Virtue Ethics: Aristotle, Doris, & Annas

Ethics

study of good and bad

Summun bonum

the highest good

Mill’s summun bonum

happiness

Kant’s summun bonum

good will

Aristotle’s summun bonum

something that is “good” in itself, or eudaimonia.

Eudaimonia

happiness, or living rationally in accordance with virtues; the human function- an active use of reason.

Most controlled science

Political Science

Function of humans

to use reason “well and finely”.

Happiness uses our reason

Mill

A good will is determined by reason

Kant

Using reasons for our own self-seeking interests; selfishness

using reasoning poorly.

Virtue (Aristotle)

an intermediary state.

Intermediary state

a mean between feeling too little or too much.

No decision procedure is needed to determine it, and it is relative to us (as we all have different personalities).

features of the “mean”

State

the decision we take with respect to feelings.

The doctrine of the mean

Each virtue is a mean between two extremes; the mean depends on context.

Must perform virtuous actions on purpose, lean towards committing a virtuous action because it is virtuous, must be virtuous in an “firm & unchanging” state, and must enjoying do all above.

aristotle’s features of a virtuous person.

Virtue (Doris)

the performance of right actions in the most difficult and most demanding circumstance.

Cross-situational consistency

behavior that is consistent with a trait in a range of situations.

Situationism

belief of Doris; belief that cross-situationally character traits are not widely instituted- character doesn’t really matter.

Samaritan Study

study based off the reading of a parable from the bible; subjects of this study read this story and were then put into a test to see if they would help someone who was hurt- based on the level of hurry they were in.

The fundamental attribution error

the tendency to over credit dispositional (personality) features, but under credit situationist behaviors when explaining behavior.

Situations do not equal actual character.

doris’ conclusion.

Descriptive level

people do the right thing because they act in accordance with virtues.

Normative level

people should act in accordance with virtues.

Dispositional attribution

assigns behavior to person’s character traits/personality.

Ex: “He failed the test because he is lazy.”

Situational attribution

explains behavior using context, environmental conditions, or external pressures.

Ex: “He failed the test because the room was too loud, or the test was too hard.”

Global personality judgements

moral judgements like calling someone a “good” or “bad” person.

General trait ascriptions

character traits like honest, compassionate, etc.

Thick personality traits

traits that tell us something about a person’s character across different situations. (Doris says we should get rid of this)

Thin personality traits

traits that tell us something brief about an action a person makes or when describing something; local traits that happen only in the moment. (Doris says we can keep this).

Virtue (Annas)

a state to act on reasons, and to deliberate and make decisions.

Practical wisdom

the capacity to deliberate well about how to live (Aristotle wants us to cultivate this).

Natural virtue

an unreflective disposition to be moved in a certain way (this is what

the Situationist tests for).

The firmness of a virtuous person’s character should decided upon with evaluations and intelligent deliberations, not with fixed responses.

annas’ main argument to dorris.