Explore the key concepts of Act Utilitarianism. (8 marks)
Act utilitarianism is a teleological (goal or outcome-oriented), hedonistic ethical theory that was first explained in depth by Jeremy Bentham in his Principles of Morals and Legislation. For Act Utilitarians, only the consequences of our moral decisions matter and the aim is to produce feelings of physical pleasure in as many people as possible who fall within the sphere of the choice we are about to make. Act utilitarianism therefore appeals primarily to Bentham’s famous utility principle, which aims to promote ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’.
More specifically, Act Utilitarians would deploy Bentham’s famous hedonic calculus. Their decision would take into account the purity of the anticipated pleasure, its remoteness (how far away it is in time), its intensity, its certainty, its extent (how many people are affected by the decision), its duration (how long the pleasure might last for), and its fecundity (how likely the anticipated feelings of pleasure are to give rise to further feelings of pleasure).
For example, let’s imagine that a group of act utilitarians are about to order from a set menu in a French restaurant. If that set menu contains foie gras, a delicacy produced from force feeding ducks, the purity of the pleasure experienced by the diners may be contaminated by feelings of guilt resulting from any awareness of the process involved in making foie gras, especially if they are also aware of Bentham’s dictum in relation to animals that the issue when it comes to animals is not whether they can reason but whether they can suffer. Bentham was aware that, like humans, animals are also in possession of nervous systems and are therefore capable of experiencing pleasure and pain.
The extent of the anticipated pleasure may also therefore need to embrace not just humans but animals too. Furthermore, the fecundity of the experience may also be affected by this knowledge. The diners may not wish to return to the same restaurant to repeat the experience if they know that animals suffered considerably in order for this delicacy to be available. The duration of any pleasure may also be short-lived, unless the group of act utilitarians are unaware of the methods used to create foie gras. Finally, Act Utilitarianism takes no account of human rights or the quality of a particular pleasure. Only the quantity of pleasure resulting from a moral decision matters.
Explore the key concepts of Rule Utilitarianism. (8 marks)
Rule utilitarianism (like Act Utilitarianism), is a teleological, hedonistic ethical theory which was developed by the Victorian philosopher John Stuart Mill in response to the perceived weaknesses of Jeremy Bentham’s version of act utilitarianism. Mill agreed with Bentham that a correct ethical action is one that promotes the Utility Principle i.e. it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. However, Mill thought that rules were required to uphold this principle. One such rule was his famous ‘Harm Principle’. According to this principle, we should be allowed as much freedom as possible to pursue happiness and pleasure in life as long as we do not run the risk of physically harming others in doing so. This addresses a weakness of Bentham’s hedonic calculus that would permit the victimization of a minority by a majority if a greater amount of happiness was produced by doing so. In theory, the Harm Principle therefore protects minorities.
Mill also believed that the quality of the pleasure produced by a moral decision counted for more than its quantity. He thought that intellectual or ‘higher’ pleasures were more morally worthy than mere ‘lower’ or physical pleasures. In other words, studying Philosophy was to be preferred to going to the gym. In terms of rules, this would mean that society would be governed by rules that promote higher pleasures e.g. TV channels might be compelled to broadcast more Shakespeare plays and operas at the expense of, say, Strictly Come Dancing.
Mill is also classified as a weak rule utilitarian. This means that exceptions can be made to rules that would ordinarily promote the general happiness if the Utility Principle is upheld by doing so. For example, if a person would starve if they did not steal, then breaking a rule or law in a given society against stealing may be justifiable. This contrasts with Richard Brandt’s later form of rule utilitarianism, which is of a type known as strong rule utilitarianism. For Brandt, once the rules have been decided on (they are first formulated by a group of rule-makers acting rationally) they should not be broken, provided that utility would be maximised if everyone followed them.
Assess/Analyse the weaknesses of Act Utilitarianism. (12 marks)
The main perceived weakness of Act Utilitarianism is that it can lead to human rights violations e.g. if a majority gain pleasure from watching a minority suffer (as spectators in the Roman arena did from watching gladiatorial combat), this would be justifiable according to Bentham’s hedonic calculus. John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle was designed to correct this deficiency and protect minorities from physical harm.
For Bentham the sheer quantity of pleasure generated by a hedonic calculation was all that mattered. Again Mill queried this and thought that higher, intellectual pleasures counted for more than mere physical ones. Mill would have disagreed with Bentham that ‘pushpin’ (a mindless pub game) was as good as poetry.
