Aristotelian Virtue

Ethics
Morality away from the morality of action to what it means to be a good moral character
Good character = have certain traits called virtues. These virtues are morally good because
they contribute to your human flourishing.

What is virtue ethics?

SOME HISTORY
 Developed in Western Philosophy by Ancient Greeks. *Kwame Gyekye also
developed a virtue ethics.
 We’ll be considering the Aristotelian form of Virtue Ethics, or what is called
Eudemonistic Virtue Ethics.
 Virtue Ethics has seen a recent resurgence: Hursthouse’s Neo-Aristotelian Virtue
Ethics.

Virtue Ethics is a character-based moral theory.

What does this mean?
 It focuses on the moral goodness of an individual’s character, as opposed to the
moral goodness of actions. Centering the individual. What is it to be a morally good
person?
 Virtue Ethics contrasts with the deontological or consequentialist approaches to
ethics which are more action centred.

EUDEMONISTIC VIRTUE ETHICS

The simplified central claim: Being a morally good person involves embodying and
actively living virtuously, because living virtuously contributes to our attainment of
eudaimonia (ultimate Happiness).

First impressions:
 Not so interest in rules or consequences as determinants of morality. Now virtue =
determinate of good moral character.
 What matters regarding moral goodness of an individual is how one’s dispositions
(character) contribute to or obstruct the attainment of Eudaimonia (Happiness
with a capital H).
 So, the attainment Eudaimonia through being virtuous in one’s life is at the center of
moral deliberation
Very Important! Being a character-based moral theory does not entail that it takes no
interest in actions:
Of course, having a morally good (virtuous) character is inextricably linked to how you
act and the actions you undertake.
 In order to be considered virtuous, you will have to behave and act virtuously
consistently enough throughout one’s life.
 Behaving virtuously involves the active pursuit of Eudaimonia.

To attain Eudaimonia (ultimate Flourishing), you must have morally good character.
Having a morally good character amounts to being a virtuous person, which involves
consistently acting in a virtuous manner.

What is Eudaimonia?
Attain eudaimonia through having a morally good character through being virtuous
To understand what it is, consider first the following questions:
“Why do you do the things you do?”
“What is the goal of your actions over your individual human life?”
“What’s the point of your endeavors in life?”

If you ask that question indefinitely, Aristotle claims that there is an answer which will count
as the ultimate aim/reason/goal/telos to which all other endeavors and pursuits are aimed.

In Nicomachean Ethics Section I.I, Aristotle claims that:

“Every art and every enquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at
some good; and for this reason, The Good [eudaimonia] has rightly been declared to be that
at which all things aim.”
We can think about THE GOOD (Eudaimonia) in terms of the distinction between
intrinsic and instrumental goods as well.

An Instrumental Good is a good usually pursued for the sake of some other Good.
 For Aristotle, the goods that typify most of our daily pursuits are of the instrumental
kind
 This is because they are really aimed at an all-encompassing good which is
intrinsically good / valuable = which he considers to be Eudaimonia [Happiness (with
a capital H) or Flourishing or Well-Being].

So, Eudaimonia is an intrinsic good in human life. How so?

- It’s the good to which all other (instrumental) goods are aimed
- It is pursued for its own sake, not because it leads to some other good
- The goods of intrinsic goods depends on itself without its goodness depending on intrinsic
goods.
‘If then, there is some End (ultimate goal to be attained) of the things we do, which we desire
for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose
everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would go on to infinity,
so that our desire would be empty and vain), clearly this (eudaimonia) must be the good and
the chief good’

« Eudaimonia (Flourishing, Happiness, Well-Being) is the Chief Good to which human

life is aimed.

‘Let us ... state, in view of the fact that all knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good,
what it is that ... [morality] aims at, and what is the highest of all goods achievable by
action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both the general run of men and people
of
superior refinement say that it is eudaimonia’

« So, we see that Eudaimonia is the highest good attainable through human actions and
behaviours. It is the moral good to which all human life is aimed.

Question: Where does the Virtue Ethics part come in?

Answer: The question of virtues comes in when we ask, “what is the best way to act/
character to have such that we can attain eudaimonia - the cardinal Good of human life?”

