What do you suppose Confucius and Aristotle, teachers of virtue ethics, would say about the Colombians' case, and how would they go about assessing responsibility?

Answer: Confucius and Aristotle, as proponents of virtue ethics, would approach the assessment of responsibility in the case involving Colombians—or any case for that matter—by examining the character of the individuals involved rather than merely the consequences of their actions or adherence to a set of rules.

Confucius emphasized the virtues of rén (benevolence or humaneness), yì (righteousness or justice), and lǐ (proper behavior or propriety). He would address the Colombians' case by looking at how the individuals’ actions reflected their moral character and how well they fulfilled their roles and responsibilities within the family and society. Confucius would likely assess whether each person demonstrated benevolence and justice towards others, and whether the actions taken were consistent with societal norms and ancestral traditions.

Aristotle, on the other hand, focused on the Golden Mean, where virtue is a balanced state between excess and deficiency. He would consider whether the Colombians' actions were guided by practical wisdom (phronesis) and whether they demonstrated the virtues that contribute to the good life (eudaimonia), such as courage, temperance, and justice. Aristotle would ask whether the individuals made their decisions by considering what a virtuous person would do in the same situation, aiming for a balance that is neither excessive nor deficient.

Both philosophers would likely agree that everyone has a degree of responsibility for their actions and that the development of good character is crucial in making ethical decisions. They would look beyond the act itself to assess whether the individuals involved were striving for a moral life and upholding virtues beneficial to the community.