Linda Zagzebski's Analysis

Moral issues and the desire of becoming a moral person have dominated society for millennia. Humans have taken varied approaches in a desperate attempt of answering questions such as “what is the right thing to do?” and “is there a code of morals that all humans should follow?” Determining one’s morality is an integral stage in becoming an intelligent and worldly person. Often, the characteristics that define the degree of morality of any person (such as trustworthiness, reliability, and kindness) are dubbed “virtues”. These manifestations of morality are extremely relevant when evaluating one’s moral character. There exist no matters more crucial in human development and maintenance than deciding what makes a good person. This incredibly
Linda Zagzebski, Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at the University of Oklahoma, defined virtue as “an excellence that has never been questioned… a state of the soul.” [2]. Zagzebski communicated in her definition that virtues transcend cultures and are invincible to further evaluation; virtues are undeniably and irrevocably the exemplary standards to live by. However, Aristotle took an interesting viewpoint on these virtues. He believed that there exists such a thing as being too caring or too forgiving. For example, let’s imagine a situation in which a man (let’s call him Smith) promises to give his poorer friend Jones a weekly allowance until Jones gets back on his feet. Jones lies to Smith and pleads for the money as a means to feed and take care of his family. He actually uses the money to secretly purchase heroin from his local dealer, and has created an insurmountable divide in his family through his drug addiction. Although Smith believes that Jones’ constant begging is excessive and worthless (as he notices Jones’ family remains in the same financial pit) he believes that being charitable is a virtue and continues to feed his friend’s discrete yet rampant drug addiction because it is what a good person would do. It could be seen, in this situation, that Smith facilitates Jones’ heroin addiction and continues to donate
Evaluating the Smith and Jones scenario from alternative moral perspectives, such as Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative”. Kant, who judges the moral worth of an action based solely on the intentions of that action fails to address the crucial gray area of morality. This standpoint exhibits the black and white fallacy, in which an action can be either of two extremes, but cannot be in the middle. For Kant, a deed can only be considered moral if the intentions are rationally capable of being replicated universally. Therefore, good will that fails is still good, because it had a pure intention. Kant would say that Smith must continue his allowance to Jones because violating his promise would diminish the entire nature of promises as a whole. Even though Jones uses the funds for dastardly deeds, Smith’s promise irrevocably ties Smith and his promise together. Aristotle, however, astutely addresses this moral middle-ground that contains life’s most difficult moral issues. Aristotle disagrees with Kant’s universality regarding ethics, claiming instead that one should do the right thing in the right place with the right people. Relationships are intricate and layered; Smith breaking his promise to Jones is rational because Jones misuses the money. It is virtually impossible in practice to follow Kant’s perspective and act solely on the maxim that all others may