How Would A Virtue Ethicist, Operating Within The Framework Of Aristotelian Eudaimonia, Reconcile The Notion Of 'moral Luck' With The Idea That An Individual's Character Is Defined By Their Voluntary Actions, When Considering The Case Of A Person Who, Through No Fault Of Their Own, Is Born Into A Social Context That Severely Limits Their Capacity For Flourishing And, Consequently, Their Ability To Develop Virtuous Traits?
A virtue ethicist, drawing from Aristotle's concept of eudaimonia, would approach the issue of moral luck by emphasizing the individual's ability to make voluntary choices within their given circumstances. Here's a structured response:
-
Understanding Eudaimonia and Virtue: Aristotle's eudaimonia is about flourishing through virtuous living. Virtues are cultivated habits, developed via practice and intentional actions.
-
Moral Luck in Aristotle's Framework: Moral luck refers to factors beyond one's control affecting moral standing. Aristotle acknowledges the role of external goods in eudaimonia, implying that circumstances can influence flourishing.
-
Voluntary Actions and Character: Despite external challenges, Aristotle focuses on voluntary actions. Individuals can still exercise virtues within their constraints, even if their ability to flourish is limited.
-
Contextual Virtues: The ethicist might argue that virtues are context-dependent. What constitutes virtue in adverse conditions may differ, but the effort to be virtuous remains commendable.
-
Moral Worth and Effort: The person's moral worth is assessed based on their efforts and choices within their situation, not outcomes beyond their control. Their character is defined by striving for virtues despite limitations.
In conclusion, while acknowledging the impact of moral luck, the virtue ethicist highlights the individual's agency in making virtuous choices within their circumstances, thus maintaining their moral standing based on effort and intentionality.