General Ethics October 26, 2020

On Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics

Source: Bahadır Küçükuysal & Erhan Beyhan, “Virtue Ethics in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics,” International Journal
of Human Sciences, 8/2 (2011): 43-50; Michael O. Orimaco, “Aristotle and Virtue Ethics,” General Ethics: An
Introduction (Bulacan, Philippines: Subverso Publishing House, 2018), 98-115.

On Aristotle and his Virtue Ethics

The Greek philosopher Aristotle is considered to be one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He
was a student of Plato’s, and the personal tutor of Alexander the Great. He wrote on a wide range of a
philosophical and non-philosophical subjects, including biology, literature, politics, logic, metaphysics, and
ethics. His famous work, the Nicomachean Ethics, contains his theory of the virtues (Geirsson & Holmgren,
2000).
While some moral theories emphasizes rules or duties (deontology), some focuses on the
consequences of actions (consequentialism), the core of the virtue ethics theory is in the heart or character
of the individual. Aristotle’s virtue ethics explains the characteristics of a virtuous person and suggests that
individuals can develop moral character over time through habitual action and practice (Geirsson &
Holmgren, 2000). The theory is important in addressing many ethical problems since virtue and moral
character “provides the wisdom necessary for applying rules in particular instances” (Hinman, 2006).

Contextualizing: Who do you think acts morally than the other?

(Teacher’s Personal Analysis)
John hears that 100,000 people are starving in Ethiopia. He feels deep sorrow about this and sends
$100 of his hard-earned money to a famine relief project in that country. Joan hears the same news but
doesn't feel anything. However, out of a sense of duty she also sends $100 of her hard-earned money to the
relief project.
Jack and Jill each have opportunity to embezzle a million dollars from the bank at which they work.
Jill never even considers embezzling; the possibility is not even an option for her. Jack wrestles valiantly
with the temptation, almost succumbs to it, but through a grand effort of the will finally succeeds in
resisting the temptation.
Two different situations, the first case is about showing compassion to the starving people in
Ethiopia while the second is about the possibility of “embezzling” the money of the bank without getting
caught. The first is about doing good act while the second is about doing the opposite (the bad act).
In the first case, John and Joan heard about the famine and immediately John felt compassion to
the people and gave “his hard-earned” money not thinking about anything even himself. Joan heard the
same thing yet initially feeling nothing until “a sense of duty” calls her to also help. Both could be
considered moral in the sense that the end of their act resulted to helping. But upon deeper analysis, John
did more than helping, as he acts according to “who he is,” a compassionate man. Joan is forced by her
sense of duty or responsibility to act but if she is given a choice that it’s not her responsibility to help, she
will surely won’t help.

1 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

 General Ethics October 26, 2020

The second case is about Jack and Jill’s opportunity to use the money of the bank for any reason.
Jill didn’t even feel tempted to think about it while Jack struggles a lot whether to do it or not until he
overcame such temptation and stood up victorious from her struggles. By common people’s mentality, we
could say that Jack acts morally then Jill as he fights his “selfish-self” or her own “demons” and win over
it. How many people actually struggle fighting every temptation and only few wins. Jack acts is such heroic
and worthy of emulation. But deeper analysis will make us ask this question: “Why did Jack allow himself
to be tempted in the first place? Why did he actually imagine himself using it when the money is never his?
In other words, why did he entertain the thought of doing something bad? This is perhaps, the difference
of Jill. Jill knows perfectly that it’s wrong and so she immediately discarded the thought of embezzling it.
Her kind and just character wouldn’t allow herself to be tempted.
And so, looking at the two case scenarios, though they are different situation but they talk about
the important of character as the basis for one’s ethical decision. them. Both John and Jill knew what is right
and wrong because they act according to who they are as moral persons; while Joan lives her life fulfilling
her duties and Jack allows himself to be affected by material things. This is the value of Aristotle’s Virtue
Ethics, a moral principle that calls everyone to train themselves to be moral in thought and behavior all the
days of their life so that one day everything that flows from their self will always be something good, right,
and just coming from their moral character.

UNDERSTANDING ARISTOTLE’S VIRTUE ETHICS

The Human Nature
While some philosophers and theologians believe that the human person is not the body but the soul,
Aristotle argues that the human person is both body and soul. This means that body and soul cannot be
separated for (1) without body, the soul could not exercise its function; and (2) without soul, the body is
not alive. Because of the integral relation between soul and body, it implies that the perfection of the soul
requires the perfection of the body and vice versa. And so, in order for the soul to be good, kind, loving,
caring, understanding, just, and forgiving the body must be trained in its “expression”. In other words,
human person’s physical manifestation such as way of behaving, talking, thinking, relating, and treating
the others must always express kindness, goodness, caring, understanding, fair and just to others in all
situations and at all time. When such physical behavior becomes habitual, such habit becomes a character,
and that character becomes the very soul of every moral agent. Unfortunately, such process is also
applicable to immoral people. If a person, for instance, will always act only for his own selfish benefit by
taking advantage of other’s weaknesses like always lying, pretending, cheating, stealing, and harming
others than his soul will become “bad and dark”.
And so, the question is: Why would anyone need to be a moral agent? Why do we need to be kind and
caring so we can have a Good Soul? What do we get from having a soul that “has a heart for others?”
Aristotle explain these questions through his concept of good.

The Concept of Good

a. Good in relation to one’s Natural Function
Aristotle argues that every being is good when it functions according to its nature. A good
computer is one that “operates well”. A saw is good when it “cuts well”. A tree is good when it bears fruit.

