1

2041626

Student Cover Sheet and Reflection on Feedback Form

University of Birmingham – School of Philosophy, Theology and Religion

Module Title: LC Ancient Philosophy: Plato and Aristotle (26768)

Module Level: C
Student ID (SRN) 2041626
Essay/assignment title: Aristotle and Virtue
In this essay, you must:
 Explain in your own words what virtues are
according to Aristotle.
 Consider how that account could be used to explain
what is right and wrong.
 Evaluate the resulting view by considering one
objection to it.
Confirmed Word Count: 1479
Have you had an extension agreed? Yes No
If Yes, what is your extension deadline?
2
2041626

What feedback have you received on earlier assessments, or while preparing this assessment?
 To select fewer arguments and explain them in more detail
 To include less quotes and paraphrase more
 Reference using Harvard style of referencing

How have you responded to that feedback in this assessment?

 I have tried to reference accurately and keep referring back to the question
 I have tried to explain fewer theories and explain them in further detail
 I have tried to include more analysis and use my own examples throughout

What feedback on this assessment would best help you think about your next one?
 Feedback on whether to structure is correct
 Feedback on referencing and bibliography
 Feedback on how to include more analysis

Aristotle was an empiricist who believed a posteriori knowledge will

lead us to truths in this world. In ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ Aristotle
puts forward his virtue ethicist view of right and wrong by defining
virtue as a disposition that is built into human nature (Aristotle,
2009[350BCE], 23). Unlike many modern moral philosophers rather
than placing emphasis on rational thought he describes the process
of acquiring virtue as a matter of habit (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE],
23). I will begin this essay by further explaining Aristotle’s definition
of what a virtue is by focusing on specific examples such as
courage. I will then go on to explain how his views on virtues have
aided humanity to develop a moral code commonly known as Virtue
Ethics. After exploring certain objections to the Aristotelian virtue
3
2041626
ethicist view specifically put forward by Rob Louden, I will finish the
essay by concluding that due to the strong replies put forward by
neo-virtue ethicists such as Rosalind Hursthouse and Aristotle’s
profound impact on Christianity, Aristotle’s theory on virtues are
still relevant and meaningful today.

In Book I of ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ Aristotle looks at the notion of

the ‘human good’, defining it to be when we are virtuously using our
reason (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 12). The claim that Aristotle makes
at the end of Book I is that in order for human beings to reach the
ultimate good they must carry out activities that is characteristic to
humans (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 12). Only when we are
successfully using our reason in an excellent way can it be said that
we are leading a good human life (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 12).
Aristotle believes this is the reason we should become virtuous
beings; to achieve human flourishing (i.e eudaimonia) (Aristotle,
2009[350BCE], 5). In this way we are able to infer that Aristotle’s
notion of virtue is similar to terms such as excellence or success
rather than the traditional old-fashioned conception of virtue which
has connotations of personal qualities such as beneficence or
kindness.

At the start of Book II Aristotle further explains his notion of virtues

by dividing them into two domains; intellectual virtues (responsible
for activities such as contemplation and scientific enquiry) and
moral virtues (responsible for living successfully in a political
community with others) Throughout this essay I will be focusing
mainly on the latter type of virtue (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 23).
Moral virtues are those which are acquired as a result of habit and
thus teaching and learning of certain virtues is not sufficient,
practice is required so that they become habitual (Aristotle,
2009[350BCE], 23). Aristotle provides the example of playing the
lyre demonstrating that only by practicing can one become a good
lyre-player virtue (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 23-24). The relevance of
Aristotle’s views on virtues can be seen more clearly through a
more modern example of learning to play tennis; one might begin
tennis lessons for health results yet after a while start liking the
sport for its own sake and therefore the practice of it would become
habitual. Towards the end of book II Aristotle differentiates virtues
from emotions and capacities (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 29). We
know that we get praised for virtues in contrast to emotions which
are not under our control and therefore we cannot be praised for
them (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 29). Similarly, capacities are stable
4
2041626
states of the soul and therefore rather than being praised for them
we are evaluated as people (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 29).

After exploring Aristotle’s notion of virtues, it is now important to

evaluate how this can explain which actions are moral and which
are immoral. This is the key differentiator between Aristotle’s ethics
and other normative ethical theories. In a theory such as
Utilitarianism one has to calculate what the right thing to do is by
using an apparatus such as the hedonic calculus. Similarly, when
adopting a Kantian ethicist stance, one would have to calculate
whether the maxim in question is universal. In contrast Aristotle’s
virtue ethics is completely opposed to this approach to morality,
arguing that the social world is far too complex to provide a simple
calculation in the moment of action (Suikkanen, 2019). In order to
see whether an action is moral we have to always use our
judgement and rely on our emotions and motivations (Suikkanen,
2019). Virtue ethics argues for a shift away from deontic terms such
as right, wrong or obligatory to aretaic terms such as good, bad or
wise (Suikkanen, 2019). In this way, virtue ethics focuses on how to
be a good person rather than how to do a good act; thus making it
an agent centred ethical theory rather than an act-centred theory
(Suikkanen, 2019).

