Category: Euthyphro Dilemma

Plato’s famous question concerning the nature of goodness asks whether a thing is good because God says it is good, or does God say it’s good because it is good. This is known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma (named after the character Euthyphro in Plato’s ’socratic dialogue’ on the subject of goodness).

The problem this question raises for the Christian is two-fold. First, if a thing is good simply because God says it is, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be. This might include things that we instinctively know to be evil, like rape or murder. But we don’t want a morality based on God’s arbitrary declarations, so it seems this choice is a poor one for the believer. However, if God is simply reporting a thing’s goodness, then He is no longer the standard for goodness and seems to be at the mercy of some outside standard. But we don’t want there to be a standard above God that He must bow to, so this response does not seem attractive, either. Hence the dilemma.

There is, however, a third option. As Christians we should affirm both God’s sovereignty and His non-derived goodness. Thus, we don’t want a standard that is arbitrary nor one that exists outside or above God. Fortunately, God is both supremely sovereign and good. Therefore, God’s nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself. God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true. This solves both issues.

How is God the standard of goodness? Because He is the creator. A thing’s goodness is determined by its purpose. A dull knife is not a good knife because the purpose of a knife is to cut. Sharpness is bad for a shoe, however, for a good shoe is one that is comfortable and supportive to a foot. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation. What He makes is made purposefully, and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad. Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

“Good and evil are like two notes in a symphony. Many things change into their opposites: for example, hard ice melts into water which is soft. This led to believe that the combination of opposites resulted in a harmonious whole. In music, harmony results from the combination of low and high notes, while in the universe harmony flows from the combination of opposites: good and evil.” God is regarded as to be the perfect good who, therefore, could not be the creator of evil. The power gifted by God to man to distinguish truth from falsehood is not complete. Man goes astray due to the pressure of his desires and sentiments. Due to lack of accurate judgment, he fails to distinguish between good and evil and treads the wrong path by mistake. The error lies not in God’s action but in ours, and this is due to our poor judgment which is based on insufficient knowledge, which could lead to believe that moral distinction can be regarded as to have a supernatural origin.

There can be many types of evil. Two of these types are moral evil and natural evil. Natural evil is mostly things like we cannot control such as physical pain and suffering, while moral evil depends on the exercise of the human will. Natural evil is independent of that. Many say that natural evil is a human necessity as, Without the pain, mankind would not be aware of illness and danger. In life, there are times when the bad guys are better off than the good guys. Some say it’s a test for the soul, and rewards are waiting for us. The human family is like a person and its members help each other by their good deeds because they are also suffering for their faults. For example, take what happened to Jesus. He suffered for all the immorality of humanity and saved them all. But what about moral evil, consisting of things like murder, that people can control? Why does God allow it if the consequences are undesirable?

The protagonist in the novel is Billy Budd. The experiences that Billy undergoes throughout the novel parallel what Jesus Christ endured in his life. The similarities between Christ and Billy include their demises. Jesus Christ supposedly said that he was king of the Jews. Then he was tried and convicted of treason, although he was falsely accused in the first place. His punishment was crucifixion on a large wooden cross. Billy Budd suffers a similar demise. He was accused of being the leader of a rebellious group planning a mutiny. Outraged by the outlandish charge he kills his accuser with a single blow. Billy is then found guilty of mutiny, and he protected the true mutineers. Billy is sentenced by a drumhead court to hang on the yardarm, which is similar to the cross that Christ was put on. The captain reluctancy to act, in this story can be compared to God as in the story of Jesus Christ, God did not act, letting Jesus die.

“Ivan asks Alyosha if he would consent to the torture & killing of one tiny child if the act would give all humanity ultimate peace & happiness” is objective and when the term ‘objective’ is used in ethics, we mean that if morality is objective, it is so that at a cosmic level; or that moral values are valid regardless of human opinion. For example, to say that the Holocaust is objectively immoral means that what the Nazis did is immoral, whether they think it’s okay or not. And that would have always been evil even if they had succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everyone into believing that the Nazi doctrines were good. For those who believe that morality requires a supernatural foundation, God, or perhaps another metaphysical entity, is required as the absolute criterion by which all moral actions are measured and considered moral or immoral. Objective morality would mean that something moral is moral regardless of the existence of rational minds. Those who believe that morality is a supernatural foundation assert that if one denies the idea that the foundation of morality is supernatural, he is committed to saying that morality is subjective. I believe that it is false, and that objective morality does not require a supernatural foundation; objective morality is justifiable in naturalistic terms. The opinion is that moral values are objective and based on the nature of the human being; thus, the foundation of moral values is natural.