Additionally, Act Utilitarianism is based on a calculation of the predicted consequences of an action. But perhaps this is misguided, as our predictions can turn out to be inaccurate, and there is the additional issue that pleasure is, in the first place, not easy to accurately measure as it is an essentially subjective experience.
For Bentham, pleasure was a motivating factor in human psychology. He therefore thought that it provided a sound basis for an atheistic ethical theory. However, Utilitarian philosophers have generally struggled to justify the ‘greatest number’ aspect of the Utility Principle, as all that Bentham’s insight into human psychology seems to warrant are moral decisions that promote ethical egoism, or individual happiness for me only.
Nozick’s famous ‘pleasure machine’ thought experiment also suggests that human beings are motivated by more than mere pleasure and pain, as almost nobody would choose to remain in his imagined virtual reality generator that guarantees an unending sequence of pleasurable experiences.
Bernard Williams’ famous example of ‘Jim and the Indians’ also demonstrates that although the greatest happiness may result from shooting one Indian rather than all twenty dying, that in taking this path we lose our human dignity, which in turn suggests that the Utility Principle does not provide a suitable foundation for moral decision-making.
Finally, there is an intuitive objection to Act Utilitarianism which arguably helps to highlight a further weakness of this system: imagine that two courses of action produce the same outcome in terms of Bentham’s hedonic calculus but that one of them involves betraying a close friend. Intuitively, this suggests that the exclusive emphasis on outcomes or consequences in Act Utilitarianism may not be desirable.
Analyse the claim that in Situation Ethics, there is no absolute right or wrong though it does have principles.
Situation Ethics is a teleological Christian ethical theory that was developed by Joseph Fletcher and most fully set out in his book Situation Ethics: the New Morality in 1966. Barclay was a famous critic of SE and in this brief extract is drawing attention to a standard criticism of it, namely, that as a system it is too elastic, meaning that an appeal to agape or selfless concern for others (as taught by Jesus in the form of love of neighbour and enemy) can be used to justify anything. For example, at one point in his book, Fletcher strongly implies that the atomic bombing of Japan was justifiable according to what he refers to as an ‘agapeic calculus’.
The ‘principles’ that Barclay refers to are the Six Fundamental Principles that guide moral decision-making in SE: love only is always good, love is the only norm, love and justice are the same, love is not liking, love is the only means, and love decides there and then. These principles, along with the Four Presumptions of Pragmatism, Personalism, Positivism and Relativism are designed to equip a follower of SE with the tools to make a sound moral decision. However, they are not prescriptive and do not provide a ready-made answer to a moral dilemma. They are merely intended to steer the Situationist in the right direction. For example, the principle ‘love is not liking’ reminds them that agape should be exhibited to all, regardless of our personal feelings about a person or group. Meanwhile, the presumption of Personalism highlights the fact that for Fletcher, people not objects matter. For example, if one had to make a choice between saving a known terrorist or the Mona Lisa from a fire in the Louvre Art Gallery, this presumption suggests that we should save the terrorist.
Although Barclay claims that ‘there is no absolute right and wrong’ in SE, he goes on to mention ‘the command to love your neighbour’. There seems to be a contradiction here, as Fletcher insists in his book that love is ‘objectively valid’, so contra Barclay, agape is a moral absolute for Fletcher. Barclay is probably concerned that SE runs the risk of sliding into antinomianism, as the fact that agape trumps all other moral considerations worries more traditionally inclined Christians like him, who might wish to adhere to other rules that promote the sanctity of life, such as the sixth of the Ten Commandments.
Assess the weaknesses of religious ethical perspectives on disability.
(12 Marks)
Throughout the gospel narratives, Jesus is portrayed as performing miracles, some of which involve curing disabilities e.g. blindness, paralysis.
On the day of Pentecost as described in the book of Acts, the disciples are also conferred with the ability to heal the sick as one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. In modern Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian worship, it is not unusual for attempts to be made to cure those with disabilities by channelling the power of the Spirit.
The problems with adopting a religious perspective based of this outlook are twofold:
- Although God’s power is allegedly being demonstrated through healing miracles, it is implied that people who are disabled are – at least prior to being healed – sinful and perhaps in some way deserving of their disabilities. Although the healing through faith they receive brings them back into the Christian community or signifies membership of the Kingdom of God in the case of Biblical healings, the suggestion is that they lack something.
