AQA Philosophy
Moral Philosophy

See full article here.

Summary notes for Virtue ethics

Outline of Aristotelian virtue ethics

Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory, meaning it attempts to guide our moral behaviour by identifying the criteria for determining which actions are good or bad.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred. It claims that what makes an action good or bad is whether it is what a virtuous person would do.
Eudaimonia
Function
Virtues

‘The good’ for human beings: Eudaimonia as the ‘final end’

Aristotle argues that the diversity of all human action ultimately traces back to the same goal: eudaimonia, which means flourishing, living well or living a good life.
Everything else can only be instrumentally desired as a means to that end.
We often have intermediate goals, such as achieving a good grade in an exam.
However, such goals are merely instrumental as we adopt them only as a means to the ultimate goal of helping us to live a good life, i.e., flourishing.
So, flourishing is our ultimate end as it’s the only thing we can value for its own sake.
Everything else we value only insofar as we think it enabling of our flourishing.
Aristotle concludes Eudaimonia is “the good” for human beings.
This has ethical implications, that moral behaviour should be understood in terms of the attaining of flourishing.

The relationship between Eudaimonia and pleasure

Aristotle argues that eudaimonia, meaning flourishing, is our ultimate desired end and thus ‘the good’ for human beings.
Other theories at the time like Epicureanism disagreed, arguing that pleasure was our ultimate end.
Aristotle responded that pleasure is good, but not the only good.
This is because sometimes pleasure can be bad, e.g. it can lead to addiction to bodily pleasures.
So, adopting pleasure as our end-goal is self-defeating because it actually leads to a lack of pleasure.
However, Aristotle points out that when cultivating virtuous habits, that ordinarily leads to pleasure.
E.g. If you discipline your habits to learn to play a musical instrument, eventually it is pleasurable.
So, the appropriate place for pleasure is not as our final ultimate goal, but as a by-product of being virtuous.
Only being virtuous will enable humans to attain their final end of flourishing.

The function argument

Aristotle argues that eudaimonia, meaning flourishing, is our ultimate desired end and thus ‘the good’ for human beings.
The function argument explains what living a flourishing good life actually involves:
Aristotle notes that we call something ‘good’ when it performs its function well.
So, our life is good and has attained eudaimonia, when we perform our function well.
A thing’s function is its unique distinctive characteristic, what it is uniquely good for.
E.g., you could use an axe to play the piano, but it is uniquely good for chopping.
So an axe is good when it chops well.
The unique characteristic of humans is our ability to reason.
So, we flourish when we are reasoning well, when we are guided by reason, when we have good reasons for our actions.

The relationship between virtues and function

Aristotle argues that eudaimonia, meaning flourishing, is our ultimate desired end and thus ‘the good’ for human beings.
The function argument explains that we flourish when we perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues are what enable a thing to perform its function well.
E.g., the function of an axe is to chop, so a virtue of an axe would be things like sharpness or durability.
The virtues for human beings are character traits or dispositions or habits which enable us to reason well.
Life involves various temptations that threaten to dominate our will and corrupt our reason.
E.g., if we lack the virtue of temperance, then greedy addiction to pleasure might control our behaviour.
E.g., if we lack the virtue of courage, then fear might control our behaviour.
So, cultivating all the virtues are essential for being guided by reason in our actions so as to perform our function well and thereby attain eudaimonia.

Aristotle’s account of virtues and vices: virtues as character traits/dispositions

Aristotle argued the goal of human life is to attain eudaimonia, which means flourishing.
We flourish when we perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues are what enable us to perform our function of reasoning well. They are on a spectrum between the extremes of excess and deficiency.
They can be understood as dispositions, which refers to a tendency to behave in a certain way under certain conditions.
Virtues are character traits which give us the disposition to choose the mean between the extremes.
Such traits involve having the habit of choosing the actions which reflect and cultivate virtuous habits.
E.g., having a virtue of courage means our character has the trait of disposing us to behave courageously in moral situations. We will be in the habit of doing what a courageous person would do, instead of what a reckless (excess) or cowardly (deficiency) person would do.

Aristotle’s account of virtues and vices: the role of education/habituation in the development of a moral character

Aristotle thinks we are not born virtuous. We have to learn to be virtuous through experience and education.
We are creatures of habit, so we tend to do what we are in the habit of doing.
The habits we cultivate during childhood are especially important as they are hard to break.
So, education is important for the development of a moral character, in cultivating virtuous habits.
Intellectual virtues can be learned through education, whereas ‘moral’ virtues like courage have to be learned through experience and by following the example of virtuous people.
This task is life-long, extending beyond childhood.
Virtues exist on a spectrum between deficiency and excess. Being virtuous involves cultivating a moral character which is in the habit of choosing the mean between the extremes.
E.g., life involves various temptations and pressures which threaten to incline us to give into greed, cowardliness, unfriendliness etc.
So, even once virtuous habits have been developed they must be maintained through deliberate rational assessment of whether we are continuing to do what a virtuous person would be in the habit of doing.

