What is the argument of virtue of ethics?

The airstrike can be a justified by the means towards some important and valuable
end. Basing to the virtue, the airstrike can be treated as something which helps
produce good character and positive virtues in people. If the air strike is a vicious,
would a leader with courage, justice, compassion, and all the other moral virtues
ever choose to stop terrorism? This airstrike can be correctly chosen by a virtuous
leader only in rare 'supreme emergencies' when faced with enemies as evil as
Hitler. This virtue ethics approach to the operation is used to find solution to difficult
issues such as humanitarian intervention, terrorism and weapons of mass
destruction.
Judge actions by how they portray virtues rather than by the outcomes to the
action or absolute moral values; character-centered. This aims to be virtuous by
adhering to given virtues about a golden mean. For instance, the virtue of courage,
we should not be foolhardy or cowardly (both vices), but some mid-point of
courage. The advantages of this argument is that these are holistic, considers
emotions/motivations, highly individualistic and adaptable. And the disadvantages
are unclear action guidance, disagreement on what the virtues are, relativistic.
Based on President Vladimir Putin statement the purpose of their air strikes is to
stabilize the legitimate authority of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Also, Russia
wanted to create conditions for a political compromise in Syria. The Russians are
attacking all the anti-government terrorists and they are also propping up President
Bashar al-Assad which then allows them to foothold in the region. Moreover, he
vowed and coordinate to find and punish behind the attack in Paris and the downed
jet. However, they have faced allegations that they are also striking civilians in
effort to bomb the headquarters of ISIS.
The defenders who acted against the aggressors must follow the three basic
principles which the aggressors does not always follow: military necessity,
proportionality, and distinction. Just because this airstrike is for punishing, doesn't
mean they should do whatever they wanted. In order for certain actions to be
classified as acts of punishing, they have to be justified by requirements of military
operations. Deliberately targeting enemy civilians without a cause or bombing
enemy civilians for the sole purpose of terrorizing them, is not just barbaric and
inhumane but also a waste of resources and energy and would have produced
negative results.
According to Aristotle, certain external conditions must be present for an individual
cultivation in order for them to acquire of both the intellectual virtues and those
virtues of character make up Aristotles highest good. These virtues occupy a
middle ground between the vices of excess and deficiency, relative to individuals.
Furthermore, Aristotle argues that the state exists not for the purpose of allowing
people to live, but for the purpose of allowing them to live well.
How does it applied to the issue?

In response to Friday's terror attacks in Paris, which killed 129 people and
wounded a further 352, Russian warships have been ordered to work
"as allies" with their French counterparts in the Mediterranean.
Speaking at a security meeting held on Monday night, Russian President
Vladimir Putin said the country's air campaign in Syria would intensify.
The strikes follow a statement by Russia's security chief that a bomb brought
down a Russian airliner over Egypt last month, killing 224. Sinai
Province, an IS-linked Egyptian group, said it had downed the jet.
Mr Putin vowed to "find and punish" those behind the attack.
Russian warplanes are supporting Syrian government forces against
various rebel groups - a source of tension between Mr Putin and his US and
UK counterparts.
Both Russian and US officials have said they will coordinate closely with
France to target IS in the wake of the attacks in Paris.

The airstrike can be a justified by the means towards some important and
valuable end. Basing to the virtue, the airstrike can be treated as something
which helps produce good character and positive virtues in people.
Aristotle makes the comparison with a good human who occupies the middle
ground between the vices of excess and deficiency, relative to individuals.
Likewise, we can find a middle point between exuberance and deficiency within
our own actions and character. For instance, not taking any actions when one of
your countrymen were killed innocently out of fear that they might do it again,
illustrates cowardice which is not a virtue and it is clearly negative. However
acting rashly and running into danger is foolhardy or bold and shouldnt be
called a virtue. To establish the meaning when someone is virtuous and can be
observed in the golden mean. These virtues are justice, prudence, and courage,
as previously stated it always rest somewhere between overabundance and
deficiency. According to Aristotle, the way to avoid error is to avoid the extremes.
Being liar is bad, and always telling the truth, for example, admitting battle plans
that are going to get your side/civilian slaughtered, is also bad. The golden
mean, in this case, is to hide harmful truths, not to tell inspirational lies.
Similarly, out of fear that there would be more causalities be at stake, Russia
steps up for his country and for France. Russia took several action sending a
large amount of military equipment to Syria, air attacks on ISIS, and then finally
cruise missiles. This is a very bold move by President Putin that he is a player,
that is, he and his country have to be reckoned with. The tension that could turn
the tide against the ISIS. After all, President Asaad troops were in trouble and
President Putin proceed to get in there and make sure Asaad did not fall. In this
case, the golden mean in Russias operation showed justice and courage to stop
the terrorism.
Is it moral or not?
Destroying the terrorism effort is entirely different than deliberately targeting
enemy civilians with the sole purpose to kill them based on their race or to

terrorize them. From a military and moral point of view, dropping the missiles
bombs saved millions of lives than they killed. It wasn't ethical that enemy
civilians died, it was ethical as a whole because the air strike can save people,
preventing a more catastrophic event to occur. However,
It is not moral to attack the Syrian rebels or even ISIS because the answer to
violence is not more violence. The outcome of the airstrike resulted to more
conflicts and civilians getting killed. Aristotles argues that one function of the
well-ordered state is to help individuals make this progression from for worse to
better. There are alternative solution to end terrorism other than using weaponry.
Aristotle argues that the state exists not for the purpose of allowing people to
live, but for the purpose of allowing them to live well.