2 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University

 General Ethics October 26, 2020

A flower is good when it blooms. A dog is good when it barks, it plays, and obey his masters for such acts
simply flows according its “animal nature”. This means that when everything acts according to their nature
and their purpose, then they are good. In same way, according to Aristotle, since human persons have
intellect and will, if they think (reason) well and act (will) well according to their nature as human beings
than they are good. It implies, therefore, that certain characters which are not human but of the “wild beast”
performed by human person, those characters are in contradiction to the human nature and, thus, must be
considered wrong.

2. Every human act tends towards Good

Aristotle also assumes that man naturally acts towards what he/she perceives as Good. If this is so,
the question is “What is the good at which human behavior should aim?” Aristotle argues that “good” is
anything that brings happiness to the human person. Aristotle calls happiness as Eudaimonia and often
translated as well-being, happiness, human flourishing, or success. Happiness, therefore, for Aristotle, is
the end goal of every human act. According to him, people normally choose pleasure, wealth, and money
only because they think that, through them, they will attain genuine happiness. Thus, he argues that
ordinary and refined people differ in their perspective of what constitute happiness as their concept of
happiness is something related to material things. But although they have some type of value, they are not
the “Ultimate (Intrinsic) Good” that ensures “Genuine Happiness” since they are only instrumental.1 There
are, however, other group of people that Aristotle calls “people of superior refinement and active
disposition” identifies happiness with honor. They pursue honor simply because they believe a life of
virtue or a life of moral character is better. This implies that, for Aristotle, “genuine happiness” is the very
reason and only justification why some people chose the life living with moral virtues as moral agent. These
moral agents’ happiness lies in acting according to their natural character as true human beings who have
the heart for others. They find the meaning of their life through helping, caring, loving, understanding,
forgiving, just and fair treatment of others.
But how do we train our physical manifestation to only do what is the right thing according to our
nature? Aristotle explains it through human virtues.

The Categories of Human Virtues

Aristotle suggests that there are human virtues within our soul that needs to develop so our body
will always choose the right act, right thinking, and right behaving. For him, virtue is a habit which can be
learned and gained through practice. He notes that human virtue does not mean bodily excellence, but the
excellence of the soul. He separates virtue into two categories, intellectual virtues and moral virtues:
“Intellectual virtues enable us to think rationally, whereas moral virtues enable us to handle our desires
and emotions rationally”. He argues that a good intellect is chiefly produced and fostered by education
while moral goodness is formed mainly by training in habit. Meaning if our mind is trained through right
education from good books, from good and moral person, and from right way of thinking than our
intellectual virtue will grow and develop to maturity. And if our intellectual virtues are put into action,

1 Intrinsic goods are good because of their nature and are not derived from other goods. By contrast, instrumental goods

are worthy of desire because they are effective means of attaining our intrinsic goods. Joy, knowledge, health, for instance, are
something that we desire for their own sake. Money, studies, and physical exercises are only instrumental good since we desire
because of the result it brings us as they ensure that we experience joy, acquire knowledge, and receive good health.
3 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University
 General Ethics October 26, 2020

that is, putting into practice what the mind thinks as truly right and good into habitual action, moral virtues
such as justice, prudence, fortitude, and temperance emerged. This means that to acquire moral virtues is
to first act virtuously. It is like a craftsman learns his art by doing things he needs to do, like by building
houses men become builders and by playing harp they become harpers. Similarly, human person become
just by acting justly, become self-controlled by acting temperately, and become courageous by acting
bravely. The formation of moral virtue through good habit is indeed essential to Aristotelian Ethics. This
is due to the fact that a moral agent can only attain happiness by consistently living a good life, that is,
with the mind boosted by intellectual virtues and acting habitually in moral virtues. Thus, a good habit
is instrumental to the development of virtue because it is considered to be the consistent pattern for doing
virtuous action. Aristotle reaches an important conclusion: “Actions are called just and temperate when
they are such as the just or the temperate man would do...” Thus, for Aristotle, “The virtue of man is the
state of character which makes a man good.”

Conclusion
Aristotle’s Virtue ethics then centers on the moral character of the person carrying out an action.
Since it focuses on the character, its concern therefore is the whole person rather than a particular events
or actions. Its methods recognize the value of the moral agent’s habit and behaviors that will allow him/her
achieve Eudaimonia or a good life. The good and happy life can only be attained if the person possesses and
completely practice the moral virtues. As James Keenan (1995) puts it: “Being virtuous is more than having
a particular habit of acting... Rather, it means having a fundamental set of related virtues that enable a
person to live and act morally well”. Perhaps this short story could serve as a good synthesis to what
Aristotle is trying to tell us:
“An old man saw a scorpion drowning and decided to pull it out of the water. So, he
extended his hand to reach the creature. When he did, the scorpion stung him and the
old man let go the creature and it fell back into the water. The man realizing that the
scorpion was drowning again, got back and rescued it but then again it stung him. This
time he was in much pain. A young boy standing by, approached the old man and said, “Excuse me Sir, you are
going to hurt yourself trying to save that creature, why do you insist? Don’t you realize that each time you try
to help the scorpion, it will sting you?” The man replied, “The nature of the scorpion is to sting and mine is to
help. I will not change simply because it constantly stings me.” So, the man thought for a while and used a leaf
from a nearby tree and pulled the scorpion out from the water and saved its life.”
We should not change “who we are” simply because of the behaviors of others. We may come
across those who harm and insult us, due to their ignorance or lack of understanding, but we must
never allow their actions to rob us of our inherent moral goodness. We defined who we are, not the
others.

4 AACR | GE 8 Philosophy Department / College of Arts and Sciences – Silliman University