"How convincing is Aristotelian virtue ethics?" (25 marks)

Virtue ethics is a moral philosophy proposed by Aristotle that focuses on the growth and development of an individual instead of the action or its consequences. This notion is convincing because it provides flexible autonomy of our character, accepts personal freedom and encourages us to experience the world ourselves, without a concrete set of moral rules on how to be a good person. In this essay I will also consider the utilitarian theory and compare it with virtue ethics, exploring its effectiveness as a moral theory.

Virtue ethics surrounds the idea of virtues and the ultimate good life. Aristotle describes that by practising our arete (function) and reaching ergon (purpose), virtues are developed and one step closer to eudaimonia, the ideal good life. He states that there is a 'golden mean' between virtues --- a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess. To develop a virtue, one must balance their quality between the two vice through prolonged practice, as illustrated in his Skill Analogy. Aristotle's approach to morality is persuasive because it promotes freedom of being a good person, providing an effective guidance on how to be virtuous without a suffocating set of doctrines. Virtue ethics also excels in its different approach to utilitarianism or deontology, focusing on improving our quality of life instead of the materialistic consequentialists.

However, the theory is also susceptible to criticisms such as cultural relativity or the problem of circularity. The image of virtues is not universal, as some cultures may differ from one another in terms of social norms or right-and-wrongs. The circularity fallacy also poses a problem to Aristotle as he never concretely defined what being virtuous means, nor the nature of eudaimonia itself. Nevertheless, virtue ethicists could counter these issues. Aristotle would argue that morality should not be culture-bound, instead a united concept across nations. He would say that the development of virtues focuses on oneself instead of a collective society, therefore a truly virtuous person would know what to do in certain circumstances. Virtue ethicists could also nullify the circularity problem by defining virtues as practising arete and ultimately reaching ergon, while the concept of eudaimonia is but a goal to work towards. Overall, virtue ethics presents itself as a highly successful moral philosophy, able to dismiss potential issues and loopholes.

On the other hand, utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory that splits into three subtypes --- act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism and preference utilitarianism. All three follows the Principle of Utility proposed by Jeremy Bentham, which states to prioritise "the greatest pleasure for the greatest number". Utilitarianism focuses on the consequences and the results of actions to judge its morality, ignoring its intentions and aims. Bentham illustrated the idea of a felicific calculus, a set of criteria that judges the morality of an action through the number of people involved, how likely this action leads to more pleasure, etc. While it is a clear, easily understood concept, this is a largely unconvincing theory because it creates the problem of tyranny of the majority and highlights the difficulty to calculate or balance between pain and pleasure.

However, utilitarians may attempt to defend their theory by stating that necessary sacrifices are needed to form a better society. Bentham may also argue that the hedonic calculator is more of a guide to consider and does not reflect a strict following requirement. Nevertheless this theory is weak as its arguments could be dismissed. Necessary sacrifices should not be present in moral philosophy, as violence should always remain immoral and therefore the theory violates basic human rights. Virtue ethics is advantageous in the sense of independent growth instead of collective morality. The statement that the hedonic calculus is only a guide is unsuccessful because not following the guide would be contradictory to the theory of maximising happiness and minimising pain. Overall, utilitarianism is a weak moral theory in the face of Aristotelian virtue ethics with its extreme rule fetishisation.

To conclude, it remains clear that virtue ethics is a convincing moral philosophy with its freedom of self=exploration and focus on personal growth instead of consequences, as other theories like utilitarianism pales in comparison against Aristotle's notion on morality.