Aristotle describes the moral virtue as the disposition to act in the right manner and the mean between extremes of excess and deficiency, which he considered as vices. He argued that people learn virtue primarily through habit and practice instead of instruction and reasoning. According to Aristotle, a virtuous person is capable of enduring through pleasure and pain. He developed a table containing a list of principle virtues together with their respective vices. The table comprises of three columns, categorized into two vices and one virtue. Virtue lies in the middle between two extreme vices, excess and deficiency. For instance, courage lies between the vices; rashness and cowardice, liberty lies between two extreme vices, prodigality and illiberality. Virtuous people have all of the virtues, not as distinct qualities but in the form of varying aspects of virtuous life.
Interpreting Aristotle argument about virtue, he considered virtue as a mean or median of two extremes. It occupies the middle ground between excess and deficiency. For an individual to be considered virtuous, he or she must have the right balance of conduct. Having too much or too little leads to a vice. In response to Aristotle, a number of critics requested to be showed or told of exact position of this middle ground, but Aristotle stated that his table only gives an estimation. He proceeded state that a particular virtue lies closer to one vice than to the opposite extreme vice, but to different extents among various individuals. However, Aristotle clarified that his table of virtue did not introduce a set of rules for people to follow, since genuinely virtuous individual behave appropriately with or without the presence of rules.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Applying Aristotle notion of virtue to the trolley problem, below is how a virtue ethicist would handle the problem. The first step would be to analyze the two extremes (excess and deficiency) of the problem. The excess situation would be to allow the trolley to run over the five people lying on the track. On the other hand, the deficient situation would be to pull the lever so that the trolley is directed towards the side of the track instantly killing one person lying on the track. Now, using Aristotle notion of virtue, the best situation would be the middle point between the two situations presented. This would be to allow two and a half people to die. However, that option does not exist as it is either the five or one person.
When a situation kin to this presents itself, the best option would be to carefully reconsider Aristotle argument on virtue. We recall a portion where Aristotle stated that a particular virtue might lie closer to one vice compared to the opposite vice judging on the situation. The first solution would be inclined towards the death of one person, while the second solution would be inclined towards death of five people. Between the two options, the best virtue is the one inclined towards the situation that leads to the loss of less life. Hence, if Aristotle was to be presented with the trolley problem, he would choose the option that would lead to minimal loss of life. The lack of a middle option would lead Aristotle to pulling the lever and redirecting the trolley towards the one person lying on the track.
