Virtue Ethics of Aristotle

 Virtue ethics: Developed by Aristotle. According to Aristotle, the purpose of morality

is to form the character or conduct. The major question of morality is: what kind of
person I ought to be? Utilitarian and Kant created a system and expected each and
every individual to follow the system irrespective of the ability of each individual.
Aristotle's virtue ethics will let individual to create their own course of action
depending on their ability. One course of action may be right for one individual and
the same course of action may be wrong for another individual depending on their
ability. For instance, my running away from jungle and not facing the tiger is right
course of action, whereas the same course of action by Sher Shah is wrong. I may be
called courageous for the act whereas Sher Shah will be called coward for same
course of action.
 Why character is important in Aristotle's virtue ethics? Aristotle thought that the
ultimate aim of human life is to achieve happiness. By keeping good character an
individual can lead a happy life. So, morality is necessary to have a happy life- life of
self-fulfilment.
 Happy life can be achieved by cultivating two virtues viz., intellectual virtue and
moral virtues. To have some idea about intellectual virtue we will read his work on
The Politics1 and to understand about moral virtue we will read his Nicomachean
Ethics. Both the virtues can be developed only by practise and habit. Moral virtues are
golden mean between two extremes viz., deficit and extreme. For instance, courage is
a golden mean between coward (deficit) and foolhardy (excess). Any act can be
virtuous if it falls in golden mean. Similarly generosity is a golden mean between
spend thrift or extravagant and miser. Self-love too is a virtue. If it exceeds for others
then the person will be too obsessive (may behave like Devdas) and if it lacks for
others or exceeds for oneself then it will lead to narcissism (may behave like Mr.
Bean). So, self-love is a golden mean between obsession and narcissism.
 What is the relevance of the idea of virtue in present day? The idea that moral virtue is
a golden mean between two extreme end is applicable in our day to day lives. Don’t
we struggle even today to strike a balance between individual liberty or interest and
collective interest (e.g., Olga Tellis, Sardar Sarovar Dam also known as Narmada
Bachao Andolon, privacy v surveillance etc.)?
 Thinking tool on the idea of golden mean
Problem-1
It is sometimes asked whether a good lawyer in an adversary system can also be a good
person. We must first notice that there are two different senses of the term good employed
in this question. In its first occurrence, good may be taken in its instrumental sense to
mean, roughly, effective. In its second occurrence good may be taken in its moral sense to
mean morally good. Thus the question is whether an effective lawyer can also be a
morally good person. The question can be answered well if we have understanding of the
terms morally good person and effective lawyer.
The question regarding morally good person can be settled by following Nicomachean
Ethics of Aristotle. As far as the concept of effective lawyer is concerned it can be
defined as a functional concept. The good (effective) lawyer may be defined as a person
who performs well function or role of a lawyer. Many thinkers have specified the
function of a lawyer in order to avoid the dispute arising regarding the function of a
lawyer. “An advocate, in discharge of his duty, knows but one person in all the world, and
that person is his client. To save that client by all means and expedients and at all hazards
1
I have given you secondary literature of The Politics i.e., Chapter on Aristotle by Michael Sandel in the
compendium.
 and costs to other persons, and, amongst them, to himself, is his first and only duty.”
(Queen Caroline against George IV in their divorce case before the House of Lords).
Another idea of effective lawyer is suggested by Canon 15 of the American Bar
Association in the following way. “the lawyer owes “entire devotion to the interest of the
client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense of his rights and the exertion of his
utmost learning and ability,” to the end that nothing be taken or be withheld from him,
save by the rules of law, legally applied”.
In Lake Pleasant case, New York, a defendant in a murder case told his lawyers about two
other people he had killed and where their bodies had been hidden. The lawyers went
there, observed the bodies, and took photographs of them. They did not, however, inform
the authorities about the bodies until several months later, when their clients had
confessed to those crimes. In addition to withholding the information from police and
prosecutors, one of the attorneys denied information to one of the victims’ parents, who
came to him in the course of seeking his missing daughter.
Some may think that the lawyers in the above cited case were simply discharging their
unconditional professional obligation to represent their clients’ legal interest. If the
concept of morally good person is supposed, then it is clear that the above lawyers could
have revealed where the bodies were buried. Trustworthiness is one of the important
moral virtues in any profession. Here it can be said that the lawyers were trustworthy to
their clients by fulfilling their obligation to keep the confidence of their clients. And also
they were truthful to their clients.
If you were a defense lawyer in the Lake Pleasant case what would you have done if
the parents of one of your client’s victims came to you asking about the whereabouts
of their daughter whom you knew to be one of the victims? Justify your answer in
the context of virtue ethics of Aristotle.
 Problem 2
Aristotle stated that human beings are creatures of habit. Whatever we do in our day
to day life i.e., to tie shoe, walk, speak good English are developed through
continuous practice. Practice develops habit and skill which becomes our second
nature—part of our very selves. Once established, habits are hard to change. It can
only change through another habit. The habit that shapes our physical action also
shapes our mental thinking pattern. For instance, how often you have found yourself
falling back into the same way of running your mind during class, even after making a
serious effort to change?
Aristotle laid stress on habit (both physical and mental) as far as morality is
concerned. Habit has certain important moral implications. This brings us to video
and computer games. While many games are innocent, some games have gained
notoriety now a days especially Grand Theft Auto. In Grand Theft Auto the player
rises through the criminal ranks by committing crimes. One player describes it “I can
steal cars, kill anyone in pretty much anyway, have sex with hookers, take drugs, sell
drugs, sell stolen cars, etc. If you can think it, this game does it. It is a world with no
borders, which is very relaxing.” This gamer also states that “I have had trouble with
playing hours of a driving game and then getting in my car and feeling like I was still
in the game….Games today look so real, it feels like the real world to a degree.”
Should children and teenager be permitted to play violent video games? How do
you think Aristotle’s virtue ethics will answer to this question?
 Problem 3
A 21 year old volunteer fire fighter Daniel Santos was driving his car on Tappan Zee
Bridge on 9th September 1996. He saw a woman jumped into the Hudson River in an
attempt to suicide. Santos suddenly stopped his car on the bridge and took a 140-foot
dive over the bridge rail. According to Santos, “without thinking twice, I just jumped
 and did what I had to do. I just prayed and closed my eyes.” A person jumping from
such height collides with water at approximately sixty miles per hour. Santos was
lucky to survive. As a result of his drive he broke his rib and his lung was partially
collapsed. Despite Santos managed to swim toward the woman to rescue her. A
nearby boat came to their rescue and both of them were survived.
Santos story was covered in many national newspapers and news channels. He was
celebrated as a hero after the incident. But would Aristotle agree with this
assessment? Aristotle considered courage a virtue. For him virtue is a golden mean
between excess and deficiency. A genuinely courageous act lies between
foolhardiness and cowardice. Thus, not every act that people call “courageous” would
qualify as virtuous in Aristotelian sense.
How would Aristotle assess the action of Santos? Was his action virtuous? Did
Santos meet all the conditions for a person having virtue?

