Question

When harry truman proposed the racial integration of the u.s. military, some argued that "you cannot legislate morality"; that is, you may pass laws that force people to behave in certain ways or to act differently than they want to or have done in the past, but laws cannot change the way people feel inside. until you change their feelings, they said, you will never really change people’s morals. how does this relate to virtue ethics? under virtue ethics how would you go about convincing someone of the ‘right’ thing to do?

Answer 1

Under virtue ethics, one would focus on nurturing personal virtues to change behavior toward racial integration, aligning with Truman's Executive Order 9981, rather than relying solely on legal enforcement.

Step-by-step explanation:

When Harry Truman proposed the racial integration of the U.S. military, it was a significant step towards civil rights, but raised concerns that laws cannot change personal morals or sentiments. This related to Truman's issuance of Executive Order 9981, which aimed to ensure equality in the armed forces. Virtue ethics, which emphasizes the development of moral character rather than the mere following of rules, suggests that moral behavior stems from virtuous habits and not just legal mandates. To convince someone of the 'right' thing to do under virtue ethics, one would focus on cultivating virtues like empathy, fairness, and courage rather than relying solely on laws to enforce behavior.

Highlighting the role of individual agency and responsibility in addressing injustices, virtue ethics aligns with the efforts of individuals who drew attention to and acted against unethical or unequal treatment. Personal virtues led to actions that caused social change, as seen in Truman's stance on military integration despite opposition. In the context of morality and law, although they are often related, they do not always align, as evidenced by cases like the Loving v. Virginia decision that overturned immoral anti-miscegenation laws.