Is This the Only Way to Flourish?

          While there is much to agree with in Hurtshouse’s article about the virtue theory, I argue that the idea of using virtue as a mean is nothing more than a subjective guideline of ways to “flourish”. This is primarily because of Hursthouse’s excerpt:

“Third, it does answer the question "What should I do?" as well as the question "What sort of person should I be?" (That is, it is not, as one of the catchphrases has it, concerned only with Being and not with Doing.) Fourth, the theory does, to a certain extent, answer this question by coming up with rules or principles (contrary to the common claim that it does not come up with any rules or principles). Every virtue generates a positive instruction (act justly, kindly, courageously, honestly, etc.) and every vice a prohibition (do not act unjustly, cruelly, like a coward, dis-honestly, etc.).”

-Hursthouse

      In this passage, he explains that the virtue theory answers the question “What should I do?” and “what sort of person should I be?”. He explains how the virtues generate positive instruction to answer those questions along with vices of prohibition. By asserting that the virtues give positive instruction is assuming that the virtue theory’s rule and principles are good and positive for everyone. This also assumes that everyone is in a circumstance where these virtues are relevant, but there are so many different classes of people. If someone were in a situation where acting justly is a death sentence, automatic loss or prohibited, than how could one exercise that virtue enough to understand how to act on that virtue and flourish? Does this mean that she/he will never flourish?     

          In other words, this theory assumes that to flourish you need to act on these virtues with the appropriate balance depending on your circumstances. I think that if you never have the opportunity to learn that balance or if you are deprived of acting on that virtue at that mean/ balance, you will flourish. This is because there are plenty of occasions where circumstances of people were inhibiting the act of these virtues at the appropriate mean and yet these people still flourished. I take for instance present day African Americans and Caucasians, where African Americans are a minority that undergoes many hardships, and that constantly live in the shadow of slavery and as a result are deprived from fully acting on these virtues at a mean/balance similar to that of Caucasians who are a majority and are more privileged to a certain extent. An example would be having one black guy go for a job and one white guy go for that same job, and while both being interviewed a question is asked by the manager of whether they have ever been arrested. The virtue theory instructs you to act justly, honestly, kindly, and courageously so let’s assume their resumes are identical and they both say yes and the reasons in both cases are never asked. In the end, the white guy gets the position. So how can this virtue of honesty, in this circumstance and at this mean, be deemed as flourishing for both candidates?  I think that if the black guy had not of said he was arrested he might have gotten hired over the white guy and then eventually fired after the job found out, but for the moment he would have been hired and/or flourishing. This second part, where the African American lies in anticipation to the possible outcome to get ahead, is what I consider not using the virtue as a mean in comparison to the mean meant by the virtue theory because it is subjective. It was written by someone who was treated equal for those in the world that are treated equally which for this case was the Caucasian male.  In all, I argue that the idea of using virtue as a mean is nothing more than a subjective (only for certain group of people) guideline of ways to “flourish”.