AQA A Level Philosophy - Aristotle's Virtue ethics

Describe the distinction between act-centred and agent-centred moral theories. (3)

Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics are two different examples of act-centred moral theories due to their focus on actions when it comes to making moral assessments and judgments. They share a common worldview in that particular actions are bearers of moral value — either being right or wrong. Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is an agent-centred theory in virtue of a primary focus on people and their characters rather than singular actions. For Aristotle, morality has more to do with the question "how should I be?" rather than "what should I do?"

What is the good for human beings according to Aristotle (5)

1) Aristotle claims that every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite regress of goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. For humans this end of human life could be called happiness (or living well).

2) Our different activities aim at various 'goods'.

For example, medicine aims at health; military strategy aims at victory.

3) For any action or activity, there is a purpose - its end. An analysis of the purposes for which we do things is an

analysis of what we see to be 'good' about them.

4) We undertake actions and activities either for the sake of something further or 'for their own sake'. Suppose there is an end we desire for its own sake, not the sake of anything else. Then this end would be the good for us.

5) Aristotle says this final end is happiness or 'eudaimonia'.

Define eudaimonia (3)

Eudaimonia is the good for a human life. Aristotle says it is 'living well and faring well'. We have some idea of what it is when an animal or plant is living and faring well - we talk of them 'flourishing'. So, eudaimonia is 'the good' or 'flourishing' for human beings as the particular sort of being we are.

Describe what Aristotle means by eudaimonia (5)

1) Eudaimonia is the good for a human life. Aristotle says it is 'living well and faring well'.

2) It is active and not passive. We can talk of people being happy as a psychological state - it is something that happens to them rather than something they make. But eudaimonia is not a state of mind, but relates to an activity - the activity of living.

3) Eudaimonia is not something subjective, but objective. To say someone is or was eudaimonia is to make an objective judgement about their life as a good human life. By contrast, if someone says they are happy or unhappy, it is difficult to correct them or know better.

4) Eudaimonia is stable and not transient. It does not come and go as happiness can. For it is an evaluation of a life (a life lived well) or a person (a good person) as a whole.

5) Eudaimonia is the only Good. We never want to live and fare well in order to achieve some other end.

6) Eudaimonia is the most desirable thing, and we can't make it more desirable by adding something else to it.

Describe what Aristotle means by eudaimonia (12)

Eudaimonia is the good for a human life. It is usually translated as 'happiness' but Aristotle says it is 'living well and faring well'. So, eudaimonia is 'the good' or the 'good life' for human beings as the particular sort of being we are. To achieve it is to live as best a human being can live.

It is active and not passive. We can talk of people being happy as a psychological state - it is something that happens to them rather than something they make. But eudaimonia is not a state of mind, but relates to an activity - the activity of living. A good life is one that realises the full potential that a human life has. Aristotle famously defines eudaimonia as "the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue."

Additionally, Eudaimonia is not something subjective, but objective. To say someone is or was eudaimonia is to make an objective judgement about their life as a good human life. By contrast, if someone says they are happy or unhappy, it is difficult to correct them or know better.

Also, Eudaimonia is stable and not transient. It does not come and go as happiness (in the usual sense) can. For it is an evaluation of a life (a life lived well) or a person (a good person) as a whole. These are very stable judgements.

In addition, Eudaimonia is the only Good. We never want to live and fare well in order to achieve some other end. If there is a final end which we never seek for the sake of anything else, but only ever for its own sake, this will be a final end 'without qualification'. This is eudaimonia.

Another reason why Aristotle says eudaimonia is the only good is eudaimonia is the most desirable thing, and we can't make it more desirable by adding something else to it, so it is self-sufficient.

Outline why Eudaimonia is the good (3)

It is an end, not a means to an end ('we always choose it for itself and never for any other reason'). It is the final end ('that for the sake of which everything else is done'). It is self-sufficient and needs nothing more to complete it ('which by itself makes life desirable'). It must be a life that we all want. It must be intimately related to human beings

Outline the relationship between eudaimonia and philosophy (5)

Aristotle claims that theoretical reason - the contemplation of truth - is what is 'highest' about human beings. The argument is as follows:

1. This activity is best, because theoretical reason is the best thing in us and with it, we contemplate the greatest, most wonderful things in the universe..

2. We are able to undertake this activity more continuously than any other activity (manual work will wear us out, but contemplation will not), so it leads to the most continuously happy life.