The function argument

According to Aristotle, we can attain Eudaimonia (attainment of Eudaimonia is
contingent on) if we fulfil our function as human beings, which is to live actively
rational life well and excellently (virtuously).

To make this point, Aristotle posits the function argument:

(1) Everything has a function, so humans must have one too.
(2) The human function must be distinctive of humans.
(3) The human function is living an active, rational life.
(4) The virtue of x consists in performing x’s function well or excellently,
(5) So human virtue consists in living an active, rational life well or excellently.
(6) Living well is morally good for humans, i.e. it fulfils them.
(7) It is in their fulfilment through living well that human beings can attain
Eudaimonia.
Some skepticism regarding the Function argument:
(1)Everything has a function, so humans must have one too.
Do we have a function just because everything else does?
If our function is to live an active rational life, and virtue is all about fulfilling our function,
but it is established that humans have no function, then the entire conversation of virtue
collapses all together. We would not need morally good character,

(2) The human function must be distinctive of humans.

There could be another species (hypothetically) with the same function? Perhaps rationality
does not make us distinctively human.

(3) The human function is living an active, rational life.

(4) The virtue of x consists in performing x’s function well or excellently,
(5) So human virtue consists in living an active, rational life well or excellently.

(6) Living well is good for humans, i.e. it fulfils them.

I could use my reason to do bad things excellently?

(7) It is in their fulfilment through living well that human beings can attain Eudaimonia.

No matter how dubious the function argument may be, the central claim remains:
« Having a good character requires being virtuous.
« Being virtuous is about living an active and fully rational life excellently.
« Finally, being virtuous is morally good because it contributes to one’s Flourishing
(Eudaimonia).

Virtues: What are they and how do we get

them?
Having a good character requires being virtuous and being virtuous is morally good because
it contributes to one’s Flourishing (Eudaimonia).

What are virtues?

« The character traits you must embody to be considered to have a good character and
to be considered as living rational life excellently
« They are morally good traits to have, particularly because they contribute to attaining
eudaimonia
« Traits like courage, friendliness, temperance, loyalty, truthfulness, patience = virtues
that contribute to attainment of eudaimonia
« If someone is virtuous, we consider them to have character traits that are morally
praiseworthy.
« You can’t just wake up and decide that you are going to be a virtuous person i.e.,
‘courageous’. You have to display/ embody these traits overtime, appropriately and in
various situations.

Characteristics of virtues
 « Kinds of character traits or dispositions that are morally good
« Not having virtue is considered morally blameworthy = being vicious (vices)
« A virtue can never be morally bad/ neutral, because they contribute to attainment
of eudaimonia
« Virtues are stable – can’t decide to learn virtues and simply be virtuous: they are
habituated and practiced overtime.
« Objective and universal in nature but are realisable in multiple ways

How does one become virtuous

Aristotle: one becomes virtuous through habituation and is virtuous by displaying virtues
holistically throughout their lives and in situations where they are required.

HABITUATION
« A kind of moral education/ upbringing you receive during your development as a
moral agent (inculcation – moulded into having good character traits)
« Involves continued moral nurturing, involving being guided on how to act and behave
morally
« Involves the development of practical reasoning, involving developing your
reasoning capacities to help you attain the chief good (Flourishing)

Habituation in action
« You may observe and be raised to be courageous.
« Thrusted into a situation where you have to behave courageously
« Continuously practicing and refining your courage leads to courage being a habit
« In being a habit, it in a sense becomes who you are

Why is habituation important for having virtues?

« An individual’s character is formed much earlier in childhood or adolescence
« Character is much more difficult to change once one is in adulthood
« If you want to shape someone’s character, best to do so when young
« Need to have enough experience with the virtue in order to be considered to display it
stably and adequately

Ergo, moral education is particularly important (habituation into virtues) while you are
young:
« If you don’t get your virtue training earlier, it may be hard foir you to become
virtuous later
« If you acquire vices earlier, it might lead you to becoming a vicious/ bad person

SO, habituation, (via inculcation) and making virtues a habit of yours is how one becomes
virtuous.
Point to ponder: if much of who we become as individuals and if we get to become virtuous
at all is dependent on how we are moulded, to what extent can an individual be considered
responsible for the development of their moral character? Can Aristotle account for this?

