1

Subject: Ethics
Course/Yr./Sec.: BSED 1 A & B
Instructor: Henry P. Bilan

VIRTUE ETHICS

In Aristotle's time, most philosophers were focused on one of two types of ethics. One is called
deontological ethics, which judges ethics by how well a person follows the laws and rules of society.
Deontologists would say, ''it doesn't matter what happens, following the rule is always the right thing to
do.'' The second, teleological ethics, judges ethics based on the outcomes of a person's actions.
Teleological ethicists would say, ''If what you do leads to something good, you did the right thing.''

Why Should I Be Moral?

Because of My Character!

Aretology
Arete - Excellence, Strength, Virtue
Aretaic Ethics - Strength-Centred Ethics
Emphasizes Virtues (Strengths) and Vices (Weaknesses) of Character
Not “What Should I Do?” (both Deontology and Teleology) but “What Kind of Person Should I Be?”

Aristotle’s Ethics

Two Kinds of Persons

1. Continent:
Do what is right, but not necessarily because they want to
2. Temperate:
Do what is right because they want to; the more holistic person

The Goal of Human Existence

Eudaimonia
Flourishing, Happiness
A Lifelong Pursuit, accomplished:
1. Rationally, through theoretical wisdom and contemplation
2. Functionally, through practical wisdom and politics

The Goal of Human Existence & Eudaimonia

Aimed at the “perfect happiness” which is the perfect activity

An excellence in any activity in accordance with the nature of that activity
Thus, “Human happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue (excellence)”. (I.8;
Pojman, 394).

The Virtues

Intellectual Virtues
Wisdom, Understanding, Prudence
Taught through instruction
Moral Virtues
Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance
The result of habit
Not natural or inborn but acquired through practice
Habit or disposition of the soul (our fundamental character) which involves both feeling and
action
“Those strengths of character that enable us to flourish” (Hinman)
 2

Virtues

Defined / understood in terms of spheres of human experience

Fear of important damages Courage

Bodily appetites and their pleasures Moderation
Distribution of limited resources Justice
Attitude to slights and damages Mildness of Temper
Adapted from Martha C. Nussbaum, “Non-Relative Virtues”

The Doctrine of the Mean

Proper position between two extremes
Vice of excess
Vice of deficiency
Not an arithmetic median
Relative to us and not the thing
Not the same for all of us, or
Any of us, at various occasions
“In this way, then, every knowledgeable person avoids excess and deficiency, but looks for the
mean and chooses it” (II.6)

The Mean

Vice of Deficiency Virtue Vice of Excess

Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness

Stinginess Generosity Prodigality

Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness

Maliciousness Righteous Enviousness

Indignation

Virtues and the Mean

Defined through Reason

Education, contemplation, reflection
Balanced with Other Virtues and applied using phronesis:
To have any single strength of character in full measure, a person must have the other ones as
well.*
Courage without good judgement is blind
Courage without perseverance is short-lived
Courage without a clear sense of your own abilities is foolhardy
“The virtuous person has practical wisdom, the ability to know when and how best to apply these
various moral perspectives.” (*Hinman)

Virtues and Community

Virtues are defined and lived in community

Sharing a common identity and story

Modelling the Virtues

Importance of Moral Exemplars (Saints and Heroes)

Practicing the Virtues – Habit is Crucial!

“In a word, then, like activities produce like dispositions. Hence we must give our activities a
certain quality, because it is their characteristics that determine the resulting dispositions. So it is
a matter of no little importance what sort of habits we form from the earliest age ̶ it makes a vast
difference, or rather all the difference in the world.” (II.i.) (Pojman, 396)
Natural Law
 3

Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)

The four laws:

the eternal law; God’s creation and plan
the natural law; human nature and practical rationality
the human law; moral and legal rules
the revealed law, scriptures (Bible, Qur’an, etc.)

God’s commands determine what is ‘lawful’ in ‘Natural Law’.

Natural Law
Human nature determines what is God’s commands determine what is
‘natural’ in ‘Natural Law’. ‘lawful’ in ‘Natural Law’.
Viewed from God’s perspective, humans
Viewed from the human perspective, the participate in the Eternal Law, which is
principles of natural law are knowable by God’s eternal plan— “A law is a rule of
human nature and are structured to aid action put in place by someone who has
in furthering individual and communal care of the community” –Mark Murphy
goods.

Viewed from God’s perspective, humans participate in the Eternal Law, which is God’s eternal plan— “A
law is a rule of action put in place by someone who has care of the community” –Mark Murphy
There are some values given in creation: life, procreation, knowledge and social relations.
Man can through his reasons distinguish between right and wrong.