To understand why moral evil exists, we must understand the concept of free will. Freedom of choice or free will is the power and exercise of an unhampered choice. Therefore, humans can make their own decisions and do what they want. Freedom does not mean absence of influences, but rather that these influences do not oblige a person to decide in a certain way and that he can choose between these influences. For example, a man thinks that a walk to would be a good idea because it needs fresh air, but the man is tired and does not really want to, he must choose the way to go. People do not always know the influences that act them all the weather. some of them are subconscious. Some people would say that if they knew these subconscious motivations, our behaviour could be explained, and free will would be cancelled because our behaviour would always be predictable. ‘Supporters of free will do not deny that these unconscious causes exist, but simply that it is a positive occasional influence added to the equation.’ Say, for example, that one person wants to hurt another. This person may not know why but may still choose not to do so. Therefore, if a person’s moral character is well known, his or her decisions are most likely predictable and not random. Thus, free will is not random, not completely determined, but necessary for the development of moral character. Therefore, the moral evil exists. It is a side effect of free will. ‘Christian philosophy has always attributed the presence of evil in the world to the acts of free will of man.’

If God is a moral agent, objective moral values would not exist and would have no meaning until the advent of human consciousness. Mankind could just as well be intrinsically good. In any case, it is only after the advent of consciousness that humans acquire moral value. But to say that God is the paradigm of morality apart from rational minds makes no sense. If there is a God and is in some way responsible for morality, the objectivity of morality acquires objectivity, if any, because of the existence of rational minds, in which case morality seems to rest on human reason. That is to say, even if we grant the existence of God, it would not explain how God confers objectivity on humans. One of the answers is that it does, whether we like it or not, in which case human beings are accidentally the recipients of God’s nature. This point of view is similar to that proposed in the discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma. It seems that morality is the nature of God imposed by God himself. Thus, the only way this represents objectivity is from God’s point of view. If the nature of God is imposed on humans by God, morality returns to the order of God. On the other hand, if morality is to be of value to humans, objective moral values must be based on human nature, in which case, as in Euthyphro*, morality can be objective and independent of the nature of God.

A claim that people are morally required to subject their moral judgments to scrutiny, perhaps to test whether their moral beliefs are supported by right reason and they can stand up to objections seems to be straightforward. However, morality is derived from different sources. Quite a number of philosophers argue for the rational basis of morality. In this perspective, morality is seen as derived from pure rationality through categorical imperative, which means that morality is the state that maximizes other intrinsic goods such as well-being and happiness. Human beings have evolved mental organs for selfish reciprocal-altruism as well as mental organs for seeking social status through the appearance of doing good, and that these organs can be hijacked to support a happiness-maximizing morality.

People should accept the moral structure in the first place because it seems that evolution has left us little choice. Mental faculties evolved from a purely selfish motivation. It has given people the tools and motivation necessary to act in ways that are beneficial to their kin, their friends, and their countries. Extending this into a moral code is just an attempt to stretch these faculties to cover more people, ideally all of humanity. People extend these natural proclivities for doing good to others, is the question that confronts people daily. Small actions on their part (like not killing their neighbors) can lead to rewards that help them (like being invited to their New Year’s Eve party.

Rachels spends most of the article arguing that this distinction is essentially not valid. His argument’s strength is difficult to parse, so I will try and state it explicitly. Rachels denies that the theological subservience is superficial. Doing what God says to be moral is not true subservience, just as (for example) doing what God says to become rich a la prosperity theology is not accurate submission.

Two examples we can draw on to justify Rachels’ stance is that of Abraham and Isaac, and those Foucault notes of the Desert Fathers. Briefly said, Abraham is willing to sacrifice his son to God, something indubitably immoral both in terms of autonomous ethics and in terms of God’s past commandments. So this responds directly to. For Rachels, a true follower of God will discard ethics for following his instructions. The stereotype is the woman prepared to kill her child to follow God’s orders.

