Virtue Ethics: "Ethics based on the qualities of character necessary to live well [like virtue]." -Blackwell's Dictionary of Philosophy Or, "An action is right iff [if and only if] it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically (i.e. acting in character) do in the circumstances...A virtuous agent is one who acts virtuously, that is, one who has and exercises the virtues...A virtue is a character trait that...[includes at least one the following: honesty, charity, justice, kindness, and others, yet to be described by me.]"-Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.
Deontology: "An action is right iff it is in accordance with a correct moral rule or principle...A correct moral principle is one that...[includes at least one of the following: Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not physically or emotionally hurt others, tell the truth, be kind, respect other living creatures - humans, animals, and plants, and others, yet to be described by me]."-Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.
Utilitarianism: "An action is right iff it promotes the best consequences...The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized." -Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.
My Opinion: Virtue ethics is the best option of the three. Why? Because it puts the most emphasis on the intention of the individual. On the input, so to speak, rather than the output.
I do agree, however, that despite the fact that virtue ethics puts the most emphasis on the true nature of the agent, utilitarianism is (in a lot of situations) far more practical in application (acts). An example: Klein, the serial killer, goes for a walk. He sees a person, and as it is late at night and no one else is around, and he has an urge, he sees fit to kill them, and so he does. It turns out the man Klein killed (perhaps named Calvin) was a very bad person (worse than Klein), perhaps a child rapist, and now the world is rid of him.
Utilitarianism would say of this situation, 'Hurrah, the greatest amount of happiness has been actualized,' as many children will be saved from being raped sometime in the future thanks to Klein's action. This is true. However, does that make Klein a good person? The clear answer is no.
In day-to-day life, in terms of judging* those around me I concern myself with whether a person (a friend, a co-worker or boss, my family members) has a good character or not. Even if someone botches an action up due to ignorance, that does not make them a morally bad person. This is why Virtue Ethics wins!
*Judging in the sense of the kind of assessment of traits and situations that is common, if not inherent, to human nature
Deontology: "An action is right iff it is in accordance with a correct moral rule or principle...A correct moral principle is one that...[includes at least one of the following: Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not physically or emotionally hurt others, tell the truth, be kind, respect other living creatures - humans, animals, and plants, and others, yet to be described by me]."-Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.
Utilitarianism: "An action is right iff it promotes the best consequences...The best consequences are those in which happiness is maximized." -Normative Virtue Ethics, by Rosalind Hursthouse.
My Opinion: Virtue ethics is the best option of the three. Why? Because it puts the most emphasis on the intention of the individual. On the input, so to speak, rather than the output.
I do agree, however, that despite the fact that virtue ethics puts the most emphasis on the true nature of the agent, utilitarianism is (in a lot of situations) far more practical in application (acts). An example: Klein, the serial killer, goes for a walk. He sees a person, and as it is late at night and no one else is around, and he has an urge, he sees fit to kill them, and so he does. It turns out the man Klein killed (perhaps named Calvin) was a very bad person (worse than Klein), perhaps a child rapist, and now the world is rid of him.
Utilitarianism would say of this situation, 'Hurrah, the greatest amount of happiness has been actualized,' as many children will be saved from being raped sometime in the future thanks to Klein's action. This is true. However, does that make Klein a good person? The clear answer is no.
In day-to-day life, in terms of judging* those around me I concern myself with whether a person (a friend, a co-worker or boss, my family members) has a good character or not. Even if someone botches an action up due to ignorance, that does not make them a morally bad person. This is why Virtue Ethics wins!
*Judging in the sense of the kind of assessment of traits and situations that is common, if not inherent, to human nature