Furthermore, Aristotle provides distinctive methods of calculating

how one could differentiate between a virtue and a vice. An
example of one of these methods is the ‘Doctrine of the Mean’
(Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 29-31). Aristotle describes virtue as the
midpoint between two vices; the vice of deficiency and the vice of
excess and the centred spot where virtue lies is referred to as ‘the
mean’ (Aristotle, 2009[350BCE], 29-31). If we take the example of
courage the vice of deficiency would be cowardice and the vice of
excess would be recklessness. For instance, if someone saw
another person being mugged, according to Aristotle, the
courageous act would not to be to interfere physically but to call for
help and this would be seen as the midpoint between cowardice and
deficiency. Through the ‘Doctrine of the mean’ Aristotle successfully
demonstrates how his views on virtues allow us to differentiate
between right and wrong in a practical situation.

Nevertheless, despite all this, Virtue Ethics has been criticised for
its lack of guidance when solving moral dilemmas (Louden, 1984,
229). In ‘On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics’ Robert Louden uses this
critique in order to prove that Virtue Ethics fails to meet the primary
5
2041626
aim of any ethical theory; to provide clear guidance in an ethical
dilemma (Louden, 1984, 229). After criticising G.E.M Anscombe and
Philippa Foot’s modern development of virtue ethics, Louden
explores certain problems with focusing on agents rather than acts
(Louden, 1984, 229). One problem that stood out was that it leads to
Virtue Ethics becoming a weak theory when focusing on applied
ethics. Louden offers the example of abortion claiming that it would
be difficult to calculate the virtuous response when weighing up
whether to abort a child or not. (Louden, 1984, 229). Perhaps virtue
ethics does not provide enough absolute and concrete answers and
therefore a deontological approach to ethics could be favourable
which prescribes unconditional principles.

However, in my opinion Rosalind Hursthouse is able to overcome

these criticisms in her article ‘Virtue Theory and Abortion’
(Hursthouse, 1991, 223-246). Hursthouse provides a defence for neo-
Aristotelian virtue ethics by claiming that Virtue Ethics does in fact
provide reasonable guidance in ethical dilemmas such as abortion
(Hursthouse, 1991, 223-246). It is important to note here that
Hursthouse is not in any way attempting to solve the issue of
abortion but instead is emphasising how Virtue Ethics can be
practical in such circumstances (Hursthouse, 1991, 233).
Hursthouse explores two main factors when dealing with the issue
of abortion (Hursthouse, 1991, 233-244). The first factor is the
status of the foetus and second is the amount of rights the woman
has. According to Hursthouse these are irrelevant from the
perspective of Virtue Ethics as they are too limiting (Hursthouse,
1991, 234). Overall Hursthouse argues that acts of abortion can be
non-virtuous whereas in other cases abortion can be seen to be the
right decision for example if having the birth of the child would
result in the death of the mother. This shows how Hursthouse is
able to overcome the critique of Virtue Ethics being impractical
when applied to moral situations. Furthermore, many of Aristotle’s
ideas have been incorporated into Christianity which evokes the
impact his ideas have had on the modern-day world. In Christianity
the universe and everything in it is believed to exist for a reason
and with a function to perform. For Aristotle this purpose is to
function and for Christians it would be to follow God. Similarly,
Christians believe God to be eternal, beyond time and space and
incapable of change which originates from Aristotle’s ideas.

In conclusion, although critics of Virtue Ethics such as Rob Louden

provide persuasive arguments against Aristotle’s theory of virtues,
6
2041626
nevertheless defenders such as Hursthouse provide a more
convincing view in support of the theory. Hursthouse does this by
removing the objection explored by Louden that Virtue Ethics is
incompatible with applied ethics. Through Hursthouse’s neo-
Aristotelian view the reader is able to conclude that Virtue Ethics is
capable in guiding action and just does so differently to traditional
ethics by focusing on the agent rather than on set rules. In my
opinion evaluating morality in aretaic terms is preferable to other
deontological theories such as Kantian Ethics and should at the
forefront of modern-day ethics.

Bibliography:
- Aristotle (2009 [350BCE]): Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Louden, R. (1984) ‘On some Vices of Virtue Ethics’ in The Philosophical Quarterly,
21(3). [Online] Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/20014051?read-
now=1&refreqid=excelsior
%3Ae092b1f25b32eb562826242cc8785f69&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
- Hursthouse, R (1991) 'Virtue Theory and Abortion' in Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Vol. 20, pp. 223-246. [Online] Available at
http://www.meddent.uwa.edu.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0003/3034452/04.2-
Hursthouse-1991-Virtue-Theory-and-Abortion-P_PA.pdf.pdf
- Suikkanen, J (2019), Week 10