Final answer:
Philosophical arguments for not engaging in virtuous actions include existential inauthenticity, anthropocentric value judgments, deontological ethics, ethical naturalism, virtue ethics, Confucian reflection on virtue, and Sartre's existentialism on bad faith and responsibility.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question touches on various philosophical arguments regarding moral actions and the decision to either engage or not engage in actions perceived as good or virtuous. One argument for inaction might be existential inauthenticity, as discussed by Heidegger, where individuals may refrain from action based on a disconnection from their authentic selves. Another perspective, presented by William Baxter, argues that harm to non-human entities does not inherently warrant moral responsibility unless it affects human interests. Kant, on the other hand, explores a deontological approach, identifying perfect duties that we are obliged to perform consistently, such as refraining from lying or stealing.
Philippa Foot's ethical naturalism and virtue ethics take another stance, suggesting that moral actions should be aimed at human flourishing and align with our nature. Meanwhile, Confucius' quotes are cited to probe thought on virtuous behavior and its societal repercussions. Finally, Sartre's existentialist view condemns bad faith, the act of denying one's freedom and shirking responsibility for one's actions. These philosophical arguments present different perspectives on why an individual might choose not to do something valuable even when the opportunity arises.