|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ethics article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|Vital articles: Level 2 / Philosophy|
|This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Propose revising section on Aristotle's virtue ethics
Hi there, I think the section on Aristotle is off. I think there are a few errors and other things are technically correct but strangely put. I'd be happy to work on this and provide references but it'd be my first edit and I'm uncertain about the etiquette, so thought I'd post here first! Some illustrations of what I mean below:
'Aristotle (384–323 BC) posited an ethical system that may be termed "virtuous"' - while this is arguably true, it's a really odd way to put it given that Aristotle repeatedly emphasizes that ethics can only be partly systematised at best.
'In Aristotle's view, when a person acts in accordance with virtue this person will do good and be content' - this is not true. Virtue is necessary but not sufficient for contentment, and Aristotle explicitly discusses ways we could end up miserable through no fault of our own.
The section on the soul is not strictly false but a bit misleading - Aristotle adds desire and (possibly) imagination as parts of the soul.
'Moderation was encouraged, with the extremes seen as degraded and immoral'. This phrasing definitely gives the wrong impression as extremes of behavior are desireable, in the right circumstances. As a quick fix, it would work better if 'the extremes' were replaced with 'both excess and deficiency'.
One major theme missing is Aristotle's view that we have a natural need for the virtues. Without this the section reads as though Aristotle is telling his readers they ought to be virtuous or else; it's more like he's pointing out to them what they need to flourish. Saying 'it is imperative for people to act in accordance with virtue' is true, but it's a bit like saying 'it is imperative for wolves to live in packs' - it sounds like it's an external obligation, rather than the thing most natural and ideal for them. A more natural way to put it would be 'wolves are pack animals' - similarly, Aristotle thinks humans are 'virtue animals'.
Ending paragraph at Business ethics
A particular topic of business ethics is nepotism. Nepotism has been criticised by philosophers at least since the time of Aristotle and Confucius but is unfortunately currently very frequent in academia. . Ironically, perhaps the most spectacular examples of nepotism have occurred within the fields of ethics and of analytic philosophy generally. David Shoemaker, an associate editor of the noted journal 'Ethics', has been hired as Susan Linn Sage Professor of philosophy at Cornell's philosophy faculty while his father, Sydney Shoemaker, is also Susan Linn Sage professor, now emeritus, at the same faculty. Thomas Byrne was a Phd student and then a post-doc at MIT's philosophy faculty while his father, Alex Byrne, was professor at the same faculty.
Are we sure that this belongs in this section? It may just be me, but it seems like this would be not only distracting from the topic, as it looks like a tangent someone put in, but also seems to be POV-pushing with the language it uses, i.e. unfortunately very frequent in academia and Ironically, perhaps the most spectacular examples of nepotism have occurred within the fields of ethics and analytic philosophy generally. ShamblingShoggoth (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)