Catching up... Doris and Aristotle

I kind of feel bad writing this so late, it feels like I am “cheating” since I have already heard the answers to the questions in class… oh well!

As we discussed in class, a person’s action are largely dictated by situation and circumstance, rather than a personal system of morals. The implications of this sweep the carpet out from under Aristotle’s ethical theory; good people can do bad things. Because of the results of Milgram’s experiment and others like it, I would be inclined to agree with the saying “power corrupts”, due to the fact that the otherwise normal students turned violent once they had absolute power in their hands. It is for this reason I am particularly skeptical of “authority figures”, particularly politicians…

For Doris a virtuous person would be he (or she) who avoids situations where they would be coerced by the circumstances surrounding them to commit some unvirtuous act, whereas the vicious person makes no attempt to do so and may even seek these situations out.

Are the conclusions reached by Doris “close enough” to still fit within the Aristotelian framework? I think it could, but it seems to me that people will only follow their proclaimed system of ethics when they truly believe each virtuous action will benefit them either in the short or long term. So if you think donating to charity will make you feel better about yourself, either because you believe it will make a difference or because of the “bragging rights” associated with it (I know it sounds strange and shallow, but it happens and I see it all the time; it annoys the hell outta me!), then you will probably do so. However, I am not sure Doris’ conclusions necessarily fit… why?- well, that would require me to delve into perception and reality, and I simply don’t have enough caffeine for that! Perhaps this could be the topic of some future paper!