Kantianism Vs Utilitarianism

Virtue ethics is a little different from Kantianism and Utiliarianism. So far, it seems to be the best moral theory we have talked about because it seems to take parts from both Kantianism and Utilitarianism; neither of which seemed like the “correct” moral theory. Virtue ethics is more concerned with the aim of humans. On the other hand, Kantianism dealt with intent, and Utilitarianism was about maximizing happiness for the greatest number. Virtue ethics seems to be more practical than theoretical like the previous moral theories we talked about in class. Aristotle said the aim of humans was for the soul to exhibit excellence. The way this was done was by practicing virtues and basing our actions around what behaviors people with these virtues
This is a valid criticism of Virtue ethics however, people with this argument might also say that there is more than one right answer to a situation because morality isn’t always black and white. If morality doesn’t have to be black and white, then how can we design a moral theory which tells us what to do in each situation we come across? I think people focus too much on what is specifically written as Virtue theory, rather than trying to broadly apply its principles to real life. An example of this is supreme court justices and strict vs. loose construction of the constitution. There have been many laws which have been passed focusing loosely on the principles of the constitution, rather than what was specifically written down. I think the same thing should apply to moral theories. So far, Virtue theory is the one that can be used most practically. For the trolley example we can choose to either pull the lever and kill one person to save five, or do nothing and let five people die. According to Aristotle, an act such as murder has no mean. Murder is inherently bad. Therefore, if we were to pull the lever it would be incontinence according to