Rachels also wants to make the following claim as well: deciding to worship is a fundamentally morally autonomous decision (Gordon 437). The argument here gets fuzzy but simply put: to decide whether to worship someone, one must first exercise independent reasoning. Hence, before you wholly give yourself to someone to follow their instructions no matter what, you must first have decided to do so, and thus must first have determined it was right to do so.

This all aligns with what Rachels says, namely: Worship will be regarded not as an isolated act taking place on Sunday morning, with no necessary connection to one’s behavior the rest of the week, but as a ritualistic expression of and commitment to a role which dominates one’s whole way of life. In terms of the coherence of the argument, I think it has a serious weakness from a centrist view of ‘worship’. Namely, his understanding of subservience is extreme by any realistic interpretation. While he gives a reasonable argument against the ‘ultra-conservative’ wholly submissive notion of worshipping God, he does so implicitly thinking to be moral (as opposed to following God) is good. If we believe that humans are wholly flawed and unable to morally reason effectively, and are best suited to following God’s instructions, then his argument loses its weight. If we also believe that God does not tell us explicitly what to do in all circumstances, then moral reasoning (and thus moral agency) has space again as the submission is not wholly totalizing. His semi-responses to some of these objections aren’t very convincing in the text.

The reason the article is so good though it does not predict a lot of these criticisms, and you can argue well with the text. It is exceptionally well written, certainly worthy of study. Put more precisely, and the idea is that God cannot demand us to both be good people and be wholly subservient to his will. If we’re good people, we are exacting moral autonomy. If we are entirely subservient, we are not enacting moral independence. Hence, it is impossible to be a good person who is wholly subservient.

The immediate response is that these are just two ways of thinking about how we behave: being moral certainly means exercising autonomy, but we use that autonomy to follow what God demands of us, which is behaving morally. Hence, the superficial subservience is a more profound expression of independence – denying our immoral urges to do that which is morally right.

Some people think that you cannot have morality without a moral lawgiver, i.e., god. The thrust of the Euthyphro dilemma is that a moral lawgiver and absolute honesty are incompatible. If he merely perceives what is morally better than we do, than he is not the source of morality, this undermines the supposition that we need a moral, to begin with. Also, for some theologies, this even starts to erode the notion that he is omnipotent, for if he has no power over what is moral and what is not, then we’ve found a limit to his ability.

So to hold that morality depends on a god requires that you either agree that your god is not omnipotent or that morality is subjective to your gods’ point of view. A lot of people who believe in divine command theory have a serious problem with this implication and have spent a long time trying to wriggle out of it.

So let’s break Euthyphro’s argument down and instead of using pious let’s use good because it is a little easier to follow in plain English. So essentially, we have the ‘Euthyphro Dilemma’ If you decide to believe, one, you believe what is good is good because the gods love it. Essentially by understanding this, you are saying that God or the gods’ love of something is what makes that action ok. Essentially you are saying that morality is arbitrary to God and any action you believe is correct or incorrect solely because God says it is. If I decided to murder someone, I could say that this action is wrong morally because God says it is wrong to kill someone, but in five minutes if God decides he wants to change his mind, and this action is no longer wrong, then I am in the clear. But, any action I have done right or wrong could suddenly be the opposite.

Divine Command Theory & Utilitarianism

I. Introduction

This paper discussed both the divine command theory and utilitarianism, in a comparative study to ultimately suggest that utilitarianism is the most compelling approach in determining right and wrong. This paper is divided into four sections. Part II will outline the divine command theory and provide a detailed understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of this religious account of morality. Part III will discuss the utilitarianism approach and the advantages and disadvantages in determining right and wrong. Further, part IV will provide a comparative study of the two approaches in determining the most compelling approach. Finally, part V will summarise both approaches in ultimately highlighting that the utilitarian approach is the most compelling as a basis for determining right and wrong.

II. Religion and Morality: Divine Command Theory

Religion and morality, throughout the space of time, has been developed and confirmed as a result of individuals’ social interactions and group. The causal link between morality and religion is evidenced when individuals question their morality and often doubt their religion, as well. Divine command theory claims that morality is ultimately based on the commands and character of God and that morally correct actions are based on God’s commands and requirements (Wielenberg, 2018). Divine Command Theory claims that all human moral obligations are linked with God, as God can command or forbid an act (Wielenberg, 2018). Upon application of such, it suggests that individuals that adhere to the Divine Command Theory understand morality to be binding, a conception applied universally and only originated through God. Further, this addresses many of the biggest questions about morality by differentiating right and wrong through using the commandments and instructions of God. Hence, this approach is considered the ethical theory of choice for much of the world. To be an adherent of the Divine Command Theory, individuals require faith in God and hold a belief of the afterlife, as in the afterlife individuals that are morally good are rewarded with eternal happiness (Wielenberg, 2018).