Aristotle’s account of virtues and vices: the skill analogy

Aristotle thinks we are not born virtuous. We have to learn to be virtuous through experience and education.
Virtues exist on a spectrum between the extremes of excess and deficiency. A virtuous person is one who is in the habit of choosing the mean between the extremes.
Aristotle says learning to be that sort of person is analogous to learning a skill.
If you want to learn how to play the piano, you have to discipline your behaviour and practice it, so that you eventually develop the habits required to master that skill.
The same is true of virtues. Cultivating them requires deliberate practice through education and habituation.
Once a skill has been gained, it also requires continued practice to maintain it. This requires overcoming the difficulty of the temptation to things like laziness.
Similarly, in life we continually face temptations to develop unvirtuous habits, e.g., to addictive self-indulgence or cowardliness or unfriendliness.
Maintaining virtue requires continual rational appraisal and disciplining of our habits.

Aristotle’s account of virtues and vices: the importance of feelings

Human action can be accompanied by both reason and feeling.
Virtuous action is no different. E.g. one can feel friendly and generous.
It’s possible to act like a virtuous person would act regarding these virtues, and yet your feelings be at odds with your action.
E.g., you could act friendly but internally feel dislike for others.
E.g., you could act generously but inside feel unhappy over giving away things you own.
Cultivating a habit of choosing the mean between the extremes requires that your feelings be brought into alignment with doing what a virtuous person would do.
A person isn’t fully virtuous until that happens.
Our feelings are not under direct control of our will. Nonetheless, by continually rationally reminding yourself of the virtuousness of having certain feelings, Aristotle thinks we can over time cultivate the right feelings.
Thinking about the example of virtuous people and deliberating over our own behaviour can help to realign our feelings with what we rationally appreciate to be the requirements of virtue.

Aristotle’s account of virtues and vices: the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues

Aristotle argued the goal of human life is to attain eudaimonia, which means flourishing.
We flourish when we perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues are what enable us to perform our function of reasoning well.
Aristotle identified different spheres of action/feeling, such as fear and confidence.
The doctrine of the mean is that within each sphere there is a spectrum. The virtue is the ‘mean’ in the middle, with the extremes of excess and deficiency on either side.
Virtues are character traits which give us the disposition to choose the mean between the extremes.
E.g., courage is the ‘mean’ between the excess of recklessness and the deficiency of cowardliness.
E.g., temperance is the ‘mean’ between the excess of self-indulgence and the deficiency of insensibility.
A virtuous person is one who has fully developed the habit of choosing the golden mean.
In life, we continually face temptations to develop unvirtuous habits, e.g., to addictive self-indulgence or cowardliness or unfriendliness.
Maintaining virtue requires continual rational appraisal and disciplining of our habits.

Moral responsibility: voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary actions

Moral responsibility is important for Aristotle because the goal of his virtue ethics was to cultivate a character which is in the habit of choosing the mean between the extremes.
If you do something that goes against the cultivation of virtuous habits then it’s important to learn from that mistake so as to avoid encouraging the cultivation of unvirtuous habits. We are morally responsible for voluntary acts, which are those we intended to do with full knowledge of what we were doing.
We are not responsible for involuntary actions caused by force.
E.g. if you’re on a train and it crashes and you smash into someone, that was not your fault, you have nothing to learn from that regarding cultivating virtuous habits.
However, some actions we do are the result of ignorance and in some cases of ignorance, we could and should have known better.
In cases like that, Aristotle claims it is important that we regret the ignorance that caused our action. As long as we regret it, the action is involuntary, and we are not blameworthy. But if we fail to regret it then that action was non-voluntary, and we are blameworthy.

The relationship between virtues, actions and reasons and the role of practical reasoning/practical wisdom.

