An important idea in virtue ethics is the focus on character rather than rules or intuition.  One of the primary ways we begin to identify with good and bad character is through stories.  According to William K Kilpatrick, Professor of Education at Boston College, " Moral principles take on a reality in stories that they lack in purely logical form." 

It is on thing to say murder is immoral, it is quite another to see a film, read a book or even view a news story that highlights a vicious murder plot i.e. Schindler's List.  There is something of a deeper truth to our moral axioms when we see them played or lived out before us.

Michael Martin

TOTT

Week 4 begins!  I have a few thoughts in regards to the following ethical systems:

 Aristotle's Virtue Ethics: Of all the ethical systems I find Aristotle's most appealing, but I have a few issues with his system:

1. Aristotle believed what differentiates humans from animals was reason (i would agree), so to be a virtuous human would mean to reason well or reason with excellence.  Problem: What about love?  Not family love or sexual love, but the ability to even love (seek the well being) our enemies.  Would this not be virtuous or excellence?  Also, what if I am intellectually handicapped, or suffer a traumatic brain injury that impairs my ability to reason; am I now less virtuous? What if I reason poorly but love deeply?

Confucian Role Ethics: Confucian ethical system is like Virtue Ethics, but heavily emphasizes the relation/social nature of being human more than reasoning. To be an excellent or virtuous father depends on how I provide for and protect my family; to be an excellent or virtuous eldest son depends on how I honor my father and what kind of example I set for the younger siblings.  My virtue depends on how well I perform my social role in thought, word, and deed.  Problem:

1. Confucian ethics does not separate the individual from their role in the family and society, in fact, the state is considered the extension or the incorporation of the family. 
2. The parts have no value apart from the whole.  In my opinion the systems then become the source of value rather than the human beings that form the systems.  It is like the question "what comes first the chicken or the egg"; what came first the human being or the social systems we now inhabit. Are we born for a role, for society sake or are we born into society in which we are valued for being human?

Michael Martin
TOTT (Think on These Things)