Normative Theory
Aquinas’s first principle of morality is:
“Good should be done, and evil avoided.”

We are by nature inclined toward the Good, according to Aquinas, but we cannot pursue the good
directly because it is abstract—we must pursue concrete goods which we know immediately, by
inclination. Those goods are:
Preservation of life
Procreation
Knowledge
Society
Reasonable Conduct

Aquinas, then, has a value-based ethical theory. The rightness or wrongness of particular actions is
determined by how those actions further or frustrate the goods.

Certain ways of acting are “intrinsically flawed” or “unreasonable” responses to these human goods.

Like Aristotle, Aquinas seems sure there can be no formula provided to determine what action is right or
wrong in all particular cases.

Prudence (practical wisdom) is required for the most part, if not always, to determine if a given act is
intrinsically flawed or not.

Intrinsically Flawed Action

Murphy provides a nice account of how acts can be intrinsically flawed or unreasonable:

Aquinas does not obviously identify some master principle that one can use to determine whether an
act is intrinsically flawed … though he does indicate where to look -- we are to look at the features that
individuate acts, such as their objects …, their ends …, their circumstances …, and so forth. An act
might be flawed through a mismatch of object and end -- that is, between the immediate aim of the
action and its more distant point. If one were, for example, to regulate one's pursuit of a greater good in
light of a lesser good -- if, for example, one were to seek friendship with God for the sake of mere bodily
survival rather than vice versa -- that would count as an unreasonable act. An act might be flawed
through the circumstances: while one is bound to profess one's belief in God, there are certain
circumstances in which it is inappropriate to do so…. An act might be flawed merely through its
 4

intention: to direct oneself against a good -- as in murder …, and lying …, and blasphemy … -- is
always to act in an unfitting way. –Mark Murphy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Fit with Utilitarians and Kantians

Is an action ever intrinsically flawed because it fails to maximize goodness? Murphy, again:

His natural law view understands principles of right to be grounded in principles of good; on this
Aquinas sides with utilitarians, and consequentialists generally, against Kantians.  But Aquinas would
deny that the principles of the right enjoin us to maximize the good -- while he allows that
considerations of the greater good have a role in practical reasoning, action can be irremediably flawed
merely through (e.g.) badness of intention, flawed such that no good consequences that flow from the
action would be sufficient to justify it -- and in this Aquinas sides with the Kantians against the
utilitarians and consequentialists of other stripes. –Mark Murphy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

Fit with Aristotle

Must prudence determine the right action in every situation, or are there at least some universal general
rules that are always valid or correct?

And while Aquinas is in some ways Aristotelian, and recognizes that virtue will always be required in
order to hit the mark in a situation of choice, he rejects the view commonly ascribed to Aristotle (for
doubts that it is Aristotle's view; see Irwin 2000) that there are no universally true general principles of
right. –Mark Murphy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/
Photo Credits…
Title Slide: Library, St. Paul’s College, Washington, D.C.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lricecsp/2365699386

Aquinas: On the Nature of The Good

God = Being = The Good
Angels
The
Humans
chain
Animals
of the good
Plants
Rocks
Mud
Nothingness
All human beings seek the good…
Aquinas considered that all human beings seek the Good. In other words they all seek what they
think is good for them.
However they can be mistaken. They may seek an APPARENT GOOD rather than the REAL
GOOD. Thus a thief what she thinks is good but she makes a mistake – she pursues what appears
to be good and not what is really good.
The task of moral philosophy is to work out what is REALLY GOOD for human beings, rather than
what APPEARS TO BE GOOD.

WHAT IS REALLY GOOD?

For Aquinas, what is ‘really good’ is fulfilling the potential of our common human nature.
Those actions which help us to become MORE FULLY HUMAN – more what we are capable of
being – are good. VIRTUE ETHICS COMES IN HERE.
Those actions which lead us to be LESS THAN FULLY HUMAN – which lead us away from what
we are capable of being – are morally wrong.

Aquinas defined what is to be human in terms of purpose. The general purpose of being human is to
‘LIVE, WORK, REPRODUCE, EDUCATE CHILDREN, HAVE AN ORDERED SOCIETY AND
WORSHIP GOD’.

All these came from Aristotle except for the worship of God which was added by Aquinas.

‘Reproduction’ is held by Aquinas to be one of the primary purposes of human life…

At the level of secondary precepts the detail is worked out…

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GENITALIA????

