(1) Consider this criticism: “A good moral theory ought to provide a way for someone to determine the right course of action. Aristotle’s theory does not do this. He assumes that upbringing is responsible for virtue, and his so-called “Doctrine of the Mean” simply tells us that the virtuous person responds and acts in accordance with the standard set by the practically wise person’s actions. Therefore, Aristotle does not have a good moral theory.”
—Critically evaluate* Aristotle’s theory of virtue in light of this criticism.
The long paper requires you to explain and critically evaluate some portion of the Ethics. To do this, you should:
(1) first give a brief introduction which puts the text in philosophical context: e.g. questions or debates about morality, happiness, and so on, and shows why this passage is of interest. (You must, of course, include a thesis statement.)
(2) next, give a reconstruction of the relevant parts of the Ethics
(3) next, critically evaluate* the argument or view as you’ve reconstructed it, by raising objections and evaluating whether Aristotle has a good response. (Only raise the strongest objections: there’s little value in showing that Aristotle can overcome a weak objection.)
(4) conclude.
* By ‘critically evaluate’ I mean test the position by raising strong criticisms and seeing how it may be defended. You may ultimately determine the criticism is correct, or that there is a good response, or come to a mixed judgment. As usual, nuance is fine but waffling is not. You should state your position clearly even if you think the truth of the matter is complex.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|