Two outcome of Aristotles’ theory

1. Natural Law Theory: Because of the idea of telos

2. Care ethics

Natural Law Theory

Case:

Lila-a pregnant woman is found with uterine cancer. If her uterus can be removed completely
before the cancer metastasizes, her life can be saved but it will kill the foetus which is six and
half months. If she waits for another five weeks her chances of living will drop down but
baby would have seventy five percent chance of surviving.

Neither utilitarianism nor deontological theory will be of much help here. Utilitarian cannot
deal this case if overall expected utility is equal. Since, this poses a dilemma to choose one
life over the other deontological theory is not well equipped to resolve this sort of dilemma.

Natural law theory2, which is an off shoot of virtue ethics, embodies a little of both tact i.e.,
utilitarianism and deontological theory. It aims at certain goods, but not in the way utilitarian
does. It provides principle that holds universally and at the same time considers particular
situation.3

2
It has its root in Aristotle and Stoic. If you read carefully the first paragraph of Nichomachean Ethics of
Chapter I then you can see the connection. “Every art, every applied science….aims at good”. (NE, I). But this
theory was fully developed by medieval philosopher cum theologian Thomas Aquinas.
3
But sometimes things malfunction. In that case natural law theory will maintain that things are good by
nature when they function properly. Bad or evil is nothing but the malfunction of the thing which itself is good.
For instance, eye is good as it imparts vision when functions properly. Blindness is considered as bad eye
ceases its function.
Natural law theory

Traditionally natural law theory maintains that everything has natural function that aims at
some desirable goal or end. For instance, our heart circulates blood, sun feeds energy to our
earth’s ecosystem, mind is equipped to gain us knowledge, and deep need for human
companionship creates society. Each function reflects the fundamental design or structure of
the world.

Natural law theory bases its moral principle on the given natural values viz., life, health,
procreation, knowledge, use of reason and social interaction. These values are also called
foundational good. According to this theory, we should promote these natural values towards
which nature aims. This creates a moral obligation on our part to support these natural values.
Living organisms have instinct to preserve life, so life has a natural value. Therefore, we
ought to cooperate with nature to maintain this good. Procreation is a natural value. Anything
opposes procreation (sterilization, contraception etc) is morally wrong. Anything that
supports social interaction i.e., trust, respect for others, promises and friendship must be
valued. Natural law theory places important value to reason as it views the cosmic or natural
order as rational. For this reason, it holds that natural order and its law can be discovered and
understood through reason.

Aquinas placed his natural law ethics upon the religious foundation. According to him, the
rationality and natural order explained as a work of a rational and good God. As a creator he
assigns function to each and everything and ordered things to co-exist in harmony.

