Issues with Virtue ethics

Does virtue ethics give clear guidance about how to act?

Mill's Principle of Utility and Kant's categorical imperative provide rules on how to act, however Aristotle's virtue ethics has no clear rules. The doctrine of the mean does not tell us to "act moderately in every situation" but rather to "do the right/virtuous thing in every situation", but this is unhelpful because it is vague.

• Aristotle himself admits that knowing what we need to do is very difficult, writing that it is not easy "to feel or act towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reason in the right way".

• However virtue ethics accepts that each situation is unique and moral rules always have exceptions, in response to the complexity of moral situations virtue ethics requires us to be thoughtful and act virtuously and to practice and repeat this. So there is some guidance, namely to develop: virtuous traits (courage)

• However virtue ethics accepts that each situation is unique and moral rules always have exceptions, in response to the complexity of moral situations virtue ethics requires us to be thoughtful and act virtuously and to practice and repeat this. So there is some guidance, namely to develop:

• practical wisdom.

• Rosalind Hursthouse argues virtue ethics gives further guidance on how to act. We know what virtues we should strive to develop and which vices to avoid. For Hursthouse, these can be turned into rules for action/"v-rules".

• The virtue of honesty entails the v-rule- "do what is honest".

Criticism of does virtue ethics give clear guidance about how to act?

Different cultures may value different character traits, suggesting that virtues and vices are relative. However James Rachels argues that there are some universal virtues (honesty, loyalty, generosity) valued by all societies, which would entail universal v-rules.

Can virtue ethics deal with clashing virtues?

• moral theories can be tested against "hard cases" - moral dilemmas. For Aristotle's theory these occur where virtues conflict with one another. For example, a loved one has a painful terminal illness and may plead with you to help them die. The virtue of charity motivates you to help them towards euthanasia, the virtue of justice forbids you from killing.

• VIRTUE ETHICISTS have a number of ways of resolving the clash, they can:

• explain how the conflict is only apparent and that practical wisdom will help determine which virtue is most appropriate/right to exhibit in this situation.

• propose a hierarchy of virtues; Aristotle for example would put justice above charity.

• admit (as Hursthouse does) that sometimes there is no resolution of the clash, but at least virtue ethics recognises the impact this has on us. Helping someone in pain to die/allowing them to live is a decision that leaves us with a residue of pain, guilt or regret. Hursthouse calls these emotions the "moral remainder" and only virtue ethics is sophisticated enough to recognise these as morally significant.

The problem of circularity

Aristotle tells us that a virtuous act is one done by someone who is virtuous. And a virtuous person is someone who habitually performs virtuous acts.

• Aristotle therefore can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other. This circular definition is problematic because it does nothing to explain significantly the nature of virtuous actions/people.

• However, Aristotle could also be interpreted as describing the virtuous person in terms of eudaimonia and therefore the definition cannot be circular, virtues are traits that enable a person to achieve eudaimonia.

Must a trait contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue?

• In his function argument, Aristotle is clear that we cannot live the good life for humans (eudaimonia) without being a good human (and having virtues). So by being virtuous I contribute to my own eudaimonia. But is it possible to have a virtue that doesn't contribute to eudaimonia?

• Aristotle would disagree, for him all virtues contribute to eudaimonia, whether virtues of character or intellectual virtues.

• But there have been other accounts of virtue ethics over the last 2500 years, Hume for example gave a non-Aristotelian account of those positive character traits we call virtues. Hume makes no mention of eudaimonia, but conversely argues that we approve of virtues due to their utility/agreeability. For Hume these virtues arise from our sympathy for other people, so on Hume's account a trait does not need to contribute to eudaimonia in order to be a virtue.

The individual and the moral good

• Moral philosophy, as we are familiar with it, draws a distinction between actions that are self-interested (good for the individual) and actions that benefit others (morally good). But is Aristotle's virtue ethics primarily a self-interested theory, a moral theory, or perhaps both?

• Aristotle's ethics is about good for the individual- The Ethics is clearly an account of how we can flourish and live a good life.

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

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

• Aristotle's ethics is about the moral good- Aristotle believes he has shown that what is truly good for the individual is to strive for a life of virtue.

• many virtues we would immediately recognise as "moral" (in the modern sense) such as justice, generosity, truthfulness, friendliness and courage as they benefit those around us.

• Aristotle is very clear that some behaviours (which we all recognise in modern terms as "immoral"), such as murder and theft, are never appropriate in any circumstances.

In Aristotle's ethics the good for the individual = the moral good?

• within the ancient Greek tradition of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, moral behaviour does not conflict with self-interested behaviour.

• we must be careful to follow our true self-interest, not our apparent self-interest. Aristotle argues that we are wrong if we think that what is good for us is a life of pleasure/wealth/honour as these do not lead to eudaimonia.

• the good life is a thoughtful, considered, active life, in which we develop virtues which generally will benefit both ourselves as well as others- so as each of us flourishes individually we all flourish collectively as a community.

• this individual pursuit of proper self-interest towards virtue and eudaimonia thus results in what modern philosophers would call the "moral good".

Satre for function argument