Moral Consensus

...

In conclusion, contrary to Aristotle’s definition of virtue as a measured activity of the means and motivated by right intention (Reyes 1989, 39), the modern concept of virtue has been seen to be manipulated in legislation—“virtuous to the public on its outside but have the same interior filled with dangerous rent-seeking bounties” (Kochan n.d., 354). Organizations focusing on mere self-interests may help cloak the virtuous to piggyback on the virtue clamor (Ibid, 352). In addition, unless a moral consensus is agreed upon, we will continue to speak from our own moral spheres and virtue can still be used as an ideological tool to exercise hegemony and promote an organization’s self-interest. As Anderson points out, a virtuous ruler is only possible if the virtue can be accepted by the different cultures, norms, and ideologies of modern society; until we agree to have a common moral language, then the situation does not seem promising, at least from a moral standpoint (2010, 87).

Bibliography:

Anthony, Kyle Brandon. 2010. "Aristotle and the Importance of Virtue in the Context of the Politics and the Nicomachean Ethics and its Relation to Today”. Honor’s Theses, Bucknell University.

Barker, Ernest. 1959. The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. New York: Russell & Russell.

Kochan, Donald. n.d. The Mask of Virtue: Theories of Aretaic Legislation in a Public Choice Perspective. Saint Louis University Law Journal 58:295-354.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After Virtue. 2nd edition. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press.

Reyes, Ramon Castillo. 1989. Ground and Norm of Morality. Manila: Ateneo de Manila University Press.

The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica. “Emotivism”. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. https://www.britannica.com/topic/emotivism (accessed August 28, 2016).