Virtue Ethics: Deontological and Eudaimonist :: Ethics Judgements Papers

There are devil base types of respectable judgments deontological judgements that center on duty and obligation and eudaimonist judgements that focus on human excellence and the nature of the good life. I contend that we must guardedly distinguish these two types of judgement and not emphasise to understand one as a special case of the other. respectable theories may be usefully divided into two chief(prenominal) manakins, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they hold back one of the other of these types of judgement as primary. A second important contention, which this paper supports but does not prove to justify fully, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we subsume them under nearly more encompassing ethical synthesis. There are two basic kinds of ethical judgments. The first pull in to do with duty and obligation. For example railyard shalt not kill, lie, or steal. You just keep your promises. These judgments often uphold b orderline standards of onduct and (partly for that reason) assert or imply a moral ought. The second kind of judgment focuses on human excellence and the nature of the good life. These judgments affiance as their most general terms happiness, excellence, and perhaps flourishing (in summation to the good life). For example Happiness requires activity and not unstained passive consumption. The good life includes pleasure, friendship, intellectual development and physical health. I take these to be the two general types of ethical judgment, and all ill-tempered ethical judgments to be examples of these. The main contention of this paper is that we must carefully distinguish these two types of judgments, and not try to understand the one as a special case of the other.Ethical theories may be usefully divided into two main types, deontological or eudaimonist, on the basis of whether they take one or the other of these kinds of judgments as primary. (1) In the main, ancient ethical th eories were eudaimonist in both form and content (in the kinds of judgments and terms they took as primary, and in the psyches they spent the most time investigating). Most modern ethical theories have been deontological, again in both form and content. (2) Aristotles central question is What is the good life for a human being? Kant and Mills central question is What are our duties to our fellow human beings? My second main contention, which I cannot fully argue for here, is that neither type of theory trumps the other, nor should we set out to subsume both types under some higher ethical synthesis.