Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is an agent-centered normative ethical theory, which focuses on virtues to develop a good moral character
Eudaimonia = ‘the good’, meaning human flourishing, living well and faring well. It is achieved through a mixture of developing intellectual virtues and character virtues such that we are both moral and act with rational activity. This is good because all people desire it for its own sake, not for some other benefit (and all other things we want eventually lead to eudaimonia). Most important part of virtue ethics, central foundation of theory.
The Function Argument:
Eudaimonia is to fulfil one’s function
Humans must have a function, as all parts of a human have a function
The human function is something distinctively human
Rational activity is distinctively human
Acting rationally, with a purpose, in accordance with virtues is fulfilling the human function and therefore achieves eudaimonia
You only have virtues/achieve eudaimonia if you can actually act on your virtues, it's not enough to just have them.
→fallacy of composition (all parts of a human have a function therefore humans must have a function) - just because the method is wrong does not make the conclusion false: human beings having a function is part of the grand scheme of the universe, we can give ourselves a function without having a natural function (fulfilling our telos),
→rational activity is not the only distinctively human function (e.g. making fire, sex outside of seasonal periods, making jokes, destruction of the environment) - could argue that these are all under the broader branch of rational activity and none apart for rational activity are broad enough
→rational activity is not distinctively human (e.g. elephants mourn when a loved one’s die, animals have thoughts) - but there is still no evidence for animals having rational activity e.g. considered its place in the universe, asked questions, developed new tools, clear distinct sense of something uniquely human about rational activity
What are virtues and how do we acquire them: Virtues are characteristics or traits that lead people towards what is good or true. There are two kinds of virtue.
Intellectual virtues: subject to reason, lead to truth when exercised, e.g. phronesis, creative thinking, lead us to character virtues
Character virtues: not to do with reason but changed via deliberation, leading us to moral goodness
Virtues are developed by training and education and become good once they are done by habit and not deliberation.
The Doctrine of the Mean: A way of identifying what virtues are and how we can contextually approach them. It says that virtues always lie between two vices, such that an excess of what makes the virtue is a bad action, as is a deficiency of the same thing.
An excess of courage would be recklessness and the deficiency would be cowardice, the mean depends on the person and the situation.
According to Aristotle, you should do the thing that a more virtuous person than you would do.
Questions:
Aristotle describes eudaimonia as the ‘good’; it is an idea of human flourishing, leading a good life. The concept of eudaimonia includes ideas of intellectual development and personal development, and is achieved thrugh developing both moral and intellectual virtues so we act rationally and morally. According to Aristotle, it is through the human function of rational activity that eudaimonia is achieved, and eudaimonia is desirable as an end in itself, achieved for its own benefit rather than the benefit of something else.
Eudaimonia is to fulfil ones function
Humans must have a function as all parts of a human have a function
the human function is distinctively human
Rational activity is distinctively human
Therefore rational activity, in accordance
Voluntary actions versus involuntary actions:
Voluntary actions are actions we are morally responsible for. We deserve praise or blame for them. Involuntary actions are those made due to force (physical or extreme psychological) or acting from ignorance. A choice is a voluntary action which includes some kind of deliberation prior to the act. Not all voluntary actions are choices (might not have seen all the other choices, might be because of your virtues and characteristics).
Virtues, actions and reasons:
Practical wisdom is a virtue which is necessary for the development of other virtues. Practical wisdom includes knowing good from bad, being able to apply that to the context and then having the ability knowledge to carry out that action
People who are genuinely bad in character are doing so out of choice, not everyone who makes voluntary bad acts are bad people, they have merely developed some bad traits. The only genuinely bad actions are actions chosen even though people know they are bad. Different to a mistake, someone who makes a mistake can practice meeting the doctrine of the mean via practical wisdom.
Justice is also a special category in that it is a deontological virtue, so that the act of virtue supersedes the contexts of other virtues to help us make decisions that are just and do not put others at a disadvantage.
Questions:
Aristotle describes justice as a deontological virtue, which is more important than any other virtues in all contexts. Justice stops us from putting others at a disadvantage, even if it might prevent us from exercising some hypothetical virtue. For example, Aristotelian virtue ethics would argue that it is never okay to cheat on a test, as doing so puts others at a disadvantage and is unjust.
