ARISTOTLE VIRTUE ETHICS

INTRODUCTION: ARISTOTLE AND ETHICS

For Aristotle, virtue is excellence of some sort. The word “virtue” originally came from latin
“vir” and referred to strength or manliness. According to Aristotle, there are two types of virtues:
intellectual virtue and moral virtue. Intellectual virtue are excellences of the mind, such as the
ability to understand and reason and judge well. Aristotle said that these traits are learnt from
teachers. Moral virtue, on the other hand, dispose us to act well. These virtues are learnt via
repetition or practice.
WHAT IS VIRTUE ETHICS?
Virtue ethics has its origin in ancient Greece where it was developed by thinkers like Socrates,
Plato, Aristotle among others.
“Very broadly speaking they approached ethics by asking ‘what traits of characters make one a
good person?’ which stands in stark contrast to the core questions asked in modern moral
theories, i.e. ‘what is the right thing to do?’. Virtue ethics is thus concerned with what kind of
people we should be, what kind of character we should have, and from that it follows how we
should act”
Page 31, Barbo Froding
Therefore, virtue theory is an ethical theory that emphasizes an individual’s character rather than
following a set of rules. Aristotle and other virtue theorists reasoned that, if we can focus on
being just good people, right action will follow effortlessly.
THE FUNCTION ARGUMENT
Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that humans have a fixed nature- an essence- and
that the way we flourish is by adhering to that nature. Aristotle described this in terms of “Proper
Functioning”, everything has a function and a good thing is good to the extent that it fulfills its
functions and bad to the extent that it doesn’t. For example, the function of a knife is to cut, so a
dull knife is a bad knife. Analogously, it indicates that as humans we need to grow, be healthy
and fertile, but we’re also the rational animal and social animal, so our function also involves
using reason and getting along with our pack. This is very similar to Thomas Aquinas’ “Natural
Law Theory”, according to which God made us with tools we need to know what’s good.
Natural law (Latin: ius naturale, lex naturalis) is a philosophy asserting that certain rights are
inherent by virtue of human nature, endowed by nature—traditionally by God or
a transcendent source—and that these can be understood universally through human reason. As
determined by nature, the law of nature is implied to be universal,[1] existing independently of
the positive law of a given state, political order, legislature or society at large.
Strauss, Leo (1968). "Natural Law". International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.
Macmillan.
This is because Aristotle had a strong influence on Aquinas. However, Aristotle’s focus is not
God plans but nature. Aristotle argued that nature has built into us the desire to be virtuous, in
the same way the acorns are built with the drive to become oak trees.
GOLDEN MEAN
“Having virtue just means doing the right thing, at the right time, in the right way, in the right
amount, towards the right people.”
― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Although the definition above is vague, Aristotle said that there is no need to be specific because,
if one is virtuous, one would know what to do all the time. They would know how to handle
themselves, get along with others, have a good sense of judgement, they can read a room and
they know what’s right and when. Aristotle understood virtue as set of robust character traits,
that once developed, will lead to predictably good behavior.
Therefore, virtue is the midpoint between two extremes, which Aristotle called vices.
VICE VIRTUE VICE
(Deficiency) (Golden mean) (Excess)

Virtue is just the right amount: the sweet spot between extreme of excess and extreme of
deficiency. And this sweet spot is known as the Golden Mean.
Deficit (Too Little) Virtue (The Mean) Excess (Too Much)
Fear Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness
Giving Illiberality Liberality Prodigality
Self-regard Humility Pride Vanity
Pleasures No name Given Temperance Profligacy