Aquinas answered ‘reproduction’
 5

Once this answer is given, then any use of genitalia for any other purpose is ‘intrinsically evil’ – it is evil
in and of itself.
So masturbation, sex using contraception, sex with an animal, homosexuality, etc. will all be
INTRINSICALLY EVIL ACTS…. i.e. these are acts which are morally wrong (or evil) in themselves.

Deontological Moral Theory

Kant argues that there is only one thing that can be considered unconditionally good: a good will. A
person has a good will insofar as they form their intentions on the basis of a self-conscious respect for
the moral law, that is, for the rules regarding what a rational agent ought to do, one’s duty. The value of
a good will lies in the principles on the basis of which it forms its intentions; it does not lie in the
consequences of the actions that the intentions lead to. This is true even if a good will never leads to
any desirable consequences at all: “Even if… this will should wholly lack the capacity to carry out its
purpose… then, like a jewel, it would still shine by itself, as something that has its full worth in itself”
(4:393). This is in line with Kant’s emphasis on the unconditional goodness of a good will: if a will were
evaluated in terms of its consequences, then the goodness of the will would depend on (that is, would
be conditioned on) those consequences.

Kant’s theory is an example of a deontological moral theory–according to these theories, the

rightness or wrongness of actions does not depend on their consequences but on whether they fulfill
our duty.

 Kant believed that there was a supreme principle of morality, and he referred to it as The Categorical
Imperative.  The CI determines what our moral duties are.

Morality and imperatives:  What does it mean for one's duty to be determined by the categorical
imperative?

What is an imperative?  An imperative is a command.  So, "Pay your taxes!" is an imperative, as are
"Stop kicking me!" and "Don't kill animals!"

Hypothetical Imperatives:  these imperatives command conditionally on your having a relevant

desire.  E.g. “If you want to go to medical school, study biology in college.”  If you don’t want to go to
medical school, this command doesn’t apply to you.  Another example, your father says, "if you are
hungry, then go eat something!" - if you aren't hungry, then you are free to ignore the command.

Categorical Imperatives:  These command unconditionally.  E.g. “Don’t cheat on your taxes.”  Even if

you want to cheat and doing so would serve your interests, you may not cheat.

What is the connection between morality and categorical imperatives?  Morality must be based on
the categorical imperative because morality is such that you are commanded by it, and is such that you
cannot opt out of it or claim that it does not apply to you.

How does the categorical imperative work?  The categorical imperative has three different
formulations.  That is to say, there are three different ways of saying what it is.  Kant claims that all
three do in fact say the same thing, but it is currently disputed whether this is true.  The second
formulation is the easiest to understand, but the first one is most clearly a categorical imperative.  Here
is the first formulation.

1) First formulation (The Formula of Universal Law):  "Act only on that maxim through which you can at
the same time will that it should become a universal law [of nature]."

a) What is a maxim?  A maxim is the rule or principle on which you act.  For example, I might make it
my maxim to give at least as much to charity each year as I spend on eating out, or I might make it my
maxim only to do what will benefit some member of my family.

b) Basic idea:  The command states, crudely, that you are not allowed to do anything yourself that you
would not be willing to allow everyone else to do as well.  You are not allowed to make exceptions for
yourself.  For example, if you expect other people to keep their promises, then you are obligated to
keep your own promises.

c) More detail:  More accurately, it commands that every maxim you act on must be such that you are
willing to make it the case that everyone always act on that maxim when in a similar situation.  For
 6

example, if I wanted to lie to get something I wanted, I would have to be willing to make it the case that
everyone always lied to get what they wanted - but if this were to happen no one would ever believe
you, so the lie would not work and you would not get what you wanted.  So, if you willed that such a
maxim (of lying) should become a universal law, then you would thwart your goal - thus, it is
impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative.  It is impermissible because the only way
to lie is to make an exception for yourself.

Kant on Moral Worth

The Moral Worth of Persons:  Kant also has something to say about what makes someone a good
person.  Keep in mind that Kant intends this to go along with the rest of his theory, and what one's duty
is would be determined by the categorical imperative.  However, one can treat this as a separate theory
to some extent, and consider that one's duty is determined by some other standard.  Keep in mind that
what is said below has to do with how one evaluates people, not actions.  A person's actions are right
or wrong, a person is morally worthy or lacks moral worth (i.e., is morally base).  A person's actions
determine her moral worth, but there is more to this than merely seeing if the actions are right or
wrong.      

a) The basic idea:  Kant argues that a person is good or bad depending on the motivation of their
actions and not on the goodness of the consequences of those actions.  By "motivation" I mean what
caused you to do the action (i.e., your reason for doing it).  Kant argues that one can have moral worth
(i.e., be a good person) only if one is motivated by morality.  In other words, if a person's emotions or
desires cause them to do something, then that action cannot give them moral worth.  This may sound
odd, but there is good reason to agree with Kant.

