Aristotelian virtue ethics

What are virture ethics?

A type of normative ethical theory which tells us how to be (virtues and character traits), it is agent centred and takes into account the past and future actions of the agent rather than just the present act.

What’s Aristotles argument for his teleological view?

1) Everything we do is aimed at some good

2) Each good is also done for the sake of some higher good

3) This cannot go on forever

C) Therefore, there must be an ultimate good, which everything we do is aimed towards.

What are criticism to Aristotle’s teleological argument?

Some actions e.g daydreaming don’t appear to have a purpose.

Fallacy of composition.

What is Eudaemonia?

Eudaemonia’s modern translation is ‘flourishing’, it is the ‘good life for human beings’ and it is the ‘final end’ (supreme good) The criteria for it are: 1) It must be an end 2)It must be the final end 3)It must be self-sufficient 4) It must be the most desirable of all things 5) It must be intimately related to us human beings.

It is achieved by living thee best a human being can live).

What are the differences between Eudaimonia and pleasure/ happiness?

A life of happiness/ pleasure is a ‘bovine existence’, which is only fit for cattle. Eudaimonia is not a state of mind, not subjective and not something that is easily changed, like pleasure, but instead it characterises the act of living and is stable and objective.

People gain pleasure/ happiness from doing what they love, a virtuous person should love exercising virtues, therefore a virtuous life is a happy/ pleasurable life. Therefore, a Eudaimonia is a pleasant life (rather than feeling).

Why is wealth not Eudaimonia?

Wealth (an external good) can be used to exercise the virtue of generosity, it is not in itself Eudaimonia (as the acquisition of money is a means to an end) but to an extent is needed to be virtuous (e.g exercise the virtue of generosity).

Why is honour not Eudaimonia?

Honour is something that is bestowed on us by other people. Eudaimonia isn’t given to us by others, we gain it ourself and it’s not easily lost. Some people strive for honour in order to gain a higher good (as a means to an end).

Why is goodness alone not Eudaimonia?

Someone who is good or virtuous can experience suffering and misery, therefore goodness cannot by itself guarantee Eudaimonia (as we would’t be striving for it) we need both external and internal goods for our lives to go well.

What is the function (ergon) argument?

1) A good life for a human is determined by the life of a good human

2) Everything has a function (ergon)

3) Therefore, humans must also have a function (ergon)

4) Our function (ergon) is our characteristic activity, determined by our soul.

5) We share nutrition/ growth with plants and perception with animals so neither of them are our ergon. Only humans have a rational soul.

6) Our characteristic activity (function) lies in the rational aspects of our soul.

7) Therefore the function of a human is to exercise the rational aspects of our soul.

8) To be a good X requires X fulfilling its function well through the exercise of the appropriate virtue/ excellence (arete).

9) So to be a good human requires exercising those virtues through the rational aspects of the soul.

What is the first part of the function argument- humans characteristic activity. (Textbook)

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

2) Therefore human beings must have a distinctive function

3) Our function cannot be nutritionally/ growth or sentience- as these are not distinctive to humans. Being guided by reason is distinctive to humans.

C) Therefore our function is to live guided by reason.

What are criticism to the first part (textbook) of Aristotles function argument?

Aristotle used a weak argument from analogy and may have committed the fallacy of composition.

What’s the second part of Aristotles function argument (textbook)?

P4) X is good if it fulfils it;’s function well.

P5) X fulfils it’s 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) Therefore our function good life of a human (Eudaimonia)= the life of a good human (someone with virtures allowing them to be guided well by reason is)

C) Therefore Eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtures which enable them to be guided well by reason.

What is the conclusion it the function argument?

The good life for a human is determined by exercising those virtues through the rational aspects of the soul. Our characteristic is that we are guided by reason and so our ergon is living in accordance with reason, to fulfil this, we must be guided by the right reasons. Therefore, Eudaimonia is living a life in which you exercise virtues which are in accordance with reason.

What is a virture? What is its translation?

Virtues (Arête) are character traits relating to our emotions or our desires which result in dispositions (tendency’s to act in certain ways), however are not merely our tendency’s but instead involve the choices we make, reasons for which we act and involves a commitment to an ethical value. Virtues are possessed by ‘virtuous’ people (people who we admire and praise).

How did Aristotles define/ describe virtues?

Virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in the mean ie relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle, and by that principle by which the person of practical wisdom would determine it.

What’s Aristotles analysis of the soul?

How does this relate to virture?

An arational part, which can be divided into two parts: one related to growth and nutrition and another part related to desire and emotion. As well as a rational part which can also be divided into two parts: practical reason and theoretical reason.

