Comprehensive Study Notes on Virtue Ethics

Foundations and Philosophical Approach of Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics represents a distinct departure from both deontological and teleological approaches to moral decision-making. Unlike deontology, which focuses on adherence to rules and duties, or teleology, which evaluates the morality of acts based on their consequences, virtue ethics does not judge actions in terms of rightness or wrongness or the resulting outcomes. Instead, it is centered on the qualities or virtues that an individual must cultivate to become a better person. As Bowie ($2004$) observes, virtue theory is primarily interested in defining good people and the specific qualities that constitute their goodness. Consequently, this ethical framework prioritizes "being" over "doing." The character of the moral agent is deemed more significant than the individual morality of their actions. Schneewind ($2007$) notes a general consensus that a virtue-centered view places character at the core of morality, shifting the central moral inquiry from "What ought I to do?" to "What sort of person am I to be?"

While virtue ethics and utilitarianism both pursue happiness as an ultimate objective, they remain fundamentally different. Utilitarianism seeks to achieve happiness through the external results of actions, whereas virtue ethics focuses internally on character traits. The Greek philosopher Aristotle ($384-322\,BC$) is credited with the initial development of virtue ethics. Aristotle was a student of Plato ($428-347\,BC$) for nearly twenty years at the Academy in Athens before establishing his own school, the Lyceum. In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle attempts to define the purpose of human life. He posits that every art, investigation, action, and pursuit aims at some "good." This "good" is not merely for the individual but for the greater humanity. Aristotle stated, "If then, our activities have some end which we want for its own sake… it is clear that this must be the Good, that is the supreme Good." He argued that while securing the good for an individual is desirable, securing it for a state or people is "finer and more sublime."

Eudaimonia and the Nature of Virtue

For Aristotle, the supreme good is human flourishing, or eudaimonia, which translates to "being happy and living well." According to Tyler and Reid ($2002$), Aristotle identified happiness as the highest practical good upon which both ordinary and cultured people agree. While concepts such as honor, pleasure, and understanding are valid pursuits, they serve only as means to achieve happiness. In contrast, happiness is never pursued to achieve any other goal; it is the final end. To attain this supreme good, individuals must develop virtues (from the Greek word arête), which are dispositions that sustain practices and enable the achievement of internal goods while helping to overcome harms, temptations, and distractions.

Aristotle suggests that moral virtues are developed by controlling feelings through habit and practice. The mark of true virtue is possessing these feelings at the right times, on the right grounds, towards the right people, for the right motive, and in the right way. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he categorizes virtues into two types: moral virtues and intellectual virtues. Through habit and instruction, an individual can flourish, benefiting both themselves and their community. Aristotle emphasized that people should learn how to live virtuously from good role models, eventually reaching a state where virtue becomes an "automatic way of living" exercised without conscious effort. Thompson ($2003$) notes that developing virtues is a social, political, and moral necessity of communal life. Aristotle further believed that the primary motivation for living a moral life was to develop friendships, famously stating, "Nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things."

The Twelve Moral Virtues and the Golden Mean

Moral virtues are the character qualities essential for becoming a good person. Aristotle identified twelve specific moral virtues and argued that living virtuously involves hitting the "mean" or midway point between two extremes. As Vardy and Grosch ($1999$) explain, one must veer away from excess and deficiency. Aristotle used the analogy of food and drink: too much or too little destroys health, but the right amount ensures it. Each virtue lies between a vice of excess and a vice of deficiency. This middle state is known as the "golden mean." This is not a pursuit of mediocrity or "averageness," but rather the pursuit of characteristics belonging to a perfect person.

The following is the complete list of Aristotle's virtues and their corresponding vices:

1. Courage: The mean between Rashness (excess) and Cowardice (deficiency).
2. Temperance: The mean between Licentiousness (excess) and Insensibility (deficiency).
3. Liberality: The mean between Prodigality (excess) and Illiberality (deficiency).
4. Magnificence: The mean between Vulgarity (excess) and Pettiness (deficiency).
5. Magnanimity: The mean between Vanity (excess) and Pusillanimity (deficiency).
6. Proper Ambition: The mean between Ambition (excess) and Lack of Ambition (deficiency).
7. Patience: The mean between Irascibility (excess) and Lack of Spirit (deficiency).
8. Truthfulness: The mean between Boastfulness (excess) and Understatement (deficiency).
9. Wittiness: The mean between Buffoonery (excess) and Boorishness (deficiency).
10. Friendliness: The mean between Obsequiousness (excess) and Cantankerousness (deficiency).
11. Modesty: The mean between Shyness (excess) and Shamelessness (deficiency).
12. Righteous Indignation: The mean between Envy (excess) and Malicious Enjoyment (deficiency).

Intellectual Virtues

Intellectual virtues are qualities of the mind developed over a lifetime through instruction. Aristotle identifies nine intellectual virtues, split into five primary and four secondary virtues.

The Primary Intellectual Virtues are:

• Art or Technical Skill: The ability to be creative and know how to bring things into existence.
• Scientific Knowledge: Knowledge pertaining to the universe.
• Prudence or Practical Wisdom: The quality of being careful and balancing personal interests with the interests of others.
• Intelligence or Intuition: Instinctively acting in a manner reflecting intellectual virtues.
• Wisdom: The knowledge and understanding of all things.

The Secondary Intellectual Virtues are:

• Resourcefulness: Being creative or clever in methodology.
• Understanding: Knowing how things work and what they mean.
• Judgement: Forming fair opinions and decisions that account for what is right and just for all.
• Cleverness: The ability to learn and understand complex concepts.