3. It is the most pleasant activity - at least, its pleasures are most pure and enduring, unlike pleasures of the body.

4. It is the most self-sufficient activity. We need fewer external goods for this than for any other virtuous activity. (To be generous, you need money. To be courageous, you need power, etc.).

5. Therefore, the best and most pleasant life for us, given our nature, will be a life of reason. The life of the philosopher (or more generally, a life dedicated to knowledge) will be the best life.

Describe the relationship between function and the end for aristotle (3)

Aristotle was a teleologist because he believed that every object has what he referred to as a final cause.

The Greek term telos refers to

what we might call a purpose, goal or end of an object.

Aristotle embarks on an analysis in terms of the idea of ergon. This is often translated 'function' (which is very similar to end or goal - telos) . The ergon of a thing is its function - the ergon of an eye is to see.

What is meant by ergon/ arete (3)

Ergon means the function/characteristic activity of a thing. Arête is property/virtue that enables a thing to achieve its ergon

For example, a knife's ergon is to cut things. And a good knife has the arête of sharpness because this enables it to cut things well.

Outline the function argument (5)

The first part of Aristotle's argument aims to show that humans have a distinctive function:

p1) Every type of person has a distinctive role/ function in society; and every part of the body has a distinctive function.

p2) Therefore, human beings must also have a distinctive function.

p3) Our function cannot be growth/ nutrition (shared with plants) or sentience (shared with animals) - as these are not distinctive to humans. Being guided by reason is distinctive to humans.

c1) Therefore, our function is to live guided by reason.

The second part of Aristotle's argument aims to show that in order to function well (and reach eudaimonia) we need to develop the right qualities/ virtues:

p4) X is good if it fulfils its function well.

p5) X fulfils its function well if it has the right qualities (virtues).

p6) Therefore, a good human is someone with the right qualities (virtues) which enable them to live guided well by reason.

p7) The good life of a human (i.e. eudaimonia) = the life of a good human (i.e. someone with virtues enabling the to be guided well by reason).

c2) therefore, eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues which enable them to be guided well by reason.

Outline the relationship between eudaimonia and pleasure (5)

1) We are more than just pleasure-seeking animals; there are things we aim for (virtue) that do not necessarily bring us pleasure.

2) However, the good life does involve pleasure, and philosophers who reject pleasure as part of eudaimonia are also wrong. So, pleasure is part of the good, it just isn't the good.

3) Aristotle is clear that we should avoid excessive indulgence in physical pleasures. But enjoying physical pleasures is something Aristotle sees as a virtue - and its opposite (shunning all physical pleasure) is a vice.

4) For Aristotle, pleasure also plays a crucial role in developing virtues of character, and so enabling us to reach eudaimonia.

5) Initially, we may not enjoy being generous, courageous, honest etc, but as we start to act as a virtuous person (and not just go through the motions) we start to enjoy and get pleasure from being generous etc.

6) In a significant way, pleasure completed the activity. In his final conclusion of the ethics, Aristotle argues that the most pleasure we can gain is from theoretical reasoning (contemplation) and philosophy.

Outline the function argument (12)

The function argument is used by Aristotle to show that eudaimonia is only achieved through exercising our reason. The first part of Aristotle's argument aims to show that humans have a distinctive function: every type of person has a distinctive role/ function in society; and every part of the body has a distinctive function. Therefore, human beings must also have a distinctive function. Our function cannot be growth/ nutrition (shared with plants) or sentience (shared with animals) - as these are not distinctive to humans. Being guided by reason is distinctive to humans. Therefore, our function is to live guided by reason.

The second part of Aristotle's argument aims to show that in order to function well (and reach eudaimonia) we need to develop the right qualities/ virtues: X is good if it fulfils its function well. X fulfils its function well if it has the right qualities (virtues). Therefore, a good human is someone with the right qualities (virtues) which enable them to live guided well by reason. The good life of a human (i.e. eudaimonia) = the life of a good human (i.e. someone with virtues enabling the to be guided well by reason). Therefore, eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues which enable them to be guided well by reason.

So, if we use reason well then we will live well and to do this we need to develop all the necessary virtues. Our virtues are determined by that which defines us as human, which Aristotle calls our soul. Aristotle concludes that eudaimonia as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. Through exercising our reason and using reason as our guide, we can develop virtues within each part of the soul. Virtues are usually thought of as character traits relating to our emotions or our desires - resulting in dispositions such as courage, honesty, generosity etc. But there as intellectual virtues of practical reasoning and theoretical reasoning.

