Virtue Ethics

Page 1

Key Terms

Eudaimonia - human flourishing - "the active exercise of the mind in conformity with perfect goodness or virtue" - that is desired for its own sake i.e. good as ends

Eudaimonia s achieved when we become virtuous and this is a process that we grow towards by practising virtues like learning to play an instrument

Virtue - a character disposition or personality trait therefore it is agent-centred (how should i be? rather than what should I do?)

The Golden Mean - a response to a feeling that is neither excessive nor deficient e.g. The vice of deficiency of anger is lack of spirit and the vice of excess is irascibility but the golden mean is patience

Phronesis - Practical Wisdom - a skill developed through practice of being virtuous over time where we are able to act instinctually to situations that allows others to learn from example

Aristotle distinguished between three types of pleasure and happiness as he understands that one person view of happiness might be different to another's - 1.Pleasure seekers (driven by their basic desires like eating good food) 2.Seekers of honour (politicians) 3.Those who love contemplation (philosophers) and they have the highest forms of happiness

Aristotle also distinguishes between two types of virtues; 1.intellectual virtues which are learnt and taught 2.Moral virtues which are developed through habit

Aristotle states that 'the good of the human being is achieved when we act in accordance with our telos' = which is to reason

he stresses the fact that ethical characters are developed by practical learning and habitual action and not merely by intellectual teaching, Will Durrant (1885-1981) states "we are what we repeatedly do.Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit"

- he sees our communal relationships as an essential part of our moral growth and flourishing

Strengths:

- Elizabeth Anscombe - 'Modern Moral Philosophy' argues that all other moral theories such as natural law and kant are based on the concept of moral duty are flawed because they rely on belief in God as without belief there is no reason to follow any other form of moral duty and is therefore outdated and so the way forward is to focus on character and development of characteristics not dependant on any notion of God

- avoids having to use a formula focuses instead on the kind of person we ought to be

- understands the need to distinguish good people from legalists obeying the law does not make one a good person

- stresses the importance of motivating people to want to be good

- enables us to integrate many aspects of life - our emotions, commitments to others, our friends, social responsibilities therefore more relevant amd natural to modern society. It relates our ethical choices to the bigger picture

- allows us to be biased towards friends and families

- emphasises the importance of character, someone who helps the poor out of compassion does seem morally superior to someone who does it out of duty

- Maclntyre agrees with Aristotle's theory arguing that modern ethics puts too much emphasis on reason and not enough stress on people, their characters and the context of their lives and believes that society depends for its very existence upon people who exhibit virtues and stated that the three most important virtues are justice, courage and honesty, we can only achieve moral excellence through practising these as they are core virtues that help to prevent organisations and institutions from becoming morally corrupt

- 'morality and social structure are in fact one and the same in heroic society. There is only one set of social bonds'

- distinguishes between internal and external goods that come from acting virtuous (internal = good things that come from engaging in the activity itself, External = the things that come from the practice in the wider world e.g. financial game and fame) these are also important to Aristotle too as they are both needed to reach eudaimonia

- for Maclntyre virtues are relative and change over time depending on different societies and their values, virtues change in order to adapt to society and be best utilised e.g. nowadays wisdom is seen more compatible than physical strength with society

- Philppa Foot puts forward a modern version of virtue ethics; i.e. the wise person directs their will to what is good and a good is something that is both intrinsically and extrinsically good, she argues that virtues and skills are different things as a mistake with a skill will not damage our character or reputation whereas a non-virtuous act will

- believes that virtues are something that continually need to be practiced in order to improve our character

Weaknesses:

Unclear guidance

- if caught in a moral dilemma no set rules or guidance to help you decide what is the morally best thing to do like with Utilitarianism or Kantian Ethics

- not of helpful moral guidance only offers vague advice on how to life in general, lack of focus on specific situations and how to deal with these

- Rosalind Hursthouse "Virtue ethics does not, because it cannot, tell us what we should do...it gives us no guidance whatsoever. Who are the virtuous agents?"

- Robert Louden 'On some Vices of Virtue Ethics' - Virtue ethics does not give us any concrete answers and says only that it is a matter for the practical wisdom of the person facing the situation

Clashing Virtues

- e.g. courageous behaviour might mean a lack of friendliness; generosity may threaten modesty therefore in situations like these the suggestion to be virtuous may again seem to be vague

- however a response to this objection would be the concept of practical wisdom whereby Aristotle would argue that that the skilled and virtuous person will appropriately respond to complex moral situations

Circularity

- e.g. Aristotle would say that 1. An act is virtuous if it is an act that a virtuous person would commit in that circumstance and 2. A person is a virtuous person when they act in virtuous ways

- this results in circular reasoning as virtuous actions are understood in terms of virtuous people but virtuous people are understood in terms of virtuous actions

- however an objection to this response is from Julia Annas who argues that there is nothing circular in this reasoning as it is simply a reflection of how we learn to develop our virtuous dispositions

- e.g. 1. Great piano playing is what great pianists do 2. a pianist is great when he 'does' great piano playing

- this illustrates that great pianists have the skills to make great music

- therefore virtuous people are not virtuous just because of their actions but because of who they are and how their actions are motivated

- it is their skills and character traits that mean that, in practice, they provide a c;ear guide as to which actions are properly aligned with virtues

Contribution to Eudaimonia

- there are challenges to the fact that certain dispositions may seem to be virtuous but may not actually seem to contribute to our flourishing or securing the good life

- e.g. when someone goes out their way to be generous and dedicates large amounts of time to helping others to solve problems which allows us to describe them as virtuous but by working themselves so hard towards others they may be limiting their own ability to flourish

- however a response to this is that this person has succumbed to a vice of excess and could be described as wasteful