Aristotelian Virtue

Ethics
“Virtue is the golden mean between two vices, the one is excess an the other is deficiency”
- Aristotle
 INTRODUCTION
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in
normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that
emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the
approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that
emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). It
is primarily concerned with answering the question, "what kind of
person should I be?" it is more interested not with what makes an
act right, but with what makes a person good. Virtue ethics claims
that we cannot tell whether an act is right or wrong by just looking
at or analyzing the act itself; instead, we must focus on the person
performing the act.
 INTRODUCTION
While doing what is right may be a part of what makes a good
person good-after all, you cannot be morally good while at the
same time performing immoral actions-for virtue ethicists, being a
good person is more than doing what is right. An individual may be
seen to be actively involved in giving relief goods to calamity
victims. However, if he is doing such action in order to gain public
mileage, which he believes will convince the public to vote for
him/her in the coming elections, we cannot consider his or her act
as praiseworthy. The point is in judging an act as either good or
bad requires us to examine the character and motives of the
person who performed the act.
 INTRODUCTION

The starting point of virtue ethics is not the question of

what acts are right or wrong, but what characters are
virtuous or vicious. The virtuous person is not simply one
who does the right act; rather, the virtuous person is one
who consistently does right acts for the right motives.

There are different versions of virtue ethics, this module,

however, will focus on
the virtue ethics discussed by Aristotle.
Aristotelian Ethics
● Mainly derives from the
philosophical treatise
Nicomachean ethics.
● The first systematic study
of ethics in western
civilization.
Nicomachean Ethics
● “ Every art and every inquiry, and
similarly every action and pursuit, is
thought to aim at some good, and for
this reason the good has rightly been
declared to be that at which all things
aim”(Aristotle, 1962, 1094a)
Nicomachean Ethics
● “ But what is it that we desire for its
own sake, an end which determines
all other desires? What is intrinsically
and ultimately good, and not merely
instrumental to some other good?”
 Eudaimonia
There are different translations of the term “ Eudaimonia”:
• is standardly translated as “happiness” or “flourishing” and
occasionally as “well-being.“
• Each translation has its disadvantages.
 “flourishing” – animals and even plants can flourish but
eudaimonia is possibly only for rational beings.
 “happiness“ – in modern understanding it connotes
something which is subjectively determined. It is for me, not
for you, to pronounce on whether I am happy. But according
to classical thinkers I may have wrong idea about what
eudaimonia is and therefore think that I am have eudaimon
but in fact I don’t.
 Eudaimonia
• The true happiness
• Eudaimonia is a moralised, or “value-laden” concept of
happiness, something like “true” or “real” happiness or “the
sort of happiness worth seeking or having.“
• Thereby virtue ethicists claim that a human life devoted to
physical pleasure or the acquisition of wealth is not
eudaimon, but a wasted life
• All standard versions of virtue ethics agree that living a life
in accordance with virtue is necessary for eudaimonia.
• Eudaimonia involves virtuous life – virtues are goals in
themselves, not instruments for achieving eudaimonia.
 Eudaimonia
No person tries to be happy for the sake of some further goal;
rather, being eudaimon is the ultimate end, and all other goals-
fame, money, health-are sought because they lead to
happiness, not because they are what happiness consists in. but
unless we can determine which good or goods happiness
consists in, it is of little use to acknowledge that it is the
highest end.
To resolve this, Aristotle (1962, 1097b) asks what is the proper
function of a human being. For Aristotle, the proper and
peculiar end of human beings is to live a life in accordance
with reason.
 Concept of Virtue

Aristotle said, "happiness consists in the activity of the soul in

conformity with virtue". He believes that in order to live well, one
must develop virtues. A virtuous life enables the person to
cultivate and fulfill his/her true nature which fructifies into
happiness.
 Two categories of Virtue according to
Aristotle

Intellectual virtues Moral virtues

- owes its origin and - formed by habit. This
development chiefly to enables us to handle our
teaching. This enables us desires and emotions
to think rationally. rationally.
 Concept of Virtue

While we see here the connection between virtue and moral action,
nonetheless, they are not identical. On the one hand, moral action is doing the
right thing, to the right person, at the right time, in the right manner, and to the
right extent. On the other hand, virtue demands that the right act flow
effortlessly from the personality as its characteristic trait. Given this distinction,
it is possible for a person to do the right act without necessarily being virtuous,
just as it is possible for a virtuous person to succumb to an immoral deed
without forfeiting his virtuous nature. Given that virtue is a state of character
that has become deeply rooted in one’s personality, acting in accordance with it
must be natural and effortless. One is truly virtuous when one experiences
pleasure rather than pain when acting virtuously.
 The Doctrine of the Mean

Virtue, according to Aristotle, is the mean between two

extremes of our emotions and desires, as well as the actions
that they motivate. The undesirable character trait of Either
the “extreme of excess” or the “extreme of deficiency” is
what vice is. This notion of virtue has come to be known as
the doctrine of the mean.
 Type of
Sphere of Action: Emotion or Vice of too Virtue (Mean) Vice of too little
Kind of Situation Attitude much (Excess) (Deficiency)

Responses to Fear, Foolhardiness Courage Cowardice

danger
Confidence
Satisfaction of Physical Overindulgence Temperance Inhibition
appetites Pleasure
Giving gifts Desire to help Extravagance Generosity Miserliness

Pursuit of Desire to Vaulting Proper Unambitiousness

Accomplishments succeed Ambition Ambition
Appraisal of Self- Vanity Proper pride Sense of
oneself confidence inferiority
 Type of
Sphere of Action: Emotion or Vice of too Virtue (Mean) Vice of too little
Kind of Situation Attitude much (Excess) (Deficiency)

Self- expression Desire to be Boastfulness Truthfulness False modesty

recognized

Response to Anger Irascibility Patience Apathy

insults
Social conduct Attitudes to Obsequiousness Friendliness Rudeness
others
Awareness of Shame Shyness Modesty Shamelessness
one’s flaws
Conversation, Amusement Buffoonery Wittiness Boorishness
humor
● Aristotle notes that the mean between
extremes does not lie in the act, but is
relative to the moral agent. This means
that what is excessive, deficient, and
moderate depends on the person.
 Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean is an essential element in
his idea that achieving eudaimonia or well-being is a matter
of living one’s life in accordance with reason. Choosing the
mean between extremes is the way for reason to control the
excesses of the emotions and passions Extreme types of
behaviors are motivated by desire or feeling without the
benefit of thinking through the consequences of such
action. As pointed by Wall (2003), a life of moderation is not
a life of safety or boredom, but a life where reason is in
control, such a life enables one to live fully, that is to live as
closely to the ideal of a good life as possible.
Thank you!
Do you have any questions?

hello@mail.com
555-111-222
mydomain.com