- There are additional philosophical problems to do with miracles that have been explored by sceptical philosophers like David Hume. Richard Dawkins, for example, has noted the lack of examples of limbs getting regrown at places like Lourdes.
Given that Christianity on the whole tends to be an inclusive faith, disabled Christians like Joni Earekson Tada have campaigned for greater recognition within the Church. They would argue that their physical disabilities do not prevent them from acquiring spiritual wholeness through their faith.
However, there are other weaknesses that are also worthy of note. For example, disability raises issues to do with the problem of evil and why an omnipotent God would permit disability in the first place, though Earekson Tada would see herself as demonstrating that suffering and infirmity can be overcome with faith, which serves for her and others as a kind of theodicy.
Additionally, there are implications for Christian theology in relation to the afterlife: if we acquire a spiritually resurrected body in heaven, what are the implications for those who are presently disabled? Will they be restored to physical wholeness? Or will they retain their disability but be free from suffering (in the same manner in which the resurrected Jesus still bore the marks of his crucifixion)?
Overall, there do seem to be significant problems and issues that have arisen from the manner in which disability has been handled within Christianity, though these difficulties are, at least, starting to be addressed.
Assess the strengths of religious ethical perspectives on sustainability and waste management.
(12 Marks)
According to the book of Genesis, humans have been given ‘dominion’ over the natural world. This entails an attitude of benevolent stewardship on the part of Christians: God is the creator and therefore the ‘owner’ of everything that he has made. Human beings are therefore only looking after the world for him. Implicit in this view is that we should behave responsibly and attempt to preserve the environment for the benefit of ourselves and future generations. So, in theory, Christians would be supportive of the concept of sustainability, in the sense that they might recycle (which relates to waste management), and limit their carbon footprint in order to maintain the earth’s capability to support life. They might also support organisations like Greenpeace that oppose the dumping of toxic waste and plastic in the oceans.
However, the problem with this is that although most Christian churches endorse this type of stewardship, not all do. So-called ‘end timer’ Christians in the USA are depicted in Mark Dowd’s documentary ‘God is Green’ as readily indulging in practices like Mountaintop removal mining and justify doing so because they interpret the word ‘dominion’ to mean that the earth’s resources have been given to them by God to do with as they please. Additionally, they are unconcerned about sustainability because they believe that if fossil fuels are eventually used up and the natural world becomes degraded and polluted, this will hasten the second coming of Jesus.
This inconsistency is mirrored elsewhere in the Bible. For example, many animals die in the Flood (even if Noah’s Ark can be seen as an ancient attempt to ‘sustain’ some kind of animal population), Genesis 9 informs humans that ‘The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens, upon everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea. Into your hand they are delivered.’ This sounds like an instruction to terrorise animals. And even Jesus curses a fig tree causing it to wither in the New Testament.
So perhaps a secular approach might be more effective e.g. perhaps we should become ‘oikophiles’ who care about our local environment as recommended by Roger Scruton, or embrace the implications of Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis which sees the earth as a living organism that will eradicate us if we fail to treat it well. And with regard to waste management, perhaps we should adopt the attitude recommended by Slavoj Zizek (NOTE: see the bottom of this post for a YouTube video in which Zizek explains his ideas). Instead of avoiding contact with all the garbage that we generate, Zizek argues that we should learn to love it, to not shy away from acknowledging it, rather in the manner that we come to accept the imperfections of a loved one.
Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of one religious and one secular perspective on medical ethics.
Answer 1
Typically, religious responses to issues in medical ethics (like those proffered by Christianity) tend to emphasise the sanctity of human life. This is the teaching that human life is sacred and special. For example, according to the book of Genesis we are all created in God’s ‘image’. For many Christians, this means that we are in receipt of an eternal soul that other species lack. Originally, the Catholic Church taught that men receive this soul after 40 days and women after 90, though in 1974 ‘ensoulment’ was moved to the moment of conception.
Accompanying this is the idea that life is a gift from God and it is up to Him to decide when we die rather than us. This is reflected in teachings like that found in the book of Job (‘…the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away’). Meanwhile, further Biblical support for the sanctity of life can be found in passages like the one in Jeremiah: ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you’. The famous papal encyclical Humanae Vitae reinforces this message: human life is sacred.
