Animal Issues VE Flashcards
(18 cards)
How would virtue ethicists approach the issue of blood sports via character and virtues?
-Virtue Ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, approaches morality by focusing on the development of virtuous character rather than fixed rules or consequences
-A virtuous person acts in accordance with reason and seeks the golden mean — the balanced point between excess and deficiency
-When applied to blood sports, such as bullfighting or orca shows, a Virtue Ethicist would ask whether participating in or supporting these activities reflects good character traits
-Aristotle taught that the moral agent must act with “the right reason, in the right way,” and it is difficult to see how finding entertainment in animal suffering could reflect virtues like compassion or temperance
-Instead, it may cultivate vices such as cruelty, insensitivity, or a lack of emotional restraint
-From this perspective, blood sports are likely to be condemned for the kind of character they encourage, rather than just the harm they cause
How would virtue ethicists approach the issue of blood sports via moral development?
-Virtue Ethics also considers how repeated actions shape moral character over time. Rosalind Hursthouse argues that “we do not become virtuous by accident,” suggesting that the choices we make — including what we support or tolerate — influence the kind of people we become
-Watching or participating in blood sports may lead to desensitisation or enjoyment of violence, both of which are incompatible with the moral ideals of a flourishing life (eudaimonia)
-In addition, the theory acknowledges the importance of moral emotions like empathy. Martha Nussbaum, a modern Virtue Ethicist, states that the approach “takes the whole person into account,” including their emotional responses
-A person who feels discomfort, sorrow, or compassion when witnessing animal cruelty in a bullring is demonstrating moral awareness — not weakness
-For Virtue Ethics, such feelings are part of developing practical wisdom (phronesis), guiding the moral agent to reject activities that promote vice rather than virtue
How could you argue virtue ethics gives a clear response to the issue of blood sports?
-Virtue Ethics encourages individuals to become morally good people rather than simply follow rules, so someone guided by virtue would likely reject blood sports because they reflect cruelty rather than compassion or temperance
-Aristotle believed that a virtuous person aims for “the right reason in the right way,” and it is difficult to see how finding entertainment in violence towards animals could align with that standard
-Rosalind Hursthouse argues that “we do not become virtuous by accident,” and this means repeatedly engaging in or supporting blood sports would likely cultivate vice — such as callousness, aggression, or desensitisation to suffering.
-Virtue Ethics also values emotional maturity and moral sensitivity, so if someone’s practical wisdom (phronesis) leads them to feel discomfort or empathy when watching a bull being tortured in an arena, that emotional response would be morally relevant.
-Martha Nussbaum supports this, claiming that Virtue Ethics “takes the whole person into account,” including their emotional responses — suggesting that compassion for animals suffering in blood sports is not a weakness, but a sign of moral insight.
-Unlike legalistic theories, Virtue Ethics allows for context and cultural awareness without being morally indifferent; even if bullfighting is legal or traditional in a country, a truly virtuous person could still condemn it as lacking kindness or justice
How could you argue virtue ethics gives a weak response to the issue of blood sports?
-While Virtue Ethics aims to promote moral character, it fails to give practical action-guidance in cases like blood sports, where a clear and immediate moral stance is needed rather than abstract reflection on the type of person one should become.
-It may encourage us to be compassionate or just, but it offers no concrete method for what to do when those virtues conflict — for example, someone may feel compassion for animals but also feel bound by cultural loyalty to traditions like bullfighting. The theory gives no clear way to prioritise one virtue over another.
-Rosalind Hursthouse defends Virtue Ethics as morally rich because it incorporates emotional and character-based reasoning, but in reality, the theory leaves too much room for interpretation. There is no objective rule to tell someone whether spectating a bullfight is morally wrong — it relies on what a virtuous person “would do,” which can vary from person to person.
-In cases of institutional cruelty, such as the captivity of orcas at SeaWorld, Virtue Ethics becomes too agent-focused. It assesses whether the individual is morally developed rather than focusing on whether the system or practice causes real harm. As critics argue, Virtue Ethics “cannot always offer sufficient guidance for urgent ethical problems,” especially when institutional change is needed rather than individual virtue.
What could be a response to the strengths of virtue ethics?
-Although Virtue Ethics claims to reflect moral maturity, it lacks the clarity needed when firm decisions must be made. Saying “a virtuous person wouldn’t support blood sports” is vague when the idea of virtue itself varies so widely.
-The theory offers no objective moral standard — someone may genuinely believe bullfighting builds courage or honours culture, while another sees it as degrading. Virtue Ethics gives no tools to resolve that disagreement.
-Because the theory is agent-centred, it risks justifying harmful behaviour if the individual believes they’re acting virtuously. There is no fixed boundary to stop someone from excusing cruelty in the name of tradition or pride.
-In contrast to Situation Ethics or Natural Moral Law, which provide clear moral tests (e.g. agape or telos), Virtue Ethics relies too much on personal interpretation, making it unreliable in emotionally charged and ethically complex situations like blood sports
What could be a good rebuttal paragraph showcasing the weaknesses of virtue ethics?
