Versions of the "Incompleteness Objection" to Virtue Ethics
The relativity of virtue is one of the versions of the incompleteness objection to virtue ethics, and it is the process of identifying the existence of virtues. Within this process of identification, there is always cultural prejudice, especially when there is an objective list of virtues. Therefore, this does not rule out the possibility of believing that virtues are culturally oriented, as they seem to be inclined towards cultural standings.
Buy Philosophy essay paper online
Another version is the application of the existing virtue, and in this case, the question is all about how to apply the identified virtue theory to different moral predicaments. Within the virtue theory, human beings are reminded about the existence of virtues and the need to exhibit them in the normal life. Humans are required to act and treason as the virtuous person would do when in the right state of mind. The problem now still remains in cases where issues like stem-cell research, or abortion would take the virtuous stance. The same virtue theory seems to acclaim some conduct that could generally be viewed as immoral in the eyes of the virtuous person. For instance, in times of unjust wars, soldiers going against oppressive regimes are viewed to be exhibiting courage, but this does not make them morally right.
When it comes to accounting for supererogation there is a big issue, and this is seen as exceptional goodness. For instance, a person who sells all possessions and makes an appointment to relocate in another country, such as in the developing nations, and all the money that had been saved he gives them to the less fortunate. Under the normal understanding of such kindness, the person would normally be applauded for his act, despite the fact that no one feels bound to follow such example. When considering the virtue theory, however, acts as these are normally taken to be a clear indication of the opposite, which is the vice. This indicates that for every virtue that is exhibited there are always resultant vices that are normally a resemblance of excess and deficiency in the act. Therefore, generosity, as a virtue then, takes between the two vices of callousness and extravagance.
How the Prisoner's Dilemma Illustrates Hobbes' Social Contract Theory
Hobbes' social contract theory is normally based on the foundation that human beings are naturally scared. Hobbes simply believes that human beings have a natural and rational aversion to danger, and therefore, this does not mean that people are fundamentally highly strung nervous wrecks, or just terrified of their own unknown shadows. The prisoner's dilemma illustrates that Hobbes has an atomistic analysis about the natural state of human beings.
Hobbes upholds it that in the same state of nature, human beings are fundamentally isolated from each other, rarely hitting into and probably reacting against each other. The state of nature, when the existing structure of organizing different people into civil society is basically taken away and this is in Hobbes' words, such as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". When considering "The Prisoner's Dilemma" Hobbes' argument is backed up concerning the individuals reactions towards each other, especially within the state of nature. This means that most of the individuals are normally concerned with their own focus and self interest, and nothing more than that they know well will benefit them.
The prisoner is drastically faced with a dilemma showing that whatever that is done by others, one is better off admitting than just keeping quiet. The only big issue in such a case is all about the outcome of both circumstances, where when confessing the results turns out to be worse than when one decided to remain silent and say nothing sin the end. There is a puzzle that represents a conflict taking place between group and individual rationality. In this case, this is a group that is focused rational self-interest that at the end goes up worse off than another group that has members acting contrary to the basic rational self-interest, and at the end is better off. Therefore, if the existing payoffs are not taken as a representation of self-interest, the participating group that has members rationally following any ambitions, in one way or another are designed to meet less success than when they pursued their goals individually and not rationally.
The prisoner's dilemma also gives a view of multi-player generalizations model familiar situations. In such games, it is difficult to get a better and rational, selfish agents for the purpose of cooperating for their ordinary good. Hobbes has focused so much on the aspect of identifying different conditions under which different players would or even should make the cooperativeness in different situations be a way of moving the corresponding to remaining quiet. Hobbes' social contract theory takes the channel of representing a choice that normally exists between selfish behavior and probably socially desirable humanity. Therefore, the move that corresponds to the desired confession has better benefits to the actor, and this is not dependant on what others do in the end. Also the same, the move that corresponds to silence normally benefits the other different player, and this is also not dependant on what others do in the end. Hobbes outlines that benefiting oneself is an act of selfishness, and goes a head to state that it is not always wrong. This is supported by prisoner's dilemma where it is believed that benefiting others at the expense of oneself is morally not required always.