A number of good examples here how the teachings of Aristotle lend themselves to the molding of pliable young minds:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne…FMnMPn6Xk4h1B-UKWYY1uBtY8

pasted-from-clipboard.png

Yuk!

There's no need to wonder why thy teach Aristotle and not Epicurus.

I think I misinterpreted the title, because I too think it is "unthinkable" that virtue ethics should be adopted as a guiding philosophy.

But if I read the article properly, that is exactly the conclusion it reaches - that virtue ethics IS the way forward.

For example the article says:

The Canadian author and politician Michael Ignatieff has suggested that the cause of refugees can be better advanced through harnessing virtues like charity and humility than hammering on endlessly about rights.

Is that not just a classic example of virtue ethics? This writer starts with a supposed given (that the cause of refugees should be advanced) and decides that pick a philosophy (virtue ethics vs "rights") according to whether it is the most likely to lead to our desired result.

But some people will think that the cause of refugees (whatever that means) should be advanced. Others will think that "the cause of refugees" is something they don't care about or even oppose.

The point of philosophy is to help us with the analysis of "What is the desired result?" in the first place! And the problem of "virtue ethics" is that it is nothing more than a slick effort to justify some particular result while hiding the reasoning for that result behind high-sounding but totally subjective and ambiguous language.

This article is depressing, to the extent it represents what some young people are thinking, but it's definitely on point, so good catch, Hiram!