-Although Virtue Ethics claims to reflect moral maturity, it lacks the clarity needed when firm decisions must be made. Saying “a virtuous person wouldn’t support blood sports” is vague when the idea of virtue itself varies so widely.
-The theory offers no objective moral standard — someone may genuinely believe bullfighting builds courage or honours culture, while another sees it as degrading. Virtue Ethics gives no tools to resolve that disagreement.
(Talk about situation)
How would a virtue ethicists approach approach the issue of intensive farming by looking at virtues?
-Virtue Ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy, approaches moral issues by focusing on the development of a virtuous character rather than the application of rules or consequences
-When applied to the issue of intensive farming — such as battery cages, overcrowded barns, or unnatural growth rates — a Virtue Ethicist would ask whether supporting or participating in such practices reflects good moral character
-Aristotle emphasised virtues like compassion, temperance, and justice, and acting with “the right reason, in the right way”
-From this perspective, causing animals unnecessary suffering for the sake of profit or convenience would reflect vice, not virtue
-Rather than treating animals as mere means to an end, a person aiming for eudaimonia — human flourishing — would act in a way that respects life and avoids cultivating habits of cruelty or greed
How would a virtue ethicists approach approach the issue of intensive farming by looking at practical wisdom?
-Virtue Ethics also values emotional insight and moral awareness. A virtuous person would be guided not only by reason but by phronesis (practical wisdom), which helps determine what is appropriate in a given context
-Rosalind Hursthouse, a modern Virtue Ethicist, argues that we should ask, “What would a virtuous person do?” rather than simply look for moral rules
-In the context of intensive farming, this might involve feeling discomfort or moral unease about animals being treated as products
-Martha Nussbaum supports this view, suggesting that the theory “takes the whole person into account,” including their emotional responses such as empathy and sorrow
-These feelings would not be seen as irrational but as morally relevant signs that something about intensive farming — especially when motivated by greed — is ethically troubling and contrary to the development of a virtuous character
How could you argue virtue ethics gives a better approach to intensive farming than NML?
-Virtue Ethics offers a more morally sensitive approach to intensive farming by focusing on the kind of people we ought to become.
Rooted in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia — human flourishing - Virtue Ethics prioritises moral character over fixed rules
-Martha Nussbaum praises this approach for “taking the whole person into account,” recognising that true virtue involves compassion, justice, and temperance
-A virtuous agent would likely see practices like battery farming — where animals live in cramped, unnatural conditions
- as morally degrading, both to the animals and to the character of those who endorse or ignore such systems
-Philippa Foot also argues that morality is about being rather than simply doing: becoming someone who is good, not just obeying commands
-From this view, intensive farming reflects greed, insensitivity, and cruelty — traits that are the opposite of what the virtuous person would cultivate
-Unlike NML, Virtue Ethics encourages deeper moral reflection based on context and personal growth, which some argue is more suited ethical complexity
of modern farming
How could you argue virtue ethics gives a better approach to intensive farming than SE?
-defenders of Virtue Ethics argue that it provides a richer and more holistic response to ethical issues by focusing on the kind of person one should become
-Rooted in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia (human flourishing), Virtue Ethics encourages the development of moral character through traits like compassion, temperance, and justice
-A virtuous farmer or consumer, it is argued, would naturally reject intensive farming because it fosters vice — such as greed or indifference to suffering
-Martha Nussbaum supports this idea, claiming that Virtue Ethics “takes the whole person into account,” promoting long-term moral development rather than isolated decisions
–The theory focuses not just on outcomes but on what kind of habits and relationships are morally valuable, offering a broader vision of ethical life that includes the treatment of animals
How would VE approach scientific research (virtues)?
-Virtue Ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy, focuses on the development of a good moral character rather than the application of rules or the calculation of consequences
-When applied to scientific research involving animals, the theory asks whether the researcher is acting virtuously — with compassion, justice, and practical wisdom — rather than merely achieving useful outcomes.m
-Aristotle emphasised that moral action requires acting “at the right time, in the right way, for the right reason,” so a scientist who inflicts unnecessary pain on animals for cosmetic testing or trivial gain would be seen as acting from vice, not virtues
-In contrast, a researcher who limits suffering and is motivated by genuine care for human well-being might be acting in line with virtues such as compassion and responsibility
-Virtue Ethics therefore judges the person and their character rather than the act in isolation.
How would VE approach scientific research (practical wisdom)?
-Virtue Ethics also values the role of emotional insight and moral sensitivity in ethical reasoning. Phronesis — or practical wisdom — helps the moral agent decide what a virtuous person would do in a given situation
-Rosalind Hursthouse suggests that a person of good character would feel discomfort at causing unnecessary suffering, and would allow that emotional insight to shape their moral decision
-In the context of scientific research, this means recognising the ethical weight of animal pain and only justifying experiments when they reflect virtues like care, humility, and temperance
-Martha Nussbaum also supports this approach, arguing that Virtue Ethics “takes the whole person into account,” including their emotional responses
-These emotions — such as empathy or sorrow — would be treated as morally relevant signs that the treatment of animals may be ethically inappropriate, especially when the research serves commercial rather than humanitarian ends.