How does Aristotle divide the soul (3)

Non-rational parts of the soul: Growth and nutrition; desire and emotion.

Rational part of the soul: practical reason, theoretical reason.

Desire and emotion; practical reason and theoretical reason are all influenced by reason.

Outline what is meant by virtues as character traits or dispositions (3)

Humans have habitual ways of behaving/reacting/feeling and these dispositions form our character.

When reason guides our emotions and desires, then overtime we develop positive dispositions or character trains - called virtues (arete) -which enable us to reach eudaimonia.

When reason fails to shape our emotions/ desires we develop flawed character traits - called vices.

Outline what is meant by virtues as character traits or dispositions (5)

1) Humans have habitual ways of behaving/reacting/feeling and these dispositions form our character.

2) When reason guides our emotions and desires, then overtime we develop positive dispositions or character trains - called virtues (arete) -which enable us to reach eudaimonia. When reason fails to shape our emotions/ desires we develop flawed character traits - called vices.

3) So, just as the arête of sharpness helps a knife fulfil its ergon to cut things, the arête of virtues help humans fulfil their ergon, which is to choose actions according to reason.

4) If someone has a virtuous character but slips up one day and does something unvirtuous, this doesn't make them a bad person. Likewise, a bad person whose character is prone to vice doesn't suddenly develop virtuous character through committing one virtuous act.

5) The doctrine of the mean says that virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes.

6) For example, if you never stand up for yourself then you are cowardly (vice of deficiency). But if you go too far the other way and start fights with anyone for the slightest reason then you are reckless (vice of excess). The correct and virtuous way to act is somewhere in between these two extremes.

Explain the role of education and habituation in the development of a moral character (5)

1) Virtue is not innate. Humans have the potential to develop virtues, but we have to develop the character traits over time: though learning them as children, and as adults through commitment, practice and habit (or habituation).

2) But a virtue is more than a habit (which can be absent-minded) since virtue requires reasoning when we act.

3) Aristotle compares developing a virtue with developing a skill - 'the skill analogy'. We are not born with a skill, but we have the capacity to learn that skill: we can only learn the harp by first playing a harp; we can only become brave by first performing brave acts.

4) To be virtuous, you must: a) act in a virtuous way and b) act as a virtuous person acts, i.e. you choose to act for the right reasons, and are consistent over time in your choice, even in new or complex situations.

5) This is closely connected with practical reasoning. There are no simple rules on how to behave given by this theory, so it requires us to have a number of practical reasoning skills so that we can make the right decision in each situation we encounter.

6) These skills include: the ability to deliberate; understanding the situation you are in; judging and deciding on a choice; and the cleverness to accomplish this choice.

Define phronesis

Phronesis translates as 'practical wisdom' and basically means a general understanding of good such that the person can think through and act according to what is good.

Outline what is meant by phronesis (5)

1) Phronesis translates as 'practical wisdom' and basically means a general understanding of good such that the person can think through and act according to what is good.

2) For example, with the skill analogy, the accomplished pianist understands what sounds good and why with relation to musical composition, the person with phronesis is able to understand what is good and why with relation to eudaimonia.

3) This general conception enables the person with phronesis to understand and deliberate as to what is required in each particular situation.

4) The person with phronesis is then able to act on that deliberation.

5) So, phronesis is a practical wisdom in the sense that it is a general understanding of good that enables us to think through, understand, and act according to what is good.

Briefly outline Aristotle's view on the importance of feelings (3)

Aristotle gives a central place to feelings in his moral theory. All our actions are a display of some emotion: desire, anger, fear, confidence, envy, etc. Virtue means expressing the right/ appropriate amount of these feelings, neither too much nor too little but 'in the mean'. A virtuous person has no inner conflict; the don't have to overcome their feelings in order to do the right thing.

Outline the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons and the role of practical reasoning / practical wisdom (5)

1) To be virtuous is 'to feel [passions] at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way'.

2) By developing the skill of practical wisdom, we can properly put our virtuous character traits into practice.

3) For Aristotle, practical wisdom may actually be the most important virtuous disposition or character trait to develop as without the skill of practical wisdom it may be difficult to actually practice actions that are witty rather than boorish, or courageous rather than cowardly.

