Virtue and Luck in Aristotle’s Ethics

Like his predecessor Socrates and his successors the Stoics, Aristotle wants to hold that virtue is a state of character immune to good and bad fortune. Yet he is aware of the implausibility in the thesis that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness. In some passages. he concedes that such goods of fortune as noble birth. wealth. and beauty are necessary. not in order to be virtuous. but only as instruments to enable an already established virtuous disposition to continue in the unimpeded exercise of good action for a happy life overall. Although eutuchia may play a role in maintaining a good state of character, presumably being or becoming virtuous is not subject to luck. But elsewhere Aristotle acknowledges that natural and social contingencies infect the formation of character and consequently our ability to flourish. This suggests that virtue and happiness are functions of constitutive and situational forms of luck. I shall demonstrate that Aristotle\u27s admission of such contingencies undermines what he endeavors to show throughout his ethical writings. Namely, that no one can be virtuous through luck or chance

Science fiction and human enhancement: radical life-extension in the movie ‘In Time’ (2011)

The ethics of human enhancement has been a hotly debated topic in the last 15 years. In this debate, some advocate examining science fiction stories to elucidate the ethical issues regarding the current phenomenon of human enhancement. Stories from science fiction seem well suited to analyze biomedical advances, providing some possible case studies. Of particular interest is the work of screenwriter Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, S1m0ne, In Time, and Good Kill), which often focuses on ethical questions raised by the use of new technologies. Examining the movie In Time (2011), the aim of this paper is to show how science fiction can contribute to the ethical debate of human enhancement. In Time provides an interesting case study to explore what could be some of the consequences of radical life-extension technologies. In this paper, we will show how arguments regarding radical life-extension portrayed in this particular movie differ from what is found in the scientific literature. We will see how In Time gives flesh to arguments defending or rejecting radical life-extension. It articulates feelings of unease, alienation and boredom associated with this possibility. Finally, this article will conclude that science fiction movies in general, and In Time in particular, are a valuable resource for a broad and comprehensive debate about our coming future