard for them to do so, but the plausibility of this depends on exactly what “makes it hard” (Foot 1978, 11–14). If it is the circumstances in which the agent acts—say Edward confess the real scenario and his unacceptable and imprudent behavior —then indeed it is particularly admirable of her to restore the relationship or give Edward another chance when it is hard for her to do so. But if what makes it hard is an imperfection in her character—the temptation to keep what is not hers, or a callous indifference to the suffering of others—then it is not.
                Bear in our minds that virtuous act is that which proceeds from the right intentions—the action is desired solely for its own sake. There are no reason justifying virtues. Every human person aims for happiness. Our experience of actions in life brought up in fine habits to become good. For a person to become virtuous, he/she can’t simply study what virtue is, but most actually do virtuous things. What you are bringing to life sprang from good behavior/characters. A flourishing experience of actions in life on which we refer the ‘Aristotelian Virtue Ethics’.



                The claim that this is, straightforwardly, a mistaken conception, reveals the point that eudaimonia is, avowedly, a moralized, or “value-laden” concept of happiness, something like “true” or “real” happiness or “the sort of happiness worth seeking or having.” It is thereby the sort of concept about which there can be substantial disagreement between people with different views about human life that cannot be resolved by appeal to some external standard on which, despite their different views, the parties to the disagreement concur.



No comments:

Post a Comment