Determining virtues
 « How does one know what constitutes a virtue?
« Which dispositions count as virtuous and how can we know that they are virtues?
« How will I know how to act virtuously in a given situation?

ANSWERS
« The dispositions which accord with the Doctrine of the Mean = virtues
« Dispositions that lie in deficiency or excess to the mean are vices
« The doctrine of the mean is a rational principle to be employed when looking to
know what the virtuous thing to do in any situation is

The Doctrine of the Mean

Rational principle which states:
Every virtue will be located as a mean between two correlative vices. A virtue is what
indices a proportional exercise of a particular disposition, where vices involve deficient or
excessive exercise of a particular disposition disproportional to what may be sufficiently
required.

The Virtues will be the Golden Mean between correlative character-traits which display
lack and excess. There is an appropriate response in any given particular situation. A virtuous
person will hit the spot; a vicious person will go too far or not enough.
i.e.,
F Deficiency (vice) = cowardice
F Mean (virtue) = courage
F Excess (vice) = rashness i.e., cock a gun, shoot the person in the shin
i.e.,
F Deficiency = Evilness
F Mean = Friendliness
F Excess = Sucking-Up

Summary so far
Critiques of virtue ethics
1st Critique: self-effacement
This is a critique which indicates that acting according to the theory undermines the
theory:
 For Virtue Ethics, we are motivated to be virtuous in our actions and behaviour
because it results in the attainment of Eudaimonia (something intrinsically good for
us).
 Ergo, someone who subscribes to Virtue Ethics does what they do because it is
virtuous and are virtuous because it results in the attainment of Eudaimonia.

Consider the following scenario:

You’re visiting a friend who is sick in the hospital. The friend asks you, that’s so nice of you!
What made you decide to visit me? Let’s say you live your life following virtue ethics. It
seems like in this instance, your answer will be “because it was the virtuous thing to do
and because this will help me attain Eudaimonia.”

It seems like there’s something dubious/strange with that being your reason for doing
something for someone. It seems that using virtue as a motivator for your actions
undermines the claim that you are acting virtuously.

The Critique: Bernhard Williams “One Too Many Thought’s”/Self-Effacement

Objection.
 To act because it’s the virtuous thing to do seemingly effaces (creates
doubt/undermines) the fact that one acted virtuously. To act with these motives in
mind is to have one thought too many.
 Put differently, being motivated by the theories prescription (that we should do the
virtuous thing) and Eudaimonia seems to undermine the fact that you have actually
acted virtuously in that situation.
 Acting virtuously properly seemingly requires you not to be preoccupied with acting
virtuously, as being preoccupied means your doing something to be virtuous as
opposed because it’s the good thing to do. This is what it means for the theory to
be self-effacing.

This is a challenge to the internal consistency of the theory

Acting according to theory seemingly delivers a situation contrary to the theory

2nd Critique: Moral Responsibility

This challenge focuses on the implications of virtues being habituated:
There are two concerns:
1. If virtues depend on whether they were habituated (inculcated) in us by others, then
how can I be fully morally responsible for the dispositions (virtues or vices) that I
 display? How much of my virtuousness is my own doing and hence my own
responsibility?
2. If my virtues and vices are a result of my moral upbringing, how does it make sense
to praise or blame me for my dispositions and behaviour?

Seemingly, our moral character development depends on others. We have little control over
how other’s nurture us. So, it seems that we cannot be morally responsible or held morally
responsible (praised or blamed) for the dispositions we display

VE seems inconsistent with our background assumptions (that a moral theory should
appropriately ascribe moral responsibility) because the role of habituation results in VE
being unable to account how one is adequately morally responsible for their
dispositions.

However, defenders of VE might want to push back and say:

 Unlike during our moral upbringing, we do have significant control over our own
behaviour and actions in our later life.
 Ergo, we are still in a position where we can alter our dispositions to be more
virtuous. The ability to act otherwise preserves the idea that you can be morally
responsible for your virtuousness.

Are you convinced by this defence?

This may depend on the extent of moral responsibility one can even take from choices
which can also largely be influenced by one’s upbringing.