A strength of this perspective is that it emphasises the dignity of human life and the putative rights of the unborn child. Even atheists might support this perspective on the grounds that this life is the only one we are going to get and aborting a fetus denies us the opportunity to exist. Further, by focusing of these rights, ‘Pro-life’ supporters are drawing attention to the fact that the decision to abort a fetus or end a human life prematurely should never be taken lightly. We should never get in to a situation where abortion, euthanasia or even IVF treatment (which results in discarded embryos) is available ‘on demand’.
On the other hand, the beliefs of those who adopt a pro-life perspective are predicated on both the existence of God and that of the human soul. Religious experience, especially Near Death Experiences, may possibly lend support to these beliefs, along with famous arguments for the existence of God like the Ontological argument. However, the evidence for for the veridicality of NDE’s is inconclusive, and no argument for the existence of God has yet proved to be fully persuasive.
A further weakness of sanctity of life teaching is that it is inconsistent. For example, the Catholic re-location of the time of ensoulment does not appear to be a move that can be rationally defended. So why was it changed? Additionally, if it is maintained by Christians that God gave us free-will, why deny a pregnant woman or a terminally patient the right to exercise it?
An opposing secular perspective is one which focuses on the quality of life rather than its sanctity. This perspective emphasises that it is the anticipated quality of a fetus or person’s future life that should be foregrounded in ethical debate, a point which goes hand in hand with an emphasis on autonomy.
For example, if a woman is found to be carrying an unborn child that is likely to be severely handicapped (e.g. anencephalic) then aborting that child may not be seen as morally wrong. This point may also extend to an unborn child afflicted with Down’s syndrome or the Zika virus. Although children born with these conditions may be capable of experiencing happy lives, their effect on the quality of life of their carers may be significant as they may be dependent on them for life.
As far as terminally ill patients are concerned, supporters of the sanctity of life claim that palliative care can alleviate the pain that accompanies the end stages of terminal illness, which obviates the need for the legalization of euthanasia. However, as Peter Singer has pointed out, palliative care may not be sufficient to overcome the distress of patients who have lost control of their bowels and bladder or who are in a state of near total paralysis resulting from conditions like motor neurone disease.
A weakness of the quality of life perspective is that – in the case of abortion – it has resulted in abortion on demand. Something similar might occur – it is also alleged – if euthanasia was to be legalized in the UK. Concerns have also been expressed about the boundaries of euthanasia being extended to non-terminal conditions or even chronic mental health issues if it was introduced here.
However, when the trouble has been taken to find out how women actually feel retrospectively about their decision to abort (e.g. by the US academic Carol Sanger), it has been discovered that this decision is almost never made flippantly. Feelings of regret are also often offset by the knowledge that abortion was the least worst of the choices available to the women who made that decision, many of whom have already had children and so are very much aware of the consequences of their course of action. And in countries where some form of euthanasia is already legal, Dr Penney Lewis has found no evidence for any ‘slippery slope’ effect.
Overall then, it would seem that the perspective offered by those who support the sanctity of life is weaker and more difficult to defend.
Answer 2
A strength of the Christian ‘sanctity of life’ perspective is that it emphasises the sacredness and dignity of human life and the rights of the unborn child. Human life is deemed to be thus because we are all made in God’s ‘image’ and conferred with eternal souls.
Even atheists might support this perspective on the grounds that this life is the only one we are going to get and aborting a fetus denies us the opportunity to exist. Further, by focusing of these rights, ‘Pro-life’ supporters are drawing attention to the fact that the decision to abort a fetus or end a human life prematurely should not be taken lightly. We should never get in to a situation where abortion, euthanasia or even IVF treatment (which results in discarded embryos) is available ‘on demand’.
On the other hand, the beliefs of those who adopt a pro-life perspective are predicated on both the existence of God and that of the human soul. Religious experience, especially Near Death Experiences, may possibly lend support to these beliefs, along with famous arguments for the existence of God like the Ontological argument. However, the evidence for for the veridicality of NDE’s is inconclusive, and no argument for the existence of God has yet proved to be fully persuasive.