There are two types of virtues: those of intelligence (reasoning part) and virtues of character (part of desire and emotion)

What is the translation and meaning of Kakia?

Kakia (vice → excellence or deficiency) is a characteristic or disposition (a tendency feel, think, react, choose and act in a certain way, habitually and reliably, under certain circumstances) to held by ‘viscous’ people (those who we condemn).

What is the doctrine of the mean?

What are the two interpretations?

What are situations where there is no mean?

The doctrine if the mean is the idea that often virtue lie between two vices.

1) Objective mean- a mean which is equidistant between two extremes. 2)A mean relative to the situation, it is neither two much or too little in a given situation/ individual e.g Olympic Games, athletes eat different amount dependent upon the requirements and function of each athlete, Milo of Croton- 20 pounds a day

Murder is always wrong,

Give the excess, deficiency and mean (virture) of the following sphere of action/ feeling.

1) Fear and confidence

2) Self- expression

3) Getting a spending

1) rashness, courage, cowardice

2) boastfulness, truthfulness, understatement

3) vulgarity, magnificence, stinginess

Is doing the right things always virtuous?

Doing the right thing is only virtuous if it is accompanied by the right intentions and emotions.

How is humans rationality related to virtures?

Reason is essential to develop virtues as you are both knowing and choosing what you’re doing (which are both rational activities). We have to use practical reasoning to calculate the mean (virtue) in every (varying) circumstances). Reason binds together in intellectual and moral virtues.

What is practical wisdom?

How does practical wisdom relate to our passions?

Practical wisdom is a virtue of reason.

The right way to feel passion is determined by reason

What is the skill analogy?

We need to develop virtues over our life time as we are not born with them but have the capacity to learn them. We can develop virtues alike to how we develop skills, you become virtuous by exercising virtues (alike to learning how to cook by practising how to cook). Copy the virtues of other virtuous people → practice until it’s a habit (still a conscious choice but is easy/ enjoyable) and understand the skill/ virtue → learn to apply it to different contexts (e.g a cook tastes the dish and adjusts the seasoning, virtuous people calculate the virtuous thing to do in each situation).

What do virtuous acts consist of?

The agent knows what they’re doing, does the act for its own sake and makes their choice from a firm and unchangeable character.

What are voluntary actions?

A voluntary act is we intend to do the action and the origin of the action lies within us, we carry out in full knowledge what we are doing and we freely choose it. Only these actions can be praised or blamed as only these acts are representative of out disposition and ones which we bear full responsibility for.

What’s the issue of Aristotelian virtue ethics on whether it gives sufficiently clear guidance on how to act?

Aristotelian virtue ethics doesn’t give us clear guidance on how to act in different situations, the Doctrine of the mean mean cannot provide rules as Aristotle did not take the mean to be ‘moderation’ (Milo of Croton) as the mean is relative to the situation, something which we need to work out via our practical wisdom (this is an issue if you do not have practical wisdom, and so don’t have virtue).

How does Aristotle respond to the issue of whether Aristotelian Virtue Ethics can give sufficiently clear advice about how to act?

People have some sense of what is good and the knowledge of what is good can be improved by becoming more virtuous people. The guidance that the theory gives it to develop virtues of character and practical wisdom as virtue ethics accepts that every situation is different and that moral rules always have acceptions.

What is a counter argument to the issues that Aristotelian Virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance on how to act (Rosalind Hursthouse)?

Aristotle’s list of virtues and vices can from v-rules (virtues- ‘do X’, vices -‘do not do Y’). E.g the virtue of truthfulness being ‘do what is honest’ and the vice of meanness being ‘do not do what is uncharitable’.

What’s a criticism of Roseland Hursthouses response to the issue of whether Aristotelian Virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act?

Different cultures may value different character traits suggesting that virtue and vices are relative.

What’s the issues of Aristotelian virtue ethics regarding conflicting virtues (2)?

There are usually multiple virtues which we could act upon in any given situation and sometimes there may be conflicts between possible responses. E.g a loved one who is suffering is begging you to help them diem there is a clash between charity and justice.

How do virtue ethicists deal with clashing virtues?

Conflict is only apparent and practical wisdom will help determine the right virtue to act upon. Propose a hierarchy of virtues, e.g Aristotle would put justice above charity. Admit sometimes that there is mo resolution to the clash and that wither way there will be a ‘moral remainder’- in this instance a residue of pain or guilt. (Rosalind Hursthouse)

What is the issue about the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other?

Aristotle tells us that we should act virtuously and that a virtuous act is one done by someone who is virtuous and that virtuous people are those who choose virtuous acts. E.g knowing what the courageous act is. This is a problem as it does not help explain the nature of virtuous people/acts.

What are responses to the issue of circularity?