3rd Critique: Moral Relevance of virtues

Aristotle provides us with an extensive list of virtues (magnificence, friendliness,
courage, temperance, justice, humility).

The issue:
 Are all these virtues morally relevant?
 What does magnificence (being charismatic) have to do with morality?

Aristotle’s Answer:
They are morally relevant because they contribute to the attainment of a moral good
(Eudaimonia).

But:
 Do the virtues always contribute to the attainment of Eudaimonia? But this seems
unfalsifiable (you could always find a way to just justify that they do contribute
to Eudaimonia).
 The virtues might not even guarantee the attainment of eudaimonia in the first
place, which would render them even derivatively/instrumentally morally irrelevant.
4th Critique: Are virtues culturally
relative?
This critique concerns internal consistency, consistency with considered moral
judgments, and background assumptions about morality.

• We would ideally like a moral theory to give us a stable standard of moral action/ character.
• In addition, we would like what the moral theory tells us is morally good to match our
considered moral judgments about what’s good.

Does Virtue Ethics do this?

Well, there’s reason to doubt this on the grounds that virtues seem culturally relative.

Aristotle seems to outline dispositions that would have been considered virtuous in
ancient Greece.
 As such, Aristotle seemingly just identifies desirable dispositions as virtues
simply because they are good in his culture.
 How is his list of character traits objectively arrived at?

The problems that this may lead to:

It seems that virtues are culturally relative, resulting in the moral arbitrariness and
contradiction of virtues

How can we see this?

- What may be virtuous in one environment may not be virtuous in another. This leads
to a (logical) contradiction/arbitrariness where something is both virtuous and vicious at the
same time.
- Some cultures value humility over magnificence. Does this mean humility is morally bad?

5th Critique: conflicting virtues

Even if we grant that virtues listed by Aristotle are universal, a problem remains:
What happens if virtues conflict?
How does one act virtuously in such a situation?

 Consider situations of protest for example where friendliness/kindness and justice

might conflict, especially between adversaries.
 Another situation where truthfulness and kindness conflict (Being “brutally honest”)

How do you determine that you’re acting virtuously in this situation?

Seemingly, virtues can conflict, and this shows the theory to be internally inconsistent
and not useful as a guide for how we ought to behave in some situations.

How could Aristotelian Virtue Ethicists respond?

First Response: Virtues are a Unity.
- Claim that virtues are in a coherent relation to each other
- Person not applying their practical reasoning well if virtues conflict

BUT THIS IS IMPLAUSIBLE: JUST SHOWN IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO

CONFLICT

Second Response:
 There is a hierarchy of virtues
 Some more important than others depending on what the situation demands

Issue: how do we non-arbitrarily determine which one’s are more important? (how
much they contribute to your eudaimonia? How can we definitely know this?)

6th Critique: Practical incompleteness

This critique concerns VE’s usefulness in moral problem solving:
Here, there’s a serious concern that virtue ethics gives no practical guidance for moral action.

This critique is twofold:

1. VE doesn’t really give us an idea of how to act morally in certain situations. (Casuistry
Issues) When in a moral dilemma (trolley problem), virtue ethics seems to fail to provide
guidance.
2. VE may be unable to tell us which actions are morally right or wrong, which we
would still like a moral theory to do. (Applied Ethics issues)

Some actions are morally contentious (genetic modification, abortion), and virtue ethics
cannot provide us with a way to decide their moral status.

7th Critique: Eudaimonic Prudentialism

Everything seems to hinge on Eudaimonia in Aristotelian Virtue Ethics.
 Moral goodness of virtues hinges on their relationship with the attainment of
Eudaimonia.
 Aristotle argues that we are meant to be virtuous because it’s good for us and
results in Eudaimonia.

The problem with this, as Søren Kierkegaard notes, is that eudaimonism (Aristotelian
Virtue Ethics) makes ethics dependent on prudentialism.

Prudentialism involves:
Doing something (being virtuous) because it is likeliest to bring about a certain favourable
outcome (eudaimonia).
The issue with prudentialism, is that it undermines moral character by making people
motivated to act for derivative reasons outside of the morality of the action itself.