Virtue Ethics Deontology Emphasizes Importance Virtues, Moral

¶ … virtue ethics deontology emphasizes importance virtues, moral character, deontology emphasizes duties rules. Suppose obvious helped. A deontologist point fact, helping agent acting accordance moral rule " Do " a virtue ethicist fact helping person charitable benevolent.

To 'do good' or to 'be good'?: Deontological vs. virtue ethics

In our daily lives, we often find ourselves torn between the competing demands of virtue ethics vs. deontology. Do we go with our 'gut instinct' and hope that virtue in our character will guide us in the right way, or do we follow the rules of a moral order, even when doing so is unpleasant and even counterintuitive? Ultimately, while virtue ethics is somewhat problematic in its construction because of the vague and highly debatable nature of what constitutes virtue, it is a more feasible means to govern one's ethical life than the rigidity of deontology.

According to deontologists, rather than speculate about the possible future consequences of our actions -- often a futile task -- we should instead focus upon or duties and obligations as a human being. "At the heart of agent-centered theories (with their agent-relative reasons) is the idea of agency…Our categorical obligations are not to focus on how our actions cause or enable other agents to do evil; the focus of our categorical obligations is to keep our own agency free of moral taint" (Alexander & Moore 2005). Exceptions to moral actions are not validated by their consequences and one ought to behave as if setting a moral law 'for all time' with every action as stated in Kant's categorical imperative. No action is purely contextual and situational. To be the agent of a bad action is a universal moral evil, and is not exculpated by the good results. For example, killing someone is wrong, even if a moral 'good' of five people surviving thanks to getting organ transplants is the result (Alexander & Moore 2005).

In contrast to the act-based emphasis of deontology, virtue ethics stresses the need for the moral actor to be a 'good person,' and from that good character, good deeds are assumed to flow. "The concept of a virtue is the concept of something that makes its possessor good: a virtuous person is a morally good, excellent or admirable person who acts and feels well, rightly, as she should" (Hursthouse 2012). This notion is an old one, and extends as far back as Aristotle. "The good life is the morally meritorious life; the morally meritorious life is one that is responsive to the demands of the world" (Hursthouse 2012). Although killing someone may be regarded as a wrong in most instances, in other instances some exceptions to this categorical rule must be found (a 'mercy killing'). The world is ever-changing, and it is best to have a moral character that embodies virtues to enable the moral actor to be able to shift his or her responses with the times, according to virtue ethicists.

The most obvious problem with deontology "is the seeming irrationality of our having duties or permissions to make the world morally worse" (Alexander & Moore 2005). For example, it is a generally-agreed upon moral principle that children have a duty to obey their parents. But what of children who are told to do morally reprehensible actions by their parents? It is also considered a moral duty to obey the laws of the state. But does that mean that all acts of civil disobedience are evil? What of Thoreau's refusal to pay his taxes during the Mexican-American war? Or the civil rights demonstrators' acts of civil disobedience when engaging in sit-ins at segregated lunch counters? Or the hiding of Anne Frank during World War II? All of these actions were transgressions of the notion that we must obey the laws of the land. Some deontologists might argue that in these instances, the laws were contrary to the moral code we should universally obey; but this seems to presuppose some need for a virtuous character to make this subjective distinction.

Of course, virtue ethics can be problematic as well, given the extent to which definitions of virtue have varied over the ages. What constituted a 'virtuous woman' in the Victorian era would have been very different in modernity. 'Goodness' and moral decision-making are highly situational in nature and character traits which are viewed as admirable in one society (such as the individualism of the United States) may not be seen as such universally (many other societies prize collectivism and the moral obligations to the community as virtuous). Also, there are questions about how to achieve that moral character, given that people within the same society or even the same families can receive the same educations, and yet reach different moral conclusions about moral dilemmas spanning from personal life to politics.

However, a similar objection could be raised with regards to deontology: different societies have constructed radically different moral systems. The 'eye for an eye' ethos of early societies has given way to a far more complex and nuanced legal code. Deontology presupposes a certain self-evident nature to what constitutes ideal laws of conduct and obligation, just as much as virtue ethics suggests there are universal character traits that lead to a moral world.