Historical Development and Medieval Synthesis

By the late Middle Ages, Aristotle's theory was the definitive account of morality. St. Ambrose ($340-397$) added the theological virtues: love, faith, hope, and charity. In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas ($1224-1274$) incorporated the "cardinal virtues," derived from the Latin cardo, meaning hinge. These are the hinges upon which morality depends. Aquinas’s four cardinal virtues are:

1. Prudence: Careful, non-reckless thought and action.
2. Temperance: Moderation and self-control.
3. Fortitude: Courage when bearing pain.
4. Justice: Being fair to all, enabling the individual to relate properly to others.

Aquinas positioned these virtues at the opposite end of the scale from the Seven Deadly Sins (capital vices): pride, avarice (greed to own things), lust, envy, gluttony (greed for food), anger, and sloth. He argued that a virtuous person will not let these vices influence their life.

The Enlightenment and Modern Revival

The popularity of virtue ethics waned after the eighteenth-century Enlightenment, a period of significant intellectual development. Thinkers moved away from the idea that character was the foundation of morality, shifting instead toward Kantian ethics (focus on action) and utilitarianism (focus on consequences). John Locke ($1632-1704$) illustrated this by suggesting that virtues were secondary to prescribed laws. However, in the twentieth century, philosophers sought to revive the approach.

Elizabeth Anscombe ($1919-2001$) criticized modern moral philosophy in $1958$, arguing that Kantian and utilitarian traditions allowed "bad" people to behave morally through rules. She claimed that action had been separated from the person and behavior from the people. In Modern Moral Philosophy, she called Kantian ethics "absurd" and utilitarianism "superficial," arguing for a return to the concept of human flourishing. She attributed the focus on "moral obligation" and "duty" to the influence of Christianity and its law-based conception of ethics. Anscombe proposed a "skeletal virtue theory" where an action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do, and a virtue is a quality necessary for flourishing.

Contemporary Supporters: Foot and MacIntyre

Philippa Foot ($1920-2010$) argued in Virtues and Vices and Other Essays in Moral Philosophy ($1978$) that virtues are necessary for a moral society. She agreed with Aristotle that virtues must be nurtured through constant habit, especially in early years. Foot asserted that moral dispositions are judged primarily by intentions. She viewed virtues as "corrective," existing at points where human nature might succumb to temptation or deficiency (e.g., using temperance to curb the tendency to seek illicit pleasure). She cited the lack of justice and charity in Russia under the Stalinist terror as an example of a "wretched" community lacking virtue. She held up Pope John XXIII as an example of a virtuous person loved by the world.

Alasdair MacIntyre (born $1929$) claimed modern ethics created a "moral vacuum" where morality is merely personal preference. In After Virtue ($1981$), he identified three archetypal characters in a society lacking virtue:

1. The Bureaucratic Manager: Focuses on efficiency and profit over principle.
2. The Rich Aesthete: Pursues exciting pleasures and reflects a celebrity-obsessed culture.
3. The Therapist: Charges the others to keep them fit for their pursuits.

MacIntyre argued that Aristotelian virtues were the most coherent and complete. He specifically emphasized the importance of courage and truthfulness, noting that claiming to care for a community while being unwilling to risk harm on its behalf calls the genuineness of that care into question.

Christian Virtue Ethics: Stanley Hauerwas

Stanley Hauerwas (born $1940$) offers a Christian approach, emphasizing virtues based on the values of Jesus of Nazareth. He believes character is more fundamental than rules or principles. For Hauerwas, the Christian community must be shaped by the life of Jesus, regular worship, and practice. He famously stated that "ethics is first a way of seeing before it is a matter of doing," and worship serves to train believers to "look in the right direction." Hauerwas advocates for a radical commitment to non-violence and pacifism, mirroring God's refusal to use violence. This includes the requirement to love sowohl the attacked as well as the attacker. He suggests that true disciples might need to withdraw from positions of power to live in counter-cultural communities dedicated exclusively to Christ-like virtues.

Applications and Critiques of Virtue Ethics

Rosalind Hursthouse supports "V-rules," which prescribe virtuous actions (e.g., "do what is generous") and prohibit vicious ones (e.g., "do not do what is mean"). Regarding abortion, she argues its morality depends on the agent's motives. Taking abortion lightly is seen as "callous and light-minded." While she notes that motherhood contributes to a full life, she suggests abortion could be virtuous if a mother already has many children and fears for her ability to parent well, if the pregnancy threatens her life, or if she is dedicated to another worthwhile activity. However, she concludes that even when the decision is right, an "evil" has occurred because a human life was cut short.

Martha Nussbaum (born $1947$) applies virtue ethics to condemn Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). She lists functions required for flourishing, such as bodily health and integrity, and concludes that FGM actively prevents a good life.

General supporters argue that virtue ethics looks at the fundamental issue of what it means to be human and encourages acting from a "direct desire" rather than obligation. McDowell ($2007$) notes that a virtuous person knows what to do by their character, not by universal principles. Critics like Robert Louden ($2007$) argue that virtue ethics is "structurally unable" to tell people what they ought to do in specific modern dilemmas like euthanasia or contraception. He claims it fails to provide absolute prohibitions against acts like murder or stealing. Richard Bernstein further argues that MacIntyre rejected the contributions of modern thinkers like Kant and Mill too quickly, suggesting that truths exist in both ancient and modern ethical theories.