(EQ37)-(FC) (*)

What are the criticisms against ABE from VBE?

What are the criticisms against VBE from ABE?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtual Based Ethics (VBE) is based upon the spontaneous goodness inside a person. It could be

used as a good example to inspire others. The focus of which is set on the goal of life, meaning,

achieving the most under a code of morality and living up to moral values felt genuinely by

oneself. Doing the right thing is not enough in VBE, feeling the need, having the motivation, is

important and required. VBE asks for acquiring good character and not just following rules.

Action Based Ethics (ABE) is more about acting and doing the right thing, like following moral

rules, without any feeling of sympathy or any sort of connection. The way a person acts matters

in ABE while what his inner thinking might be, is left out of consideration, hence, not

considered important. VBE attacks ABE by stating that ABE does not need a motivation behind

the act, which is a crucial role in making decision according to VBE. Just because a moral rule

affirms to do something, without having a real motivation behind it, is just empty. It does not

have a meaning to the action. VBE also argues that action taken on a principle, which leads to

harm of a person or worsening a situation is relatively bad if the characters chooses to not

follow such principle. VBE claims that just following a moral rule, neglects the spontaneous

aspect of doing the right thing. Not feeling but helping has no meaning behind such help.

Character remains unchanged in ABE. If one must do something, one will do it. It will not affect
the persons character, it will just give one the satisfaction of doing the right thing without any

thought put by oneself into it. Only real connection and feelings keeps the community together.

If it was only a rule that had to be followed, a community will be lonely, and most likely fail to

prosper. ABE counterargues that sometimes principle comes after character, but has it had

nothing to do with the relationship between rules and character. Carrying out the duties leads

to the achievement of moral values which does not change the actual relationship between the

two. ABE also argues that the goal of ethics is to be moral with maximum good. Working out a

most consistent system, making a rule or law, is the easiest way of achieving guidance for our

actions. Another argument they make is, doing the right at is more important than feeling the

virtue behind it. The feeling behind an act does not matter if the right action is taken. Virtue

does not have a direction, action gives it a direction. ABE also states that a major portion of life

is lived under the aspect or domain of being permissible rather than being moral. If one is in

moral constraints, the virtues does not matter. There are plenty of arguments on both sides

and no one solution. It is just a matter of ones own personal thinking process.

45.1. Conduct the analysis of "R & E" (i.e., Reconstruction &
Evaluation) on the argument.

The enthymeme given appears to be the same, and are asking for not banning of marijuana. It

is supported by the fact that banning marijuana is identical to legislation of morality. The

argument specified is weak because there does not seem to be a comprehensible connection

between marijuana and morality. They just seem to be far apart to any sort of relation to each

other.
 45.2. Is the argument basically Utilitarian or Kantian?

The stated argument gives the impression of being of Kantian deontology. The reason is

intrinsic, meaning that there is some criteria of morality of it being unable to be legislated. It is

a duty that shall not be broken. Kantian value follows such logic, because of which this

enthymeme is related to Kantianism.