“Virtue lies in our power, and similarly so does vice; because where it is in our power to act, it
is also in our power not to act...”
― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
Ethical Scenario 1: Walking home from a movie, you see a person being mugged. What is the
courageous action for you to take? Your impulse might be to say that a courageous person would
go over to the scene and stop the mugging because courage means putting yourself in harm’s
way for a good cause. However, a virtuous person -in the Aristotelean sense- would first take
stock of the situation. If you size up the mugger (taking into consideration height, weight, age,
stamina, agility, intelligence, dexterity) and have a good reason to believe that you could safely
intervene, then that’s probably the courageous choice. But if you assess the situation and realize
that intervention is likely to mean that both you and the victim will be in danger, then the
courageous choice will be not to intervene but to call for help instead. According to Aristotle,
courage is the midpoint between the extremes of cowardice and recklessness. Cowardice is a
deficiency of courage while recklessness is an excess of courage and both are bad. Aristotle
insisted that it is in fact possible to have too much of a good thing. Therefore, being courageous
does not mean rushing headlong into danger.
A courageous person will assess the situation, they’ll know their own abilities, and they’ll take
action that is right in a particular situation. Part of having courage, he argued, is being able to
recognize when, rather than stepping in, you need to find an authority to handle a situation that
is too big for you to tackle.
Journal of Applied Philosophy
Aristotle thought all virtues act like this. The right action is always a midpoint between extremes.
Likewise, the virtue of honesty means knowing what needs to be said and what does not need to
be said. It also means knowing how to deliver hard truths gracefully, how to break bad news
gently, or to offer criticism in a way that is constructive rather than soul-crushing.
Ethical Scenario 2: Similarly, the virtue of generosity avoids the obvious vice of stinginess but
also does not allow prodigality. For example, it is not generous to give drugs to an addict or buy
expensive gifts for everyone when you need that money to pay rent. The right amount of
generosity means giving when you have it to those who need it. It can mean having the
disposition to give because you can, but it also means realizing when you can’t and shouldn’t
give.
This is why Aristotle’s definition of virtue was not specific. Where the Golden Mean lies
depends on the situation.
But if one has to figure out what virtue is in every situation then how can only possibly learn to
be virtuous?
Aristotle taught that a lot can be learnt from books, but being a virtuous person was not one of
them. He said that virtue is a skill, a way of living and this is something that can only be learnt
via experience. Virtue is the kind of knowledge that he called “Practical Wisdom”. He said that
one’s character is developed through habituation: if one does a virtuous thing over and over
again, eventually, it will become a part of one’s character. But the way one knows the right thing
to do in the first place is by finding someone who already knows and by emulating them.

MORAL EXEMPLARS
“The way we know what to do, according to Aristotle, to the seek judgment of a good man. Such
a good person would know what the right thing to do would be for any agent in a given
situation.” Page 32, Barbo Froding
These people who already know virtue are called moral exemplars. According to this theory we
are built with the ability to recognize them, and with the desire to emulate them. So you learn
virtue by watching it and then doing it. Initially, it will be difficult and one might feel that one is
only ‘acting’ but over time these actions will become an ingrained part of one’s character. And
eventually, it becomes that robust trait that Aristotle had stated earlier. It will manifest every
time you need it. That’s when one knows one has virtue: fully realized, it becomes effortless.
EUDAIMONIA
But what if one has no desire to be virtuous?
According to virtue theory, one should become a virtuous person, because if one is, then one can
attain the pinnacle of humanity. It allows one to achieve “Eudaimonia” which means ‘a life well
lived, human flourishing’.
Eudaimonia is, avowedly, a moralized or value-laden concept of happiness, something like
“true” or “real” happiness or “the sort of happiness worth seeking or having.” It is thereby the
sort of concept about which there can be substantial disagreement between people with different
views about human life that cannot be resolved by appeal to some external standard on which,
despite their different views, the parties to the disagreement concur
Stanford
A life of eudiamonia is a life of striving, it’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits and finding
success. A eudiamosnistic life will be full of happiness which comes from achieving something
really difficult rather than just having it handed to you. But choosing to live a eudiamonistic life
means that you’re never done improving, you’re never to a point where you can just coast. You
are constantly setting new goals and working to develop new muscles. Choosing to live life in
this way also means you’ll face disappointments and failures, but it is the satisfaction of knowing
that you’ve accomplished a lot and that you’ve pushed yourself to be the very best person that
you can be. This is morality, for Aristotle. It is being the best person you can be, honing your
strengths while working on your weaknesses. And for Aristotle, the kind of person who lives like
this is the kind of person who will do good things

“He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with
external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life.”
― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
CONCLUSION
Possessing a virtue is a matter of degree. To possess such a disposition fully is to possess full or
perfect virtue, which is rare, and there are a number of ways of falling short of this ideal
(Athanassoulis 2000). Most people who can truly be described as fairly virtuous, and certainly
markedly better than those who can truly be described as dishonest, self-centred and greedy, still
have their blind spots—little areas where they do not act for the reasons one would expect. So
someone honest or kind in most situations, and notably so in demanding ones, may nevertheless
be trivially tainted by snobbery, inclined to be disingenuous about their forebears and less than
kind to strangers with the wrong accent.
Stanford
Describing the continent as “falling short” of perfect virtue appears to go against the intuition
that there is something particularly admirable about people who manage to act well when it is
especially hard for them to do so, but the plausibility of this depends on exactly what “makes it
hard” (Foot 1978: 11–14). If it is the circumstances in which the agent acts—say that she is very
poor when she sees someone drop a full purse or that she is in deep grief when someone visits
seeking help—then indeed it is particularly admirable of her to restore the purse or give the help
when it is hard for her to do so. But if what makes it hard is an imperfection in her character—
the temptation to keep what is not hers, or a callous indifference to the suffering of others—then
it is not.