Scribd
Upload
47 views

Module 7 Activity

This document discusses two scenarios in the context of virtue ethics. In the first scenario, John feels compassion for starving people in Ethiopia and donates money, while Joan donates out of a sense of duty. In the second, Jack considers but resists embezzling from the bank he works at, while Jill would not consider it. The document analyzes the scenarios in terms of Aristotle's virtue ethics, concluding that John and Jack act consistently with their moral character by doing right, while Jill allows material concerns to influence her.

Uploaded by

Rhobie Bulan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
47 views

Module 7 Activity

This document discusses two scenarios in the context of virtue ethics. In the first scenario, John feels compassion for starving people in Ethiopia and donates money, while Joan donates out of a sense of duty. In the second, Jack considers but resists embezzling from the bank he works at, while Jill would not consider it. The document analyzes the scenarios in terms of Aristotle's virtue ethics, concluding that John and Jack act consistently with their moral character by doing right, while Jill allows material concerns to influence her.

Uploaded by

Rhobie Bulan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

MODULE 7: ARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS

MODULE 7 ACTIVITY

PROVIDE YOUR ANALYSIS ON THESE TWO GIVEN SITUATIONS.


WHO DO YOU THINK ACTS MORALLY THAN THE OTHER?

CASE NO. 1: JOHN HEARS THAT 100,000 PEOPLE ARE STARVING IN ETHIOPIA. HE FEELS
DEEP SORROW ABOUT THIS AND SENDS $100 OF HIS HARD-EARNED MONEY TO A FAMINE
RELIEF PROJECT IN THAT COUNTRY. JOAN HEARS THE SAME NEWS BUT DOESN'T FEEL
ANYTHING. HOWEVER, OUT OF A SENSE OF DUTY SHE ALSO SENDS $100 OF HER HARD-
EARNED MONEY TO THE RELIEF PROJECT.

CASE NO. 2: JACK AND JILL EACH HAVE OPPORTUNITY TO EMBEZZLE A MILLION DOLLARS
FROM THE BANK AT WHICH THEY WORK. JILL NEVER EVEN CONSIDERS EMBEZZLING; THE
POSSIBILITY IS NOT EVEN AN OPTION FOR HER. JACK WRESTLES VALIANTLY WITH THE
TEMPTATION, ALMOST SUCCUMBS TO IT, BUT THROUGH A GRAND EFFORT OF THE WILL
FINALLY SUCCEEDS IN RESISTING THE TEMPTATION.

TTHE PRIMARY MODEL INCLUDES EXHIBITING COMPASSION TO ETHIOPIA'S


DESTITUTE INDIVIDUALS, WHILE THE SECOND INCLUDES THE POSSIBILITY OF "STEALING"
THE BANK'S CASH WITHOUT GETTING RECOGNIZED.

IN THE FIRST CASE, WHEN JOHN AND JOAN LEARNED ABOUT THE STARVATION, HE
OFFERED "HIS HARD-EARNED" MONEY WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE, NOT
EVEN HIMSELF. JOAN HEARD THE SAME THING, BUT SHE DIDN'T THINK ANYTHING OF IT
UNTIL "A SENSE OF DUTY" MADE HER WANT TO HELP AS WELL. DUE TO THE FACT THAT
THEIR ACTIONS ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN HELPING OTHER PEOPLE, BOTH COULD BE
CONSIDERED MORAL. IN ANY CASE, AFTER LOOKING INTO IT FURTHER, JOHN
ACCOMPLISHED SOMETHING OTHER THAN HELP, AS HE ACTS AS PER "WHAT HIS IDENTITY
IS," A MINDFUL MAN. JOAN FEELS OBLIGATED TO TAKE ACTION, BUT IF SHE IS TOLD THAT IT
IS NOT HER RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSIST, SHE WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY DECLINE.

THE SECOND CASE CONCERNS JACK AND JILL'S POSSIBILITY OF MAKING ANY USE
OF THE BANK'S FUNDS. WHILE JILL STRUGGLED A LOT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO
ACT UNTIL SHE OVERCAME THE TEMPTATION AND EMERGED VICTORIOUS FROM HER
STRUGGLES, JACK DIDN'T EVEN FEEL TEMPTED TO THINK ABOUT IT. WE COULD ALSO SAY
THAT JILL IS MORE MORAL THAN JACK BECAUSE SHE DEFEATS HER OWN "DEMONS" OR
"SELFISH-SELF"

EVEN THOUGH THESE CASES ARE DIFFERENT, THERE IS ONE THING THAT TIES THEM
TOGETHER: THE MORAL QUALITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL. BECAUSE THEY ACT IN A WAY THAT
IS CONSISTENT WITH WHO THEY ARE AS MORAL INDIVIDUALS, BOTH JOHN AND JACK
RECOGNIZED WHAT WAS RIGHT AND WRONG; JILL, ON THE OTHER HAND, ALLOWS
MATERIAL CONCERNS TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON HER LIFE WHILE JOAN FULFILLS HER
RESPONSIBILITIES. THIS IS THE WORTH OF ARISTOTLE'S ETHICALNESS MORALS, AN ETHICAL
RULE THAT URGES EVERYBODY TO HELP THEMSELVES TO BE MORAL IN THOUGHT AND
LEAD ALL THROUGH THEIR LIVES, SO ONE DAY ALL THAT COMES FROM THEM WOULD
CONSTANTLY BE SOMETHING GREAT, RIGHT, AND JUST.

You might also like