A voluntary action, according to virtue ethics, is one which we are morally responsible for. Choices are voluntary actions (although not all voluntary actions are choices), and we deserve praise or blame for them. Involuntary actions are actions done as a result of extreme physical or psychological force, or alternatively from ignorance. We are not morally responsible for our involuntary actions, because they are not the choices we would have made without force.
Aristotle argues that practical wisdom involves knowing good from bad, knowing what virtues to exercise in what situation, applying this in a context and carrying it out in a situation. According to Aristotle, practical wisdom is a virtue which is necessary for developing other virtues.
Evaluating virtue ethics
Strengths:
All other ethical theories seem to face issues. Anscombe criticizes other ethical theories: consequentialism faces the problem of distribution and allows people to justify the unjustifiable (e.g. executing an individual to protect the majority), deontology also faces a multitude of issues and allows us to justify weird acts we wouldn’t want to justify (e.g. the axe murderer), basing morality on an inner conscience doesn’t work
Agent-centred focus has benefits compared to other theories (e.g. axe murderer – lying is not explicitly wrong but is contextualized by other virtues)
Goal of a eudaimonic life which everyone could equally achieve, individual values are not prioritised over other people
Allows us to consider justice and think about what is fair
All other modern moral philosophy argues that we have obligations (e.g. duties, utility) without explaining the basis of these whereas virtue ethics does have an explanation for eudaimonia, and everyone desires a flourishing life
01 - Issue of unclear guidance
The doctrine of the mean is unhelpful in deciding things like the right action in the right way, at the right time etc. How are we supposed to know the mean level of virtues or intentions about virtues etc.
There are no clear guidelines, but we practice and deliberate and then develop over time to improve the right amount of virtues. Practical wisdom can also help us.
But practical wisdom is a terrible system of morality, because those who have it cannot teach it and those who do not have it cannot copy it so won’t gain it. You need practical wisdom to exercise virtues but won’t gain practical wisdom until you exercise virtues.
Annas: but we don’t exist in a vacuum, and we are surrounded by guidance from the law, friends, family, people we admire etc. We never start without any guide, and it is about our individual development.
Not a serious issue
02 – Issue of competing virtues
Some virtues might be in competition woth each other, so it cannot be the case that they lead us to the right actions. For example, honesty might clash with loyalty, or generosity with mercy.
However, this is not an actual issue. Virtues will never compete with each other, as all situations will have a best balance and different amounts are required in different scenarios. Practical wisdom is there to help us balance these better and decide the best way to act. This objection is an act-centred way of thinking: single virtues do not align to single scenarios.
Rubbish objection
03 – Issue of circular reasoning
Is an act of virtue based on the virtuous person, or are virtuous acts the ones virtuous people do? This is begging the question.
Virtuous people are more than just the acts they do, and we can discover them through other methods: the virtuous person defines the act.
But how am I to know who a virtuous person is if I cannot identify the acts. I can’t identify the person without knowing the acts and I can’t identify the acts because I don’t know the person. (more pressing circular issue)
Annas says it's more important to think of the virtuous person as yourself but more virtuous: what would I do to be more kind/generous/loyal etc. (not the strongest of responses, doesn’t take away from the circularity). We could also use our foundation of practical wisdom to help inform our ideas of what a virtuous act would be, allowing us to become a more virtuous person
More of a serious objection
04 – Issue of moral goodness vs individual goodness
We seem to often contrast morality with self-interest. Eudaimonia is not the best ultimate goal – there are plenty of people who are self-sacrificing in order to be virtuously good such as a tired aid-worker, or a frustrated environmental campaigner. If a morally good life involves self-sacrifice, but someone who lives this sort of life is not achieving eudaimonia, then there is a difference between a morally good life and eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia can’t be understood in terms of narrow self-interest. We don’t know what eudaimonia is until we have identified all of the virtues, which we won’t do. So instead, living according to virtues is what counts as leading a flourishing life according to Aristotle. These commitents involve a concern for other’s wellbeing for its own sake. By pursuing my eudaimonia, I am not putting my interests above anyone elses.
But we can press the objection that there are some virtuous lives that don’t involve the person flourishing. You could argue that it is better to lead a life of integrity than not, like the aid worker or environmentalist. But integrity is not the same as flourishing, and so there is not one unified end, as virtues pull us in different directions.
More of a serious objection but we could provide an open response.