III. Secular Account of Morality: Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences of our actions and behavior rather than the intent (Mukerji & Luetge, 2013). This secular account of morality is based on the notion that good actions will lead to good consequences, as good actions should be measured in terms of the happiness and pleasure they produce (Mill, 2006). The theory is founded on the notion of evaluation, whereby the action is chosen should be the one that produces the most beneficial result. Further, the utilitarian approach is focused on the ‘maximization of utility, (Mukerji & Luetge, 2013), highlighting the notion that as an adherent to this approach, an individual should be using options that produce the greatest good. A key belief in this approach is that where morality is concerned, all individuals are equal and no one person is ‘more special than anybody else’ (Devellennes, 2014). Upon application of the utilitarian approach, moral decisions should be made from the position of a benevolent, disinterested spectator, rather than thinking of an individual’s own self-interest (Devellennes, 2014). This will allow utilitarians to have a disposition of goodwill, with no emotional investment in the decision-making process. This approach is far more likely to yield a fair and unbiased judgment about what action is truly the best and hence the more compelling approach.

There are two types of utilitarianism being act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. The first consists of individuals in any given situation choosing the action that produces the greatest good for the greatest number (Devellennes, 2014). However, the rule utilitarianism approach is the version of utilitarianism which stipulates that individuals are ought to live by rules that in general are likely to lead to the greatest good for the greatest number. Both of which hold similarities, although provide advantages and disadvantages of their own.

IV. Comparative Study

Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is a strong option as a religious account of morality through its many advantages. Mainly Divine Command Theory provides an objective foundation for mortality, as those who follow the moral truths of this theistic framework are lead towards a reward-orientated moral motivation (Rahimi, 2012). Divine Command Theory has the advantage of being quite simplistic in nature, as God is the source of morality then his adherents are simply following God’s teachings as they are responsible for determining the ‘goodness’ of that moral decision. This for his followers is simple, as his teachings can be simply summed up as God is the source of morality and his teachings are inevitably moral (Rahimi, 2012). Furthermore, this enables individuals to make moral decisions based on a holistic and spiritual approach to inevitability making moral actions and decisions meaningful (Rahimi, 2012).

Although, Divine Command Theory has its many disadvantages as well including the major dilemma of the Euthyphro Problem. The Euthyphro Problem is a major issue for followers of the Divine Command Theory account of morality as it provides a dilemma, as the dilemma explains that if God determines the rightness and wrongness of everything, just by saying so then the entire concept of goodness and value becomes vacuous (Harrison, 2015). Thus, how do we know what God commands as in the Bible there are explicit instructions that many bible reading theists do not consider binding (Harrison, 2015)? This is a disadvantage as a good moral theory is one that will generate answers to these dilemmas and in this case, Divine Command Theory seems to fall short. In addition, Divine Command Theory to many remains outdated with current laws that are widely accepted in secular society. Further leading to the problems such as atheists cannot follow this account of morality if they do not believe in God which creates the issue of Divine Command Theory not being available for everyone (Rahimi, 2012). Finally, Divine Command Theory is problematic as some people may argue that to merely avoiding punishment for their actions to gain access to eternal bliss is a mark of moral immaturity, rather individuals should seek to live moral lives because we desire happiness (Rahimi, 2012).

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an account of morality that has many advantages with its main being the consequences of actions completed by its adherents. The goal of this account of morality is to provide the greatest good by weighing out the good and bad. Simply the goal of Utilitarianism is happiness, as it provides goals and desires for individuals to improve happiness in their lives while minimizing the consequences (Devellennes, 2014). Furthermore, there are extensions off utilitarianism that address potential problems such as Rule Utilitarianism which allows its followers to refrain from acts that might maximize utility in the short run, and instead follow rules that will maximize utility for the majority of the time (Devellennes, 2014). Importantly, another advantage is that non-religious individual can follow the Utilitarian account of morality as it is a moral thought process that allows its followers to not believe in a transcendent being.

