Virtue Ethics

Good morning, scholars!

Welcome back to Medical Ethics, the course that dares ask the question: Are you okay?

Let’s dig in!

Today we go back to the days of the ancient Greeks, to THE MAN: Aristotle. But what did he do?

He just single-handedly invented biology, zoology, meteorology, botany, political science, logic, literary criticism, and metaphysics.

Other than that, not much. For our purposes, he also wrote a book about ethics, called the “Nicomachean Ethics.” He named it for his son, Nicomachus. Isn’t that sweet? Sounds like a nice guy (though apparently, he sort of wasn’t…a bit arrogant, but maybe you would be too if you were as smart as he was). Anyhoo…

Aristotle’s ethics are often called “Virtue Ethics.” Here’s the basics:

1) Moral evaluations of actions should take into account the character of the agent. So, when asking why saving a drowning child is the right thing to do, the answer is: That is what a GOOD person would do! See how this response ignores questions of consequences or duty found in utilitarianism and Kantianism/deontology.

2) Emphasis: Less on what to DO, more on who to BE and how to LIVE. Aristotle thought that the function of a person was to be excellent and virtuous. But being these is not theoretical, but ACTIVE. Virtuous action in accordance with reason: that is why we are here! Being virtuous is the only way to live a flourishing life.

3) Virtue ethics tends to use a less abstract moral vocabulary than other moral theories. It uses words like “courage,” “generosity,” and “honesty.” No talk of utility maximization or categorical imperatives.

If you are looking for something like a “primary moral principle,” it would be this:

An action is right if and only if it is what an agent with a virtuous character would do in the same circumstances.

But you may be thinking, “Okay Doc, but what is a VIRTUE?”

Question: What exactly is a virtuous character?

I like to answer this question: Captain America! What would Captain America do?

Technically, in circumstance C, Captain America would do X, because he has the virtue Y, where Y is a disposition to act virtuously. Required: NOT JUST acting virtuously, but acting from a place of actual virtue, having virtuous motives and intentions.

That is sort of rule of virtue ethics: you can’t pretend to be virtuous. You must REALLY BE VIRTUOUS!

Maybe we can make this easier by just listing what Aristotle thought were the virtues:

  • Truthfulness (Be honest!)

  • Courage (Be courageous!)

  • Temperance (Don’t drink or eat or do anything to excess!)

  • Friendliness (Be friendly!)

  • Modesty (Don’t brag like a bragging braggart!)

  • Liberality (Be generous, not a cheap miserly punk!)

These are the virtues! But…are these the ONLY ones? Can you think of more? I can: patience. They say “Patience is a virtue.” I know that’s right. I’ve been to a Wal-Mart.

Aristotle says you need to have all these virtues, but you have to know HOW MUCH of a given virtue to have. If you are TOO honest, you hurt a lot of feelings and maybe get punched. If you are TOO generous, you give away all your swag and end up living in the dumpster behind a Dunkin’ Donuts. And so on.

So, Aristotle speaks of “THE GOLDEN MEAN,” which is the right balance between the two extremes of any virtue.

Consider the virtue of courage. Don't havd enough courage? You’re a coward. Too much? You’re a crazy berserker. Right in the middle? Well, that’s the sweet spot. One has to know when and when not to get their courage on!

But how do you know? How does one even learn these virtues?

Aristotle gives us two ways:

  • Developing virtuous habits through practice. (Education, team.)

  • Emulating or modelling virtuous people. (Like Captain America!)

And that, dearest peeps, is Virtue Ethics! Let’s ask the tough questions now.

What are the pros and cons of this theory?

The PROS:

1) The theory focuses attention on the importance of the development of good persons to create a good society, rather than rules and punishments.

2) The theory is useful because we are often more interested in determining the moral character of persons rather than actions.

3) The theory incorporates the whole human life: to truly live well, you must be a virtuous person.

THE CONS:

1) The very concept of virtue is unclear. Don’t we have to know what a virtue is before we can act according to it? Who decides what the virtues are?

2) The theory fails to adequately cover cases where there are conflicts between virtues, i.e.      honesty and kindness. Some times you have to lie to be kind…which virtue takes precedence?

3)  The theory says that being virtuous is necessary for living the good life. Is this true? Are happiest people the ones who are the most virtuous?