Here's what I've got so far in draft form...
Virtue ethics is the ethics of us as persons and argues that morality is not about duties. There are a number of arguments for and against virtue ethics, and most for argue for the formation and growth of us via phronesis or practical wisdom, which allows us to make the right decisions by using our conscience. Virtue ethics is mainly supported by Aristotle. It is based on different virtues that a person should have, so that they can then reach Euadamonia. Euadamonia should be the end goal to everyone's life and it is the ultimate happiness. Virtue Ethics is โagent centeredโ and it focuses on the qualities of the person making the moral choices rather than the actual moral choice that they are making, which can bring weaknesses to the theory as one can justify mostly anything by using virtue ethics. According to the theory, morality is about becoming the right sort of person, it is not asking โwhat should I do?โ, but it is asking โwhat sort of person should I be?โ, and is not trying to find rights and wrongs, just allow you to become a good person.
Aristotle was an Ancient Greek philosopher and believed that everyone wants to live a full and happy life, this is known as eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the idea of ideal happiness and it is the highest good, because we desire it for its own sake and not as a means to an end. In his book, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle stated that we want to be good, and there is a difference to things that are good as means, and things that are good as ends. A good life is something inherently worth having, unlike justice which is worth having because it leads to a good life. Aristotle defined good as something that fulfils its end purpose and the telos of humanity is to be rational, Aristotle then went on to say that the ergo of reason is virtue and therefore our telos is there to be rational so therefore we can only achieve virtue thorough using reason. Aristotle believed that there were intellectual and moral virtues for example a intellectual virtue is developed by training and habit and we can be taught these for example maths, or learning an instrument whereas moral virtues are not innate and are acquired through repetition. An example of this would be doing something wrong and your parents telling you off, Aristotle believed that eventually you would feel the guilt before doing the act so therefore through practice you become a better type of person and your virtue becomes second nature. However, what if your parents never punished you for being bad, or you lived a very good childhood and never did anything bad in the first place - how would you learn these moral virtues from? This is a weakness of virtue ethics. Aristotle believed that the best way to reach eudaimonia was to live peacefully in society with others thinking about their interests and we should together develop and use qualities from others that are most productive for all of us. Aristotle believed that this helps us to reach the Golden Mean, this is the idea that we should develop qualities that are helpful to society and therefore inherently good. An example of this would be someone who is shy and aggressive, to Aristotle both of these are not good qualities and therefore the Golden Mean would allow you to find the middle man and find the perfect balance, for example confidence.
There are a number of strengths to Aristotles ideas, it is a deontological theory and an theory such as Kantโs Divine Command deny human emotions whereas Aristotleโs idea of phronesis developed from Plato in which eudaimonia is the flourishing of the soul and by using reason as an executive allows us to decide whether to act upon emotions using past experience, โappetiteโ as Arisotole called it. For Aristotle, we should work to develop our character so that we avoid adopting vice-like characteristics. Aristotle also argues that once virtuous characteristics are natural to us then we will automatically do the right thing. So, he is saying that good people perform good actions.The best way of learning about the virtues is to follow the example of virtuous people, however this can cause a number of problems for the theory, for example following people in todayโs society e.g. people like Jesus, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, all of who are seen as virtuous, but we donโt really know their motives for being this way, so how can we learn from it. Another criticism of the theory is that virtues can be culturally relative and so virtue ethics are difficult to apply to modern dilemmas as there are no guidelines from rules or consequences. Also, who decides what a good virtue is? If a number of people decide to murder babys and then everyone follows does that make the act virtuous? Gilbert Harman believed that character traits were just an illusion stating that it is a particularist theory, only considering certain virtues, which doesn't fit well in society.