A further weakness of sanctity of life teaching is that it is inconsistent. For example the Catholic teaching on ensoulment used to maintain (taking its cue from Aquinas) that men received their souls after 40 days and women after 90. The re-location of the time of ensoulment to the moment of conception in 1974 does not appear to be a move that can be rationally defended. So why was it changed? Additionally, if it is maintained by Christians that God gave us free-will, why deny a pregnant woman or a terminally patient the right to exercise it?
An opposing secular perspective is one which focuses on the quality of life rather than its sanctity. This perspective emphasises that it is the anticipated quality of a fetus or person’s future life that should be foregrounded in ethical debate, a point which goes hand in hand with an emphasis on autonomy and personal choice (the ‘Pro-Choice’ perspective).
For example, a strength of Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous ‘unconscious violinist’ thought experiment is that – although it grants that the fetus is a person (in the same way that a comatose violinist would be) – it also further demonstrates that a woman’s right to decide what happens to her body trumps the fetus’s right to life in situations where she has not consented to become pregnant (e.g. through rape or failure of contraception). This is brought out by the fact that the patient was kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers and did not consent to be hooked up to the violinist. This right may also be extended to women who discover that they are carrying a child with a serious abnormality as they may not have consented to carry an unhealthy fetus. Thomson’s experiment might also be deployed in criticism of the Catholic view (maintained by the politician Jacob Rees Mogg) that aborting a child conceived through rape is morally unacceptable.
Aborting a fetus with a severe handicap may also not be seen as morally wrong on other grounds (a point that may also extend to a fetus afflicted with Down’s syndrome or the Zika virus). Although children born with these conditions may be capable of experiencing happy lives, the effect on the quality of life of their carers may be significant as they may be dependent on them for life.
The sanctity of life perspective is further undermined by another famous thought experiment devised by George Annas: there is a fire in a fertility lab and one is faced with a choice between saving a tray of 20 fertilised human embryos or a 5 year old child. A Christian who maintains a sanctity of life perspective would presumably be committed to saving the embryos, which seems intuitively odd. The embryos also arguably lack ‘personhood;, a knowledge that they have a life to lose. For Peter Singer, personhood plays a decisive role in the abortion debate as a fetus never possesses it.
As far as terminally ill patients are concerned, supporters of the sanctity of life claim that palliative care can alleviate the pain that accompanies the end stages of terminal illness, which obviates the need for the legalization of euthanasia. However, as Peter Singer has pointed out, palliative care may not be sufficient to overcome the distress of patients who have lost control of their bowels and bladder or who are in a state of near total paralysis resulting from conditions like motor neurone disease.
A weakness of the quality of life perspective is that – in the case of abortion – it has resulted in abortion on demand. Something similar might occur – it is also alleged – if euthanasia was to be legalized in the UK. Concerns have also been expressed about the boundaries of euthanasia being extended to non-terminal conditions or even chronic mental health issues if it was introduced here.
However, when the trouble has been taken to find out how women actually feel retrospectively about their decision to abort (e.g. the US academic Carol Sanger has researched this), it has been discovered that this decision is almost never made flippantly. Feelings of regret are also often offset by the knowledge that abortion was the least worst of the choices available to the women who made that choice, many of whom have already had children and so are very much aware of the consequences of their course of action. And in countries where some form of euthanasia is already legal, Dr Penney Lewis has found no evidence for any ‘slippery slope’ effect.
Overall then, it would seem that the perspective offered by those who support the sanctity of life is weaker and more difficult to defend.
Evaluate the view that Virtue Ethics continues to offer a useful way of resolving moral dilemmas.
Use knowledge and understanding from across your course of study to answer this question. In your response to this question, you must include how developments in Religion and Ethics have been influenced by one of the following:
• Philosophy of Religion
• New Testament Studies
• The study of a religion.
NOTE: it took an hour to write this not 45 minutes. The bits in bold type could potentially be edited out, making it possible to get most of the other points down on paper within the time limit.
In recent years, Virtue Ethics has undergone something of a revival in terms of its popularity among modern ethicists. This renewed interest can be traced back to a famous 1958 essay by GEM Anscombe called ‘Modern Moral Philosophy.’ In the essay, Anscombe argued that VE offered a way out of an impasse that had been reached because of the perceived shortcomings of previously popular teleological theories like Utilitarianism, and deontological theories like Kantian ethics. The latter has been regarded as inflexible and counterintuitive (Who wouldn’t lie to Kant’s famous would-be murderer?), while Utilitarianism in its Benthamite version rides roughshod over human rights and – in terms of his famous Utility principle – struggles to find sufficient justification for the claim that we should seek the happiness of the greatest number.