b) Why motivation is what matters:  Imagine that I win the lottery and I'm wondering what to do with
the money.  I look around for what would be the most fun to do with it:  buy a yacht, travel in first class
around the world, get that knee operation, etc..  I decide that what would be really fun is to give the
money to charity and to enjoy that special feeling you get from making people happy, so I give all my
lottery money away.  According to Kant, I am not a morally worthy person because I did this, after all I
just did whatever I thought would be the most fun and there is nothing admirable about such a selfish
pursuit.  It was just lucky for those charities that I thought giving away money was fun.  Moral worth only
comes when you do something because you know that it is your duty and you would do it regardless of
whether you liked it.

Summary:  According to Kant a good person is someone who always does their duty because it is their
duty.  It is fine if they enjoy doing it, but it must be the case that they would do it even if they did not
enjoy it.  The overall theme is that to be a good person you must be good for goodness sake.

Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a philosophical view or theory about how we should evaluate a wide range of things
that involve choices that people face. Among the things that can be evaluated are actions, laws,
policies, character traits, and moral codes. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism because it rests
on the idea that it is the consequences or results of actions, laws, policies, etc. that determine whether
they are good or bad, right or wrong. In general, whatever is being evaluated, we ought to choose the
one that will produce the best overall results. In the language of utilitarians, we should choose the
option that “maximizes utility,” i.e. that action or policy that produces the largest amount of good.

How Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism Differ

Both act utilitarians and rule utilitarians agree that our overall aim in evaluating actions should be to
create the best results possible, but they differ about how to do that.
Act utilitarians believe that whenever we are deciding what to do, we should perform the action that will
create the greatest net utility. In their view, the principle of utility—do whatever will produce the best
overall results—should be applied on a case by case basis. The right action in any situation is the one
that yields more utility (i.e. creates more well-being) than other available actions.

Rule utilitarians adopt a two part view that stresses the importance of moral rules. According to rule
utilitarians, a) a specific action is morally justified if it conforms to a justified moral rule; and b) a moral
rule is justified if its inclusion into our moral code would create more utility than other possible rules (or
no rule at all). According to this perspective, we should judge the morality of individual actions by
reference to general moral rules, and we should judge particular moral rules by seeing whether their
acceptance into our moral code would produce more well-being than other possible rules.
 7

The key difference between act and rule utilitarianism is that act utilitarians apply the utilitarian principle
directly to the evaluation of individual actions while rule utilitarians apply the utilitarian principle directly
to the evaluation of rules and then evaluate individual actions by seeing if they obey or disobey those
rules whose acceptance will produce the most utility.

The contrast between act and rule utilitarianism, though previously noted by some philosophers, was
not sharply drawn until the late 1950s when Richard Brandt introduced this terminology. (Other terms
that have been used to make this contrast are “direct” and “extreme” for act utilitarianism, and “indirect”
and “restricted” for rule utilitarianism.) Because the contrast had not been sharply drawn, earlier
utilitarians like Bentham and Mill sometimes apply the principle of utility to actions and sometimes apply
it to the choice of rules for evaluating actions. This has led to scholarly debates about whether the
classical utilitarians supported act utilitarians or rule utilitarians or some combination of these views.
One indication that Mill accepted rule utilitarianism is his claim that direct appeal to the principle of utility
is made only when “secondary principles” (i.e. rules) conflict with one another. In such cases, the
“maximize utility” principle is used to resolve the conflict and determine the right action to take.
[Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapter 2]

Activity 6

Mr. Covid is a public secondary teacher in a remote place. Due to the enhanced community
quarantine brought by the pandemic, people’s movement is limited. One day, some people came to
Mr. Covid’s residence asking for his help to bring to the nearest hospital two persons who met an
accident in the village. However, he can only bring one because he is using a motorcycle. They
tried to look for other vehicles but there was none.
One of the two victims is his former student and now a young professional, single and ready to be
employed anytime. The other one is a husband and a father of two kids. Both of them are seriously
injured. The probability is that whoever makes it first to the hospital will survive.

Question: Who should be brought to the hospital by Mr. Covid? Remember, he can only bring one.
Solve the case applying: 1) natural law; 2) virtue ethics; 3) duty ethics; and 4) utilitarianism

Activity 7

1. As a millennial/fillinnial, what are some issues that cause moral problems between you and
your parents/grandparents/guardians due to generational gap?
1.1 Who is right?
1.2 How should the issues be resolved?