Although, Utilitarianism has is disadvantages including the subjective nature of its theory as it can be based of the opinion of its followers (Mukerji & Luetge, 2013). Furthermore, although Utilitarianism sounds simple, it is a demanding moral theory as individuals justify their actions by understanding that we live in a world where terrible things may happen. And, if there is a possibility for these adherents to do something to make things better, they are obliged. Even, potentially if this means literally getting their hands dirty, as sitting by and watching something bad happen with the ability to prevent it still means that their hands are dirty nonetheless (Mukerji & Luetge, 2013). Although, after taking all of this into consideration the advantages of Utilitarianism seem to outweigh the disadvantages as well as being more relevant and accessible for individuals to follow.

V. Conclusion

In conclusion, Utilitarianism seems to provide the most compelling account of morality over Divine Command Theory. After understanding each account in detail, outlining their advantages as disadvantages, and comparing each theory to one another it is clear to me that Utilitarianism’s advantages outweigh the disadvantages. As well as provides a relevant and accessible account of morality for adherents to follow compared to Divine Command Theory.

Bibliography

1. Devellennes, C. 2014. Utility contra utilitarianism: Holbach’s international ethics. Journal of International Political Theory, Vol 10(2), pp 188-205.
2. Harrison, G. 2015. The Euthyphro, Divine Command Theory and Moral Realism, Philosophy, Vol 90(1), pp 107-113
3. Mill, J. 2006. Ethical theories: Utilitarianism. Contemporary Moral Problems, Vol 8, pp 567
4. Mukerji, N., & Luetge, C. 2013. Utilitarianism. Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics, pp 297-312.
5. Rahimi, S. 2012. Divine Command Theory and Theistic Activism. Heythrop Journal, Vol 53(4), pp 551-559
6. Wielenberg, E,. 2018. Divine command theory and psychopathy. Religious Studies, pp 1-16.

What does it mean to be a good person? How does one determine what the “right” thing to do is in a moral dilemma? Originally introduced by Aristotle, virtue ethics attempts to provide a moral framework to answer these questions. Virtue ethics is one of the major methodologies in normative ethics. This moral theory has a strong emphasis on an individual’s character and virtues. To live a life that is ethical under virtue ethics, one must develop and establish character traits such as love, compassion, courage, and honesty. Under this approach to morality, an individual can attain virtuous traits through practice. Through repetition and practice of honorable traits like courage, love, and honesty an individual can eventually develop into a respectable and good human being.

Aristotle goes on to clarify what he means by virtue by stating “By virtue, I mean virtue of character; for this is about feelings and actions, and these admit of excess, deficiency, and an intermediate condition…But having these feelings at the right times, about the right things, toward the right people, for the right end, and in the right way, is the intermediate and best condition, and this is proper to virtue” (Aristotle 2013, 624). Ultimately, virtue could be thought of as the center between two extremes, deficiency and excess. Virtue is the sweet spot between the two and is what individuals should strive for in any ethical situation. For instance, if there was a scenario where a person needed to have the virtue of courage. Aristotle would argue that the deficiency of courage would be cowardice, meanwhile, the excess of courage is rashness (Aristotle 2013, 626). Noting that too much of either would be “not well” (Aristotle 2013, 624).

In comparison to other theories like utilitarianism, virtue ethics has great contrasts. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism; this moral theory’s foundation is built on utility and is outcome centric. Generally speaking, a utilitarian would focus on the outcome that would bring the greatest amount of good (utility) to the greatest amount of people. Given the same situation, a person who believes in virtue ethics would act much differently than that of a utilitarian. Since they are not bound by consequences, they will not let the outcomes of their decisions to impact how they act. Instead, when confronted with a complex, ethical situation a virtue ethicists would likely ask themselves “What would a model human being do in this situation?”. Whatever the response is should be how the agent would act in the scenario. Next, there is Kantian ethics, but what is it? Both theories differ in interpretations of how one can live as a “righteous” person. Kantian ethics is a form of deontological ethical theory, it judges an action to be right or wrong based on whether it conforms to one’s duty or the law.