4) There are several ways practical wisdom manifests itself: to be are able to deliberate and plan our lives well-work out what we want; to have good understanding of a situation-see the big picture; to have good judgement - know the right thing to do in a situation; and possess cleverness - the ability to accomplish goals and execute plans.

5) We may develop our sense of practical wisdom by looking at the actions of others who we do take to be virtuous. A child, for example, will most certainly need to learn how to be virtuous by following examples of others.

Outline The relationship between virtues, actions and reasons and the role of practical reasoning / practical wisdom (12)

To be virtuous is 'to feel [passions] at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way'. This thinking requires experience; it cannot simply be learnt theoretically.

By developing the skill of practical wisdom, we can properly put our virtuous character traits into practice. For Aristotle, practical wisdom may actually be the most important virtuous disposition or character trait to develop as without the skill of practical wisdom it may be difficult to actually practice actions that are witty rather than boorish, or courageous rather than cowardly. Practical wisdom supports our instinctive knowledge of how to respond virtuously to various feelings, emotions and situations.

There are several ways practical wisdom manifests itself: to be are able to deliberate and plan our lives well-work out what we want; to have good understanding of a situation-see the big picture; to have good judgement - know the right thing to do in a situation; and possess cleverness - the ability to accomplish goals and execute plans.

We may develop our sense of practical wisdom by looking at the actions of others who we do take to be virtuous. A child, for example, will most certainly need to learn how to be virtuous by following examples of others. If we learn from the wisdom and virtue of others, then just as a building apprentice learns from a master so too virtue apprentices can learn from those more skilled than they in practising virtue.

Outline the doctrine of the mean (5)

1) Aristotle compares living well with other activities, such as eating well or physical training. In these cases, the good nutritionist or good trainer needs to avoid prescribing too much food or exercise or too little.

2) We achieve health and physical fitness by following an 'intermediate' course of action. However, what this is differs from person to person.

3) Aristotle is implying that there is not one universal 'mean' that applies to all people. The mean is relative to us.

4) The mean amount of food for a heavyweight wrestler (Aristotle's example is of Milo, a famous wrestler from ancient Greece) is excessive for a long distance runner and the mean amount of food for a long distance runner would be deficient for a heavy weight wrestler.

5) We can feel our passions either 'too much' or 'too little'. Some people feel angry too often and others not often enough, or people can get angry over little things. Aristotle is not saying that the right amount of anger is in the middle of the two, but rather it is to know when to be angry and how much to be angry. This judgement applies to all areas of life.

6) To be virtuous is 'to feel [passions] at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way'. This is Aristotle's 'doctrine of the mean'.

Outline the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues (5)

1) Virtue lies between displaying 'too much' and 'too little' of a particular feeling - this is the doctrine of the mean. To be virtuous is 'to feel [passions] at the right times, with reference to the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way'.

2) For example, fear and confidence are natural responses to dangerous situations. Displaying too much fear is cowardly; displaying too much confidence is rash.

3) Reason helps us be driven by the right amount of fear/confidence - and we then act courageously. If we continue this over time then we develop the virtue of courage.

4) People with very many virtues, and no vices, have what Aristotle calls 'excellence of character' or 'moral virtue' (ethica arete).

5) A genuinely courageous person uses reason to asses a situation and knows exactly when to be brave, when to run away, and when to be bold. So, the 'mean' is about doing the right thing, at the right time, to the right people in the right way - Aristotle calls this the 'mark of virtue'.

Outline Aristotle's views on moral responsibility (3)

For Aristotle, moral responsibility is tied to whether and action is freely chosen or not. Understanding which actions are freely chosen will help us make moral judgements (and assign praise or blame), and also help us understand which actions are relevant to virtue/character development.

Outline and explain the difference between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary actions (12)

A voluntary action is an intended action. Only voluntary actions contribute to our character and virtues. A voluntary action is one that we: intend to do and the origin of the action lies within us; carry out in full knowledge of what we are doing; and freely choose. We must bear full responsibility for our voluntary actions.

