In today’s ethics, the issue of being virtuous has brought so much confusion and misunderstanding. Many people would always neglect it arguing that a common answer that stakeholders would take must be virtuous and pleasing to the friendly to humans. Plato is one of those philosophers who acknowledge that personal reasons to be virtuous are what have shaped the debate on moral motivation. In the contemporary world, the reformed definition of what constitutes wellbeing has made clear the importance of virtuous to human better life. These facts have challenged even the known experts in the field of ethics and made them understand that the issue of being virtuous is more complex than they thought and cannot be taken as a mere issue. Indeed, there is no philosophy has proofed that being virtuous is equivalent to being good. Those who still hold to the idea that the virtue and goodness are the same may either be confusing goodness with other things or they have do not understand that virtuous people are those who are morally neutral or they fall in the vicious cycle.
The first step towards resolving the issue of controversial aspects of goodness and being virtuous is to understand the four distinctions of goodness. Modern day philosophers as irrational are considering the perfectionist goodness that critical thinkers were advocating for in the past. Arguing that perfecting Excellencies, which are part of human nature, makes human beings better. The modern philosophers therefore use critical knowledge to analytically study to know whether such claims are true. Secondly is about prudential goodness, where the modern philosophers argue that when one is virtuous it does not mean that that person is prudently good to the virtuous agent. Just to put it clear is that there are three requirements to consider for good; it must relate to the person, must have reasons as to why the feature is good to the individual and finally must be good to one who is well off. People who believe in such ideologists are associated with acts like pleasurable conditions and intimate relationships, which only last for a particular time and are not sustainable. Next concerns impersonal goodness, which stipulates that that virtuous dispositions and acting in the place of virtuous motives may not necessarily relate to the agent.
Some critics argue that a person’s life may be good if that person is benevolent t to others or tries to cause harm to other persons. This argument however, does not raise enough reasons to ascertain that being benevolent to others leads to automatic goodness. The last point of view concerns the moral goodness. In relation to this claim, that virtuous person is one who have some form of moral knowledge. Given that having knowledge of critical things in found in the list of prudentiality then virtuous by all standards forms part of knowledge list.
The assumption that `virtue becomes good by being a form of knowledge or significant achievement, then vicious on the other hand that involves some form of immoral knowledge may be a great achievement.
There is also need to distinguish prudential goods from moral goods. Emphasize must always be put on punishing those people who ought to be hurt. The fact that some people deserves to experience pleasure does not mean that these people do not break the rule and experience pleasure. This forms a vicious cycle whereby all the things are interdependent in that if one is maliciously immoral, he cannot be equivalent to one who is nonmoral because that person is not literally empty but has something. The fact that one in at particular point in time has gone against the societal established norms does not mean that he cannot remember what is right to do. Some people confuse between prudential and moral goods in which the society expect that individuals must strive to uphold at any given point in time. There is need for mutual coexistence between the two so that people adhere to them.
The most important argument is one that categorizes virtue as one of prudential good stress. Virtuously is thereby seen as very crucial ingredients of human life and they it can help one to live a self- fulfilling life. People who can be termed as living meaningful lives are those who normally participate in activities, which are worth. The only thing that can make one live a better live is by being active in beneficial activities. The single most principle behind quality life is engagement on priority issues on daily basis.
In conclusion there are two insights that one can draw from the above arguments on whether being virtuous is equally the same as being good. Virtuous is not a core element of prudential goodness. Generally, virtue is all about moral good or doing what is morally acceptable whereas. Being virtuous means while still enjoying the good life one will also get the opportunity to enjoy some pleasures and feelings in the fulfillment of individual goals and personal satisfaction. Being virtuous is therefore good for it makes one experience and enjoys good life.
J. H. (2012). Moral science: Or, The philosophy of obligation. New York: Sheldon & Co. Fairchild,