Abstract The paper explains that virtue ethics refers to the theory or a system of philosophical belief that focuses on the entire personality or disposition of a person instead of actions alone. The paper discusses how virtue ethics were developed by ancient thinkers Plato and Aristotle but it was in the 1950s that interest in virtue ethics was renewed by Anscombe's famous paper ""Modern Moral Philosophy."
From the Paper "Prior to the 1960s, the field of normative ethics was largely dominated by deontology, which was based on the values and beliefs of eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant, and utilitarianism, which was based on the views of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century philosophers Jeremy Bentham and J. S. Mill. In most of the books published up until thirty years ago, virtue was discussed in terms of deontology or utilitarianism. Gradually a change was witnessed as people began searching for something beyond deontology and utilitarianism as it was found that these two theories did not encompass many important issues or had no answers for some modern problems. This gave rise to virtue ethics, which was not exactly seen as the third approach at first but attained a distinguished status of its own as it began to grow in stature and importance."
Abstract The paper looks at the views of Plato, Aristotle, Elisabeth Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre on virtues and defines the strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics when applying the virtues to real life. The paper shows how there are no concrete rules for people to follow, yet the theory is more practical than other normative theories because it is agent-centered and based around the type of person one is.
From the Paper "Virtue ethics originated from the well known philosophers Aristotle and Plato and is based on the concept of being virtuous and achieving virtues. A virtue is a character trait of excellence that leads people to making the right choices and to happiness, to be a virtue it must have a good end. For example, a terrorist may have the virtue of courage but their actions lead to death and this is not considered a good end, the terrorist would therefore not be considered virtuous."
Abstract The paper looks at Mark Bowden's ideas in his book, "The Art of Interrogation" where he notes the difference between torture and coercion. The paper then discusses how it is an age of violence in the world and in the entertainment industry and so it is not surprising to hear Washington politicians rationalize, backtrack, dip into semantics and find euphemisms that work well when it comes to issues of torture. The paper contends that when Bush says, "We don't torture," he is drawing a line between the truth and what he wants the public to know.
From the Paper "Drawing the line between what is torture and what is coercion, on one level, is an exercise in semantics. Mark Bowden, in his book, The Art of Interrogation, explores all the various words and their semantic applications at they apply to torture. There is enough material within the discussion of torture - and the people who torture, who have been tortured, human-rights activists, among others - for Bowden to fill a whole book. He says the public has a simplistic understanding of torture, and that may be true but does lack of knowledge on the part of citizens make it okay to torture captured enemy soldiers in any context? And why would the public - especially in the U.S., a democratic nation that has not hitherto been known to torture prisoners - know much at all about torture in the first place?"