In contrast, an involuntary action is one that is contrary to our intention. Aristotle identifies two types of involuntary actions: those done in ignorance and those done under compulsion. Actions done under compulsion fall into two categories: straightforward types and more complex 'mixed' types. For example, a straightforward case would be either a sailor being taken off-course by the wind. In this case there is no intention by the sailor to go off-course. The origin of the sailor going off-course is entirely external and the sailor contributes nothing. So, the sailor is not responsible as there is a lack of agency. Aristotle argues we should not be held responsible for these types of actions. An example of complex cases would be a sailor dumps their cargo overboard to avoid sinking during the storm. Aristotle calls this a 'mixed' case because at the exact moment of action the sailor was in control and intended to act in this way, but the sailor also felt compelled and did not really choose or intend these actions. There is some agency, some choice and so we are responsible and can be praised or blamed. But we could be forgiven and pardoned in some cases.

On the other hand, a non-voluntary action is unintended because it is done from ignorance. For example, the Greek tragic hero, Oedipus, did not know that he killed his father and then married his own mother. There are many ways in which we are ignorant when we act - we don't know all the facts, we misinterpret or misunderstand the situation etc. Additionally, whether we are responsible for non-voluntary actions depends on how we behave after we find out the facts. If there is regret and we wish we had acted differently, then the action was contrary to our intention (involuntary). We would still be responsible but we could be forgiven and pardoned. However, if there is no regret and we would not have acted differently, then we should be judged and held fully responsible as if this were a voluntary action.

Briefly outline Voluntary actions (5)

1) A voluntary action is an intended action.

2) Only voluntary actions contribute to our character and virtues.

3) A voluntary action is one that we:

- intend to do and the origin of the action lies within us.

- carry out in full knowledge of what we are doing.

- freely choose.

4) If a knowing, intended action flows from our desires, then this is still freely chosen: it is wrong to say we have been 'forced' to act by our desires.

5) We must bear full responsibility for our voluntary actions.

Briefly outline Involuntary actions (5)

1) An involuntary action is one that is contrary to our intention.

2) Aristotle identifies two types of involuntary actions: those done in ignorance (which he calls non-voluntary actions) and those done under compulsion.

3) Actions done under compulsion fall into two categories: straightforward types and more complex 'mixed' types.

4) For example, a straightforward case would be either a sailor being taken off-course by the wind or due to being kidnapped. In both of these situations, there is no intention by the sailor to go off-course. The origins of the sailor going off-course are entirely external and the sailor contributes nothing. So, the sailor is not responsible as there is a lack of agency. Aristotle argues we should not be held responsible for these types of actions (neither praised nor blamed).

5) Examples of complex cases would be a sailor is told to commit a robbery otherwise their children will be murdered, or a sailor dumps their cargo overboard to avoid sinking during the storm. Aristotle calls these 'mixed' because a) at the exact moment of action the sailor was in control and intended to act in this way, but b) the sailor felt compelled and did not really choose or intend these actions. There is some agency, some choice and so we are responsible and can be praised or blamed. But judgements should take into account the circumstances - and so we could be forgiven and pardoned.

Briefly outline non-voluntary actions (5)

1) A non-voluntary action is unintended because it is done from ignorance.

2) For example, the Greek tragic hero, Oedipus, did not know that he killed his father and then married his own mother.

3) There are many ways in which we are ignorant when we act - we don't know all the facts, we misinterpret or misunderstand the situation etc.

4) Whether we are responsible for non-voluntary actions depends on how we behave after we find out the facts.

5) If there is regret and we wish we had acted differently, then the action was contrary to our intention (involuntary). We would still be responsible but we could be forgiven and pardoned. However, if there is no regret and we would not have acted differently, then we should be judged and held fully responsible as if this were a voluntary action.

Outline the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons (5)

1) Our virtues are dispositions built up from voluntary actions.

2) But not all voluntary actions are relevant to judging character (for example, acts done in the spur of the moment or by young people).

3) Voluntary actions relevant to virtue are the result of a special kind of internal reasoning process - choice.

4) An action is chosen if it is the result of prior deliberation.

5) What we deliberate about has to be within our control (for example, Spartans cannot deliberate about the types of government that Scythia should have).

Outline and explain the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons (12)

Our virtues are dispositions built up from voluntary actions. But not all voluntary actions are relevant to judging character (for example, acts done in the spur of the moment or by young people).

Voluntary actions relevant to virtue are the result of a special kind of internal reasoning process - choice. An action is chosen if it is the result of prior deliberation. What we deliberate about has to be within our control (for example, Spartans cannot deliberate about the types of government that Scythia should have).

