Reading Blog 2: First Response to The Case against Character

Before reading this article, I did not have a good understanding of virtue ethics. I thought virtue ethics didn't make sense at all, and I thought a person would be crazy to try to base their actions off of what a made-up virtuous person would do. Now, I have found many things that I like about virtue ethics.

The first aspect that I like about it is that virtuous actions are those that a virtuous person would make. This means that virtuous actions take emotions and other human things into account. In addition, the qualities themselves are not virtuous but rather the person who has mastered them is virtuous. For example, I find this to mean that a virtuous person has mastered the virtue of honesty but not that complete honesty is always right.

I also like the idea that being a virtuous person is what makes life worthwhile. The article makes sure to point out that “worthwhile” does not mean that one’s virtuous actions lead to positive consequences. This is slightly hard to understand because being virtuous does not lead to the type of life that society values today. Being virtuous does not guarantee good karma that eventually leads to wealth. Instead one probably has to forget their inclinations toward success in business / social status to truly let go of their vices. I think that these societal values are the biggest restraint stopping people from becoming virtuous.

There are many points in the discussion on personality in relation to virtue ethics that I agree with. The first and foremost is that situations affect actions. When I am feeling fabulous, I only stop whistling to smile at every person I see in the street, but in my darkest moments, I am less than friendly, not willing to share a smile or even eye contact with anybody in passing. Like the hypothetical people who were asked for change, “if I had a settled policy of never giving [a smile], even that pleasant [mood] wouldn't help” (408). This quote is significant because situations do seem to affect one’s virtues, but even so, people are still shown to possess individual characteristics.

I have not yet finalized my opinion on the two following questions:

1.     Are situational acts in fact virtuous?

a.      At this point I do not think that they count as virtuous acts because “we should want to do the right thing for the right reasons” (409). This opinion (and the whole virtuous person thing in general) seems a bit idealistic, but I like it anyway.

2.     Is it possible to have a “good life” (become a virtuous person)?

a.      I would like to think that there is a way to become a virtuous person, but it seems unlikely. (Can we find one example of a virtuous person? I think that it would be impossible to tell if a person is virtuous or not when considering the fact that “we’re inclined to overestimate disposition and underestimate situation” (411).)

Questions:

What is the vice “Calculating”?