INITIAL DISCUSSION POST:
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
According to Virtue Ethics, it is not enough to habitually behave in the manner of a good person; one must also have the appropriate emotional disposition related with the behavior. That is, an act would not be strictly good if the moral agent does not do the act with the proper corresponding attitude attached to the act. Moreover, the emotion associated with the act ought to follow simultaneously with the act and if the proper emotion does not follow in the appropriate time the agent is considered to be incontinent, thus lacking integrity. In your view, is the virtue ethicist correct in their evaluation of ethical/emotional simultaneity? Should there be room for the moral agent to learn to identify the right act with the correct emotion? Briefly explain your answer.
ALSO PLEASE REPLY TO TWO OTHER PEOPLES POST:
I do agree with the Virtue of Ethics to a certain extent. I agree that you must be in the same place mentally and morally as your actions. If you do good deeds but you are doing them just for show, then you are not morally in the right place. Lets say you feed the homeless on a holiday, but you couldn’t care less about them or helping out. You’re still doing a good deed, but you don’t care. Same goes the other way around, if you do a bad thing, but your morally don’t agree with it, that doesn’t make you a bad person. Just how doing a good thing doesn’t necessarily make you a good person. I do think that there should be room for the moral agent to learn to identify the right act with the correct emotion. I believe that it is apart of growth and development.
Virtue ethicist focus on the heart of the agent and being rather than doing based on moral rules. I agree with the virtue ethicist view that the proper virtuous emotion should be attached to the action. If a person risks their life to save another person from danger it will most likely be because they selflessly choose to do so. Not because I some moral rule or obligation unless in the line of duty. First responders and other emergency personnel are trained to make determinations on whether to administer emergency care for victims that pose a potential threat to their safety. Their moral obligations to the occupation they serve are not controlled by rules, but their own decision to do the right thing in a situation where actions can save lives or endanger their own. Society would be a horrible place everyone behaved according to rules and not virtues. Honesty, fairness, kindness, and gratitude are all great characteristics that are embodied by people that genuinely care. If the moral agent cannot effectively identify with the proper emotional response following an action, time should be given for the agent to correct the response. Regardless of rules free will always seems to govern how a person will act in a situation. Opportunities should always be given to agents who cannot correctly show the proper emotion but are willing to learn.