Explain the role of practical reasoning in Aristotle's virtue ethics (5)

1) Aristotelian ethics gives us no simple rules on how to behave. Instead, virtue ethics requires us to have a number of practical reasoning skills that mean we will make the right decision in each situation we encounter.

2) These skills include: the ability to deliberate; understanding the situation we're in; judging what we need to do, deciding on a choice; and the cleverness to accomplish our choice.

3) In order to reach eudaimonia, we need to practise and do these things well - developing the intellectual virtue called practical wisdom (phronesis).

4) But practical wisdom is not possible without excellence of character (honesty, generosity, courage etc.) as these virtues of character establish the right goals/ends/wishes while the virtue of practical wisdom gives us the best chance of achieving those goals.

5) The skill analogy helps to illustrate phronesis. Just like the accomplished pianist understands what sounds good and why with relation to musical composition, the person with phronesis is able to understand what is good and why with relation to eudaimonia. This general conception enables the person with phronesis to understand and deliberate as to what is required in each particular situation. The person with phronesis is then able to act on that deliberation.

6) So, phronesis is a practical wisdom in the sense that it is a general understanding of good that enables us to think through, understand, and act according to what is good.

Explain the role of practical reasoning in Aristotle's virtue ethics (12)

Aristotelian ethics gives us no simple rules on how to behave. Instead, virtue ethics requires us to have a number of practical reasoning skills that mean we will make the right decision in each situation we encounter. These skills include: the ability to deliberate; understanding the situation we're in; judging what we need to do, deciding on a choice; and the cleverness to accomplish our choice.

In order to reach eudaimonia, we need to practise and do these things well - developing the intellectual virtue called practical wisdom (phronesis). But practical wisdom is not possible without excellence of character (honesty, generosity, courage etc.) as these virtues of character establish the right goals/ends/wishes while the virtue of practical wisdom gives us the best chance of achieving those goals.

The skill analogy helps to illustrate phronesis. Just like the accomplished pianist understands what sounds good and why with relation to musical composition, the person with phronesis is able to understand what is good and why with relation to eudaimonia. This general conception enables the person with phronesis to understand and deliberate as to what is required in each particular situation. The person with phronesis is then able to act on that deliberation. So, phronesis is a practical wisdom in the sense that it is a general understanding of good that enables us to think through, understand, and act according to what is good.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: that it does not give sufficient guidance on how to act (5)

1) By focusing entirely on the long-term cultivation of the moral character, virtue ethics ignores entirely the need for specific guidance when we need to do moral decision-making in particular situations.

2) Caught in a moral dilemma, while seeking the advice of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, you may find cold comfort from suggestions that you act generously, patiently and modestly whilst avoiding self-serving flattery and envy.

3) Rather than knowing how to live in general, you may seek knowledge of what to actually do in this case. Virtue Ethics may therefore be accused of being a theory, not of helpful moral guidance, but of unhelpful and nonspecific moral platitudes.

4) It seems as though there are certain ethical dilemmas where choosing the right or wrong option is not so much a reflection of one's 'good' character but rather a result of painstaking deliberation.

5) We are told to be brave and not foolhardy or cowardly, but how do we know the situation calls for bravery (e.g. storming the enemy) or the exercise of another virtue (e.g. patience)?

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: that it does not give sufficient guidance on how to act (12)

By focusing entirely on the long-term cultivation of the moral character, virtue ethics ignores entirely the need for specific guidance when we need to do moral decision-making in particular situations.

Caught in a moral dilemma, while seeking the advice of Aristotelian Virtue Ethics, you may find cold comfort from suggestions that you act generously, patiently and modestly whilst avoiding self-serving flattery and envy. Rather than knowing how to live in general, you may seek knowledge of what to actually do in this case. Virtue Ethics may therefore be accused of being a theory, not of helpful moral guidance, but of unhelpful and nonspecific moral platitudes.

It seems as though there are certain ethical dilemmas where choosing the right or wrong option is not so much a reflection of one's 'good' character but rather a result of painstaking deliberation. We are told to be brave and not foolhardy or cowardly, but how do we know the situation calls for bravery (e.g. storming the enemy) or the exercise of another virtue (e.g. patience)?

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: clashing/competing virtues (5)

1) We consider both justice and mercy to be virtues but when considering how to treat criminals we cannot be both.

2) In Heinz's Dilemma , Heinz has the choice of either watching his wife die or stealing the drug that will save her.