Against this background, Anscombe argued that these theories suffer from an additional problem: ethicists like Kant and Bentham spend their time wondering what is right or wrong in various circumstances without, it seems, having anyone in mind who might do the permitting or forbidding. God used to fill this position but if he does not exist, or is not acceptable, then nothing can be either permitted or forbidden. In other words, ethics consists of laws (like Kant’s categorical imperative, Bentham’s Utility principle, or Mill’s Harm principle) that remain incoherent in the absence of a lawmaker.
For Anscombe, Aristotelean Virtue Ethics could help to resolve these issues because it does not depend on God (the emphasis is on character, becoming a virtuous kind of person, rather than following divine commands). So it might appeal to a constituency comprised of New Atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens and their followers. Having said this, VE also has appeal for theists (Anscombe herself was a Catholic), as the virtues favoured by Aristotle also tend to be those shared by religious believers e.g. courage, generosity.
In other words, VE offers the prospect of having the potential to resolve moral dilemmas because it can seem credible to a wide audience, regardless of whether they believe in God or not.
Following on from Anscombe, MacIntyre has also argued that VE is a viable theory that can overcome the failings of its competitors. For MacIntyre, Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are products of the Enlightenment. Both theories are grounded in rationality but fail precisely because of this. MacIntyre believed that since these two theories were diametrically opposed they entail that we have suffered a loss of moral vocabulary, as they cannot both be correct. Somewhere along the line, the very coherence of moral philosophy has been lost. Again, MacIntyre believes that VE can help to restore a sense of coherence to Ethics.
Are Anscombe and MacIntyre correct? Firstly, in support of their view, it could be said that VE extracts us from an undue emphasis on rationality when it comes to moral decision-making because Aristotle’s system allows emotions to play a role in resolving moral dilemmas. For example, in pursuit of the Golden Mean he encourages us to temper excessive fear in order to cultivate courage, and to avoid outbursts of anger in favour of assertiveness.
So it could be said that at a time when many of us are struggling with fears, phobias, addictions, road rage, and what not, which can lead to many seeking help to manage these issues, VE provides a model for psychotherapists, counsellors and life coaches to adopt when it comes to assisting their clients.
VE has also been taken up by politicians and educators. For example, there are echoes in David Cameron’s vision of a ‘Big Society’ of Aristotle’s view that the virtues can only be effectively cultivated through active citizenship, through participation in the polis. Meanwhile, experts in the field of education have been suggesting that the modern ‘snowflake’ generation of pupils are very much in need of having greater resilience instilled in them, a virtue surely favoured by Aristotle.
However, in conclusion, it needs to be pointed out that Aristotle’s notion of phronesis or practical wisdom can be hopelessly vague. For example, if a previously anorexic friend invites someone to state whether they look ‘big’ in their prom dress, and they do, should the friend exhibit the virtue of honesty or tact? Additionally, courage is a virtue famously promoted by Aristotle. But it might sometimes be hard to tell whether it is courageous to stay in a marriage to see whether it can still be made to work, or to leave in order to go it alone.
Additionally, VE does not have enough to say about motive, a point noted by Philippa Foot. Bank robbers and terrorists might require courage to do what they do, but one could hardly describe their actions as moral.
Furthermore, VE has been dealt a devastating blow by famous studies undertaken by social psychologists like Milgram and Zimbardo. For example, Milgram’s famous study of obedience to authority has repeatedly demonstrated that two thirds of us would willingly electrocute a stranger, in spite of the fact that we might consider ourselves to be incapable of harming another human being. For the philosopher John Doris, examples like this demonstrate that any virtues that we may consider ourselves to be in possession of are not stable, and that our immediate environment may more readily determine our moral behaviour.
Finally, it has been claimed that that VE can appeal to a broad spectrum of people. However, for those who derive a good deal of fulfilment in life from engaging in activities that Aristotle might have thought to be reckless, for example, playing dangerous sports or attempting to pull off a risky but potentially highly profitable business deal, this is not going to be the case.
Overall then, VE might be said to be useful for resolving moral dilemmas, and it does seem to offer a potential alternative to its excessively rational competitors. However, as a theory, it still needs to overcome some of the problems and issues highlighted towards the end of this essay.