VIRTUOUS LIVING - Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University

(iv)sense of a person’s conception of his/her own well-being. This question isfollowed by the fact that social policies will be made based on particularjudgments. Such judgments regarding other people’s utility are sometimes, ifnot always, wrong. Yet comparisons of such judgments are all we have asrational moral rulings about social policies and arrangements (cf Scarre1998:442).The maximising of utility for the greatest number is the fourth feature in thebroader utilitarian ethical theory. Here an action is deemed right if it promotesthe welfare of the greatest number. It is hoped that such utility action will havethe consequence of social utility of that community. However, Scarre cautionsthat since it is impossible to please all the people all the time, social policymakersneed to be careful in the distribution of scarce resources. Considerationis given to the method of aggregation used to arrive at who should receivewelfare and who should foot the bill. This maximising of utility isquestionable, because of its conflicting desires in relation to shared utilities,determination of the priorities, allocation of resources, and the management ofshared environment (cf Scarre 1998:442).It is largely the criticisms raised against these two ethical theories that have been thebasis for the rise of a third moral theory – namely Virtue Ethics. Let us look at howthis came about in the last half of the 20 th century.The rise of Virtue Ethics seems to have started in mid 20 th century when themanifestation of emerging moral practice was presumed (to be) out of step with themoral theories from which practice proceeds. Major differences were seen in therelationship of the assumed moral agent who applied moral theories that were outsidehim/her (imposed from without) and the pursuit of inclinations that were inhibited bycompliance to external rules. Moral agents go for the autonomous individual andhis/her freedoms. Everyone in pursuit of pleasure and personal success desiresautonomy. Moreover, they avoid duty for duty’s sake. At any given opportunity noone wishes to take responsibility for an action or to contemplate the consequences,especially where such consequences are not pleasure-enhancing.133