3) If Heinz was caught by the police during the burglary do we punish him (which is just - a virtue) or do we let him off (which would be merciful - a virtue)

4) In these situations, the suggestion to "be virtuous" may again seem to be unhelpfully vague.

5) You can't choose to do both things, so whichever choice you make will be unvirtuous in some way.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: clashing/competing virtues and how this issue is resolved (12)

We can imagine scenarios where applying two different virtues (e.g. justice and mercy) would suggest two different courses of action. We consider both justice and mercy to be virtues but when considering how to treat criminals we cannot be both.

In Heinz's Dilemma , Heinz has the choice of either watching his wife die or stealing the drug that will save her. If Heinz was caught by the police during the burglary do we punish him (which is just - a virtue) or do we let him off (which would be merciful - a virtue). In these situations, the suggestion to "be virtuous" may again seem to be unhelpfully vague. You can't choose to do both things, so whichever choice you make will be unvirtuous in some way.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous persons (5)

1) Arguments have reasons and conclusions but in a circular argument the reason is the same as the conclusion.

2) Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which doesn't really say anything.

3) He's saying like: a virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do; and a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts.

4)These descriptions are circular and so say nothing meaningful about what a virtuous person or a virtuous act actually is.

5) This circular definition is problematic because it does nothing to help explain the nature of virtuous actions/ people.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous persons (12)

Arguments have reasons and conclusions but in a circular argument the reason is the same as the conclusion. Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which doesn't really say anything.

He's saying: a virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do; and a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts. These descriptions are circular and so say nothing meaningful about what a virtuous person or a virtuous act actually is. This circular definition is problematic because it does nothing to help explain the nature of virtuous actions/ people.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: whether a trait must contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue (5)

1) According to Aristotle, the good life for a human being is eudaimonia.

2) Eudaimonia includes many elements beyond simply being moral - such as honour, wealth, and happiness. However, we often make a distinction between a good life for me (eudaimonia) and a morally good life.

3) For example, imagine a nurse who spends her entire life saving lives in some remote country. She doesn't enjoy her work, but does it because she believes it's needed. She's constantly stressed and dies at age 30 from a virus caught while carrying out her work.

4) With such an example, we tend to have a strong intuition that this nurse's life is morally good (she's done nothing but help other people) but she clearly did not achieve eudaimonia.

5) This suggests there is a difference between what is morally good and eudaimonia, and so Aristotle's virtue ethics fails as an account of what morality is.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: whether a trait must contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue (12)

According to Aristotle, the good life for a human being is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia includes many elements beyond simply being moral - such as honour, wealth, and happiness. However, we often make a distinction between a good life for me (eudaimonia) and a morally good life.

For example, imagine a nurse who spends her entire life saving lives in some remote country. She doesn't enjoy her work, but does it because she believes it's needed. She's constantly stressed and dies at age 30 from a virus caught while carrying out her work. With such an example, we tend to have a strong intuition that this nurse's life is morally good (she's done nothing but help other people) but she clearly did not achieve eudaimonia. This suggests there is a difference between what is morally good and eudaimonia, and so Aristotle's virtue ethics fails as an account of what morality is.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good (5)

1) A distinction between actions tat are self-interested (good for the individual) and actions that benefit others (morally good) is usually drawn in ethical theories.

2) Some of Aristotle's virtues benefit only the individuals possessing them: traits like being ambitious, proud and aristocratic.

3) The ethical theory is an account of hoe we, the individual, can each flourish and live a good life.

4) Even intellectual virtues like practical wisdom are also self-interested in that they help me to reach eudaimonia for myself.

5) Must a trait really contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue? There may be virtues relating to our treatment of the environment and wider society which do not contribute to our eudaimonia.

Explain the difficulty for Aristotelian virtue ethics: the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good (12)

A distinction between actions tat are self-interested (good for the individual) and actions that benefit others (morally good) is usually drawn in ethical theories.

Some of Aristotle's virtues benefit only the individuals possessing them: traits like being ambitious, proud and aristocratic. The ethical theory is an account of hoe we, the individual, can each flourish and live a good life. Even intellectual virtues like practical wisdom are also self-interested in that they help me to reach eudaimonia for myself.

Additionally, must a trait really contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue? There may be virtues relating to our treatment of the environment and wider society which do not contribute to our eudaimonia.