How could you argue VE had a better approach to scientific research than NML?
-proponents of Virtue Ethics argue that it provides a more compassionate and realistic approach to scientific research by focusing on the kind of person one ought to be
-Rooted in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, Virtue Ethics encourages individuals to act with virtues like compassion, courage, and practical wisdom.
-Martha Nussbaum praises this framework for “taking the whole person into account,” arguing that moral evaluation must consider context and human experience
-From this view, animal testing might be seen as encouraging cruelty, while unregulated experimentation could reflect arrogance rather than virtue
-Philippa Foot also highlights that morality is about becoming good, not just following rules - and a truly virtuous person might reject certain forms of research on the grounds that they reflect greed or disregard for life
-Virtue Ethics values internal growth over fixed outcomes, and its supporters argue that this promotes more ethical reflection in complex areas like scientific innovation.
How could you argue VE had a better approach to scientific research than SE?
-defenders of Virtue Ethics argue that it provides a deeper and more personal approach to morality, focusing on the moral character of the individual rather than the outcome of a single action
-Rooted in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia (human flourishing), Virtue Ethics encourages people to cultivate traits such as compassion, justice, and temperance
-From this perspective, a virtuous person would avoid scientific practices that show callousness or cruelty to animals. Scholars such as Rosalind Hursthouse have argued that if an action reflects or reinforces vice - such as greed, impatience, or insensitivity - it is morally wrong.
-Therefore, virtue ethicists may also condemn harmful scientific research, not because of its outcomes, but because of the kind of character and community it creates.
This approach focuses more on long-term moral development than specific cases.
How would VE approach xenotransplantation? (focus on intention)
-Virtue Ethics, rooted in Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia (human flourishing), approaches moral issues by evaluating the character and intentions of the moral agent rather than simply judging the action itself
-In the case of xenotransplantation — the use of animal organs for human transplants — the central question for a Virtue Ethicist is whether the action reflects virtues such as compassion, wisdom, and justice
-Aristotle taught that a virtuous person acts “in the right way, at the right time, for the right reason,” and if xenotransplantation is pursued thoughtfully to save human lives without unnecessary cruelty, it may be considered virtuous
-The motivation behind the act is essential: if the procedure is used to prolong life ethically and responsibly, rather than for profit or experimentation without care, the action could align with good moral character
How would VE approach xenotransplantation? (focus on practical wisdom)
-Virtue Ethics also values phronesis (practical wisdom), which helps individuals make sound moral decisions based on the context
-A virtuous person would weigh the potential benefits of xenotransplantation — such as saving a critically ill patient — against the moral cost of using animals in such an invasive way
-Rosalind Hursthouse argues that we must consider whether the action reflects a life lived in accordance with virtue, not just whether the outcome is beneficial
-For example, rushing to harvest animal organs without concern for their welfare or natural purpose could reflect greed or arrogance — vices that a virtuous agent would avoid
-Martha Nussbaum supports this idea, stating that Virtue Ethics “takes the whole person into account,” including emotional responses like empathy or discomfort, which may reveal whether the act is consistent with a compassionate and respectful attitude towards life
-Ultimately, xenotransplantation would be judged based on whether it fits within a well-formed character, not just whether it is medically effective.
How could you argue VE has a better approach to xenotransplantation than NML?
-supporters of Virtue Ethics might argue that xenotransplantation could be morally acceptable if it reflects and cultivates virtuous character
-Rooted in Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia - human flourishing - Virtue Ethics evaluates actions based on the virtues they demonstrate, such as compassion, courage, and practical wisdom (phronesis)
-Martha Nussbaum has praised this approach for “taking the whole person into account,” meaning a doctor or patient might decide in favour of xenotransplantation if it is the most humane and thoughtful response in a difficult situation
-If the transplant saves a life and shows compassion, a virtue ethicist might see it as a morally praiseworthy act
-Since Virtue Ethics rejects rigid rules, it allows for flexibility in moral reasoning and prioritises the agent’s intentions and moral development, rather than the natural status of the act itself.
How could you argue VE has a better approach to xenotransplantation than SE?
-However, defenders of Virtue Ethics argue that it provides a more holistic and morally grounded response by focusing on the character of the moral agent. Rooted in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia (human flourishing), Virtue Ethics encourages individuals to cultivate virtues such as compassion, temperance, and justice
-From this perspective, one might argue that a virtuous person would approach
xenotransplantation with deep care and moral sensitivity. Scholars like Rosalind Hursthouse maintain that moral decisions should reflect a life lived virtuously, not simply an evaluation of consequences. A person focused on developing virtue might oppose xenotransplantation if it appears to show a lack of respect for animals or blurs natural boundaries
-Instead of using one principle like love, Virtue Ethics considers the long-term cultivation of moral habits, which can guide a person through difficult moral terrain
