AO1: Virtue ethics
- Virtue ethics originates with Aristotle in ancient Greece.
- It developed in a culture focused on character, community, and the good life rather than strict moral rules.
- Aristotle built on earlier Greek thought but rejected views like Epicureanism, which made pleasure the ultimate goal.
- Instead, he argued ethics should focus on forming good character through reason and habit within a social community.
- The goal of life is eudaimonia (flourishing or living well).
- All actions ultimately aim at this end, while other goals are only instrumental.
- Humans flourish by fulfilling their function, which Aristotle identifies as rational activity.
- Pleasure is not the goal itself, but a natural by-product of living virtuously.
- Virtues lie between two extremes (vices) of excess and deficiency.
- For example, courage is the mean between recklessness and cowardice.
- The virtuous person develops the habit of choosing the golden mean in each situation.
- This requires judgement, since the “right” balance varies depending on circumstances.
- Virtues are developed through practice, habit, and imitation of virtuous role models.
- Moral virtues come from experience, while intellectual virtues come from education.
- Practical wisdom (phronesis) helps us judge what the virtuous action is in each situation.
- Over time, a virtuous person aligns both their actions and emotions with reason.
- Virtue ethics approaches issues like euthanasia, abortion, and sexual ethics by asking what a virtuous person would do.
- It focuses on character, compassion, and wise judgement rather than fixed rules.
- This allows flexibility, but still aims at promoting human flourishing.
- Modern thinkers have revived virtue ethics.
- Alasdair MacIntyre argues virtues are shaped by cultural traditions, so different societies may have different accounts of flourishing.
- However, ethics still aims at achieving some coherent form of the good life within those traditions.
- Martha Nussbaum defends a more universal approach, arguing certain virtues (like justice) reflect shared human needs and experiences.
- This suggests some aspects of flourishing are common across all cultures, grounding virtue ethics more objectively.
AO2: The issue of clear guidance
- A major criticism is that virtue ethics does not give clear practical guidance for action.
- Aristotle says we should do what a virtuous person would do, but he does not explain how to determine this in specific situations.
- Knowing that courage or justice is good does not tell us what action to take in complex moral dilemmas.
- Modern theories like Kantian ethics provide clearer rules for judging right and wrong.
Counter:
- Aristotle would reply that this criticism misunderstands the nature of ethics.
- Moral life is complex and varied, so it cannot be reduced to fixed rules or calculations.
- Trying to create a precise moral algorithm ignores the diversity of real situations.
- Instead, we should aim to become virtuous people, since a good character gives us the best chance of making the right judgement in difficult circumstances.
Evaluation:
- This defence is persuasive because it identifies a weakness in rule-based theories.
- Telling people what to do does not ensure they will do it, since moral failure often results from bad character rather than lack of knowledge.
- Virtue ethics focuses on developing the kind of person who naturally acts well.
- While it may lack precision, Aristotle is right that moral life cannot be captured fully by strict rules.
- His approach gives realistic guidance by shaping character, which in practice may be the most effective way to encourage consistently good behaviour.
AO2: The issue of the cultural relativity of virtues
- Aristotle presents a list of virtues as if they are objective and rooted in human nature.
- However, different cultures seem to value different traits, and there is no clear way to decide which list is correct.
- This suggests Aristotle’s virtues may simply reflect his own society.
- If so, virtue ethics may not provide universal moral guidance, but only express cultural preferences.
Counter:
- Aristotle can be defended by arguing that his theory is grounded in universal human nature.
- All humans seek flourishing, and certain experiences such as friendship, justice, and community appear across cultures.
- Martha Nussbaum develops this defence, claiming a shared list of virtues can be built from common human needs.
- Even if cultures differ, many core virtues remain widely recognised.
Evaluation:
- Even if a universal list of virtues is hard to prove, virtue ethics can still survive this criticism.
- MacIntyre argues that different cultures may have different lists of virtues, yet the structure of virtue ethics remains intact.
- The ideas of cultivating good character, aiming at flourishing, and using practical wisdom still apply.
- This means virtue ethics can adapt to different cultural contexts without collapsing into pure relativism, preserving its relevance as a moral framework.
AO2: Virtue ethics & anthropocentrism
- Aristotle’s ethics focuses on human flourishing, which critics argue is overly anthropocentric.
- Peter Singer claims this leads to speciesism, an unjustified preference for humans over other animals.
- Since many animals can suffer and have complex lives, it seems wrong to treat human flourishing as the only moral good.
- Aristotle’s focus on reason as the basis of value may also lead to troubling views about people with reduced reasoning abilities.
Counter:
- Virtue ethics can be adapted to avoid this problem.
- Martha Nussbaum argues that justice, a central virtue, should extend to all sentient beings.
- Animals are capable of flourishing in their own ways, and humans should respect this.
- By promoting compassion and fairness, virtue ethics can support better treatment of animals without abandoning its core focus on character and flourishing.
Evaluation:
- This defence is strong because it shows that anthropocentrism is not essential to virtue ethics itself.
- Singer’s criticism mainly targets Aristotle’s original assumptions, not the broader framework.
- By expanding the idea of flourishing to include animals, virtue ethics can remain relevant and morally sensitive.
- It still emphasises developing virtues like compassion and justice, while avoiding the exclusion of non-human life from moral consideration.
AO2: the compatibility of virtue ethics with religious ethics
- Virtue ethics is clearly compatible with many aspects of Christian ethics.
- First, Aquinas incorporates Aristotelian virtue theory into Natural Law, showing how virtues help humans fulfil their God-given purpose (telos).
- Virtues like prudence, temperance and justice are central to living a good Christian life.
- Second, the teachings of Jesus often focus on inner character, not just outward actions.
- For example, condemning hatred and lust “in the heart” shows morality is about who you are, not just what you do.
- Similarly, Paul the Apostle emphasises love (agape) as the core moral quality, suggesting moral life is rooted in virtuous character and motivation.
Counter
- However, there are important differences.
- Christian ethics goes beyond virtue ethics by including clear rules and duties grounded in God’s will.
- For example, the Ten Commandments provide fixed moral laws, showing a deontological element not present in Aristotle’s theory.
- Right action in Christianity is not just what a virtuous person would do, but what God commands.
- Furthermore, virtue ethics focuses on flourishing in this life, whereas Christianity ultimately aims at salvation and eternal life.
- Earthly flourishing may matter, but it is secondary to achieving union with God in the afterlife.
Evaluation
- Overall, virtue ethics is partly compatible with Christian ethics but not fully.
- There is strong overlap in the emphasis on character, intention, and moral development.
- Virtue language helps explain why inner motivation, such as love, matters in Christian morality.
- However, Christianity extends beyond this by grounding ethics in divine authority and fixed moral commands.
- This adds a deontological structure that limits the flexibility of virtue ethics.
- In practice, Christian ethics often combines both approaches: virtues shape intentions, while rules guide actions.
- So virtue ethics fits well within Christianity, but only as part of a broader moral framework rather than a complete account.
AO1: strengths and weaknesses of Virtue ethics
- Weakness: Virtue ethics lacks clear rules, making it difficult to know what action to take in specific situations.
- Strength: Virtue ethics focuses on developing good character, which helps people make better moral decisions in complex situations.
- Weakness: Virtue ethics may reflect cultural values, so there is no clear universal list of virtues.
- Strength: Virtue ethics can adapt to different cultures while still promoting character, flourishing, and practical wisdom.
- Weakness: Virtue ethics focuses on human flourishing, which may ignore the moral value of animals.
- Strength: Virtue ethics can be expanded to include compassion and justice towards animals, avoiding human bias.