One of the most significant aspects to Kantian ethics is the categorial imperative. This was Kant’s system in which he used to determine what actions were right or wrong. Kant goes on to say that “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law” (Kent 2013, 488). To put it simply, Kant is claiming that a person should constantly act in a way where their own actions could become the universal law for how everyone else should act, given the same scenario. When pitted against Virtue ethics Kantian ethics has a great focus on rules and universal norms for how someone should behave. Meanwhile, a virtue ethicist is concerned with the person, and the individual’s quality of character, with the goal of being a virtuous person, when determining morality. Then, there is Divine Command Theory (DCT). This is a famous metal-ethical theory in philosophy and is another form of Deontology like Kantian ethics.

This moral theory suggests that actions are morally right or wrong only because god commands or prohibits them. Essentially, this philosophy insinuates that for an individual to be regarded as moral they have to follow the commands of a character, god. Since god is in the position of creating facts it also makes them true as well. In a famous conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, Socrates asks Euthyphro “Do the gods love holiness because it is holy, or is it holy because they love it? “(Plato 2013, 218). Here, Socrates is asking if things are moral because they are moral in their nature, or do they become moral merely because god states that they are. This is one of the many criticisms of DCT, if god says to do something it doesn’t always make it moral. A virtue ethicist is different than a divine command follower because they are not concerned with the rightness or wrongness of certain acts but are instead concerned with the person’s character who is carrying out these acts. If god suddenly decided that murdering someone was right, then a DCT ethicist would obey god’s command. However, virtue ethicists would not bring themselves to commit such an act simply because some higher figure said so. As well, committing murder would violate what it would mean to be a virtuous individual and is seen as a deficiency of having compassion for others. To tie this all together let’s introduce a scenario to see how each moral theory mentioned would assess a situation differently.

In the film Man of Steel, Superman is faced with a moral dilemma when confronted with the opportunity to kill his foe, General Zod. Utilitarians would suggest for the hero to kill his enemy since Zod would be too much of a danger to humanity if left alive. Kantian ethics would assess the act of murder, although it would be better for Superman to kill Zod, it may not be morally good for Superman to kill him. A DCT ethicist would look to god’s command for their answer, does command them to kill others, those who are dangerous to others? Finally, a believer in virtue ethics would look at Superman’s moral character, does Superman want to be a person who takes his enemies’ lives? No moral theory is without flaws and virtue ethics is certainly one of them. A reason why one would reject to use of a virtue-based approach to morality is that this philosophy is quite vague. Virtue ethics does not offer clear instructions on how a person should act when in moral dilemmas. It proposes a rough guide on what an ideal person would/should do based on certain virtues, but this is sometimes difficult to determine when the situations become more complex. As a result, it makes it very difficult to apply it well in a situation. As well, since virtue ethics is focused on the character traits of a person it doesn’t take the context of a situation into consideration. For example, a soldier who is fighting in a war would likely be praised under virtue ethics because they are displaying virtuous traits, such as courage.

However, this model does not say anything regarding why or what the soldier is fighting for. As they could be fighting for unjust or immoral reasons. Philosopher Christopher Toner says, “It is often objected that virtue ethics is self-centered or egoistic” (Toner 595, 2006). Another common criticism of virtue ethics is that the theory is too self-centered. At its core ethics should be concerned with the well-being of others. Unfortunately, David Solomon claims that virtue ethics seems to concentrate too much on the individual. This philosophy seems to be more attentive on how one can attain certain traits rather than acting in a moral manner that will positively impact others (Solomon 653, 2010). Just because an agent holds certain virtues it doesn’t make them more moral. An act can seem like it stems from good virtues on the outside, but it may be fuelled by bad motives. In these aspects, the theory seems incomplete. Virtue ethics is not well-equipped and will experience difficulty when trying to deal with actual complex moral problems.

Bibliography

1. Aristotle. (2013) ‘The Nature of Virtue’ in R. Shafer-Landau (ed.) Ethical Theory: An Anthology Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 615 – 629
2. Kant, Immanuel. (2013) ‘Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals’ in R. Shafer-Landau (ed.) Ethical Theory: An Anthology Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 485 – 498
3. Plato. (2013) ‘Euthyphro’ in R. Shafer-Landau (ed.) Ethical Theory: An Anthology Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 218 – 219
4. Solomon, David. (2010) ‘The Self-Centeredness Objection to Virtue Ethics: Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucian Response’ in H. Yong (ed.) American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly, pp. 651-692
5. Toner, Christopher. (2006) “The Self-Centredness Objection to Virtue Ethics.” Philosophy, vol. 81, no. 318, 2006, pp. 595–617. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/4127419