According to natural law theory there are six foundational goods viz., life, health,
procreation, knowledge, use of reason and social interaction. Anything done against those
foundational good constitutes morally wrong. Natural law theory derives two additional
principles viz., principle of forfeiture and double effect by applying its fundamental principle
i.e., we should maintain and promote these natural goods.

Principle of forfeiture: This principle states that by deliberately attacking or threatening an

innocent individual (or nation), the individual (or nation) forfeits its own moral claim to live
(or to exist). This principle gives an innocent victim the right to self-defense. This principle
extends to states as well as individuals.

Doctrine of double effect: There are some cases which produces both good and bad
consequences. How does natural law theory deal with that? Which natural value to be
supported at the cost of another natural value? To deal with such kind of situation, natural
law theory has developed the doctrine of double effect.

Doctor removes the uterus and saves the life of the mother. This is the good consequence. By
removing the uterus, doctor kills foetus. This is bad consequence. However, natural law
theory does not follow the principle: end justifies the means. Doctrine of double effect allows
certain acts for the sake of good even if it has also some bad effect. For instance, in trolley
car case, turning the steering to avoid the death of 5 persons will result in the death of a
person.
This doctrine states that when the act leads to both good and bad effect, it is permissible to
perform the action only if all four of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) Moral Principle condition: The act cannot itself be of a kind that violates moral
principle, for that would make the act wrong. For instance, purposefully one cannot
kill to save another (e.g., Dudley and Stephen case). Violating moral principle is
always wrong, since it is always against natural value.
(2) Means-end condition: The bad effect cannot itself be a means for achieving a good
end.
(3) Right intention condition: One must intend only good effect and not the bad effect.
Even if bad effect is foreseen and expected, it must not be intended. For instance,
doctor should not intend to kill the foetus as killing the innocent is always wrong. Yet,
if the doctor intends to remove the uterus while foreseeing that this will kill the foetus
that satisfies this condition.
(4) Proportionality condition: The good effect must be at least as great as the bad effect.
For instance, if the good effect is that one life is saved and the bad effect is one life is
lost, then good and bad effect are equal. Hence, this condition is satisfied.

A clear distinction must be made between the act itself, the intention and two effects.
Condition 1 applies to the act; condition 3 to the intention, and condition 2 and 4 to the
effects. Condition 3 is quite difficult as an act can produce two independent effects. For
instance, John steals the bread from the bakery shop to feed his friend who is hungry. Here
the act of John has two independent effects viz., baker suffers the loss and his friend is fed.
Feeding his friend does not require that the baker to suffer loss. His friend still can be fed if
the bystander reimburses to the baker. None of the effects are dependent on the initial
condition i.e., John’s stealing the bread. On the other hand, there are certain cases where one
effect is achieved through another effect which is dependent on the other. For instance, a
person is seeking media attention for a reform in the country. He plots death of twenty
people at bus stand by blowing up a bomb. Here good effect depends upon the bad effect. In
another instance, one person is pulled into an already full life boat (good effect by saving a
life). After sometime the boat is hit by a slight storm and sinks due to overload. Here bad
effect depends upon the good effect.

Means-end condition cannot be applied without determining how the effects are related to
each other.

Independent effect Dependent effect Dependent effect

Effects depend on act but Good effect depends on bad Bad effect depends on good
both the effects are not effect effect
related to each other

A→G A→B→G A→G→B

→B

Acceptable Unacceptable Acceptable

Application of above 4 conditions of doctrine of double effect to decide the morality of
an action

Case-1 Pregnant woman with uterus cancer

1. Application of moral principle condition: Removing a diseased uterus violates no

moral principle and so is not bad in itself.
2. Application of means-end condition: Death of foetus is not means to achieve
mother’s life. The death of foetus does not save the life of the mother. Rather, her life
is saved by removal of the uterus, which has the death of the foetus as a side effect. In
this case, both the effects are independent.
3. Application of intention condition: Doctor’s only intention is to save the mother’s
life and not to abort the foetus.
4. Application of proportionality condition: Good effect is at least as great as the bad
effect. While it saves one life, it costs another.

All the four conditions are satisfied in the above case. So, natural theory will not blame the
act of removing the foetus to save the life of the woman.

Case-2 Torturing innocent child of a terrorist to get the information

1. Application of moral principle condition: The act being contemplated violates the
moral principle which prohibits torturing/killing an innocent person.
2. Application of means-end condition: Torture/death of a child was means to achieve
the end i.e., information from the terrorist.
3. Application of intention condition: Intends both good and bad consequences. First
of all the person intends the torture of innocent child. Doctrine of double effect states
that bad consequences may be foreseen but not intended. Only good consequences
must be intended.
4. Application of proportionality condition: The good effect is greater than bad effect.

The above case failed to fulfil all the criteria except 4. So, natural law theory will blame the
act of torturing the innocent child of the terrorist to get the information from him.