Aristotle argued the goal of human life is to attain eudaimonia, which means flourishing.
We flourish when we perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues are what enable us to perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues exist on a spectrum between the extremes of excess and deficiency.
We have a moral character when we have cultivated the habit of choosing the mean between the extremes.
Practical wisdom is a virtue. It has the role of mediating between our moral character and our actions.
It involves general knowledge about the world and moral situations. During moral decision-making, we need to understand the practical reality of the situation we are in. Only then can we know what a virtuous person would do in it.
E.g., What a courageous person would do very much depends on their understanding of the situation
If you see someone being wrestled to the floor, we might think we ought to help them. However if we had the knowledge that it was a police officer apprehending a thief, our understanding of what a virtuous person would do would change.
If we were in a totalitarian country, where people were unjustly deprived and the thief was stealing to save their starving family, our moral view might change yet again.
Practical wisdom/reasoning is the virtue of understanding of what action would best reflect and cultivate virtuous habits.

Whether aristotelian virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear guidance about how to act

Aristotle’s ethics tells us how to become a good person, but not what to actually do.
Aristotle claims that his approach is the best we can possibly do, because of how messy and complex moral situations can be.
However, that argument only works against deontological theories. Utilitarianism takes the situation into account like Virtue ethics does, and yet also provides clearer guidance. Bentham provides a method/algorithm for calculating exactly what action we should do.
Aristotle merely says we should do whatever a virtuous person would do. That guidance is less clear.
Aristotle’s flexibility comes at the cost of sacrificing the clarity of guidance provided.
Aristotle explains that through our actions we could cultivate virtues like friendliness & courage, but he doesn’t explain how to calculate which action would actually cultivate the virtues. The lack of clear guidance is in the connection between virtue and actions.
Aristotle tells us the best ethics can do is reduce to being a good person, but other ethical theories show that clearer guidance is actually possible while taking the situation into account.
Normative ethical theories have to be actionable. This issue attacks the ability of virtue ethics to successfully guide action, which is a necessary condition of a normative theory.

Clashing/competing virtues

Virtue ethics is an agent-centered theory, which claims that an action is good if it is what a virtuous person would do.
It claims the goal of ethical action is the attainment of eudaimonia, which requires cultivating all the virtues.
However, what if virtues clash in a way where we could not avoid doing what an unvirtuous person would do.
E.g. what if a Nazi asked you if you were hiding jews and you were. You can’t simply say nothing, as that would indirectly reveal the truth. You could either be friendly and lie, or you could be truthful but unfriendly because then you get people killed.
This suggests Aristotle’s virtue ethics sets an impossible standard of cultivating all the virtues, when in practical reality we might have to choose between them.
It also means that virtue ethics cannot give us guidance about which action to choose, which is a necessary condition of a normative theory.

The possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous persons in terms of each other

Aristotle claims that a virtuous person is one who does virtuous acts, yet he also claims that a virtuous act is one that a virtuous person would do. The problem is that this is a circular definition. The problem with circular definitions is that they fail to actually define the terms involved.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics claims that the ‘good’ for human beings is eudaimonia, flourishing, which we achieve when we cultivate virtuous habits to thereby perform our function of reasoning well.
So, Aristotle’s account of what goodness is clearly depends on his ability to define what counts as virtuous. Without a definition of a virtuous person or virtuous act, Aristotle cannot define the good for human beings, which would mean his ethical theory fails.

Whether a trait must contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue; the relationship between the good for the individual and moral good

For Aristotle, the goodness of an action consists in whether it is what a virtuous person would do.
The reason such acts are good is that they cultivate virtuous habits, which enable our ‘good end’ of eudaimonia.
This implies that doing what’s morally good is also individually good for the agent through contributing to their flourishing.
The issue is, sometimes moral and individual good seem to come apart.
Christine Swanton offers an illustration of this:
A battlefield medic is clearly being virtuous, courageous, friendly, etc. However, sometimes they can be traumatised by the experience. So, they are not flourishing.
This suggests we need a different account of their moral value, such as their aiming at the general social good.
This issue attacks Aristotle’s account of what makes actions good.
Swanton’s examples show that we cannot always understand the moral value of virtuous acts in terms of their contribution to the flourishing of the individual. We have to understand the goodness of the virtuous act in terms of its contribution to the general moral good.
Aristotle claims flourishing is a property of rational agents that have cultivated the virtues. However, cases like the medic suggest that actually we could have cultivated virtues and yet not be flourishing. So, Aristotle’s account of flourishing seems false.

Virtue ethics model essay plan

Note that this model essay plan is merely one possible way to write an essay on this topic.

Points highlighted in light blue are integration points
Points highlighted in green are weighting points

Intro:

This essay will argue…

Virtue ethics is a normative ethical theory, meaning it attempts to guide our moral behaviour by identifying the criteria for determining which actions are good or bad.
Virtue ethics is agent-centred. It claims that what makes an action good or bad is whether it is what a virtuous person would do.
Aristotle argues that eudaimonia, meaning flourishing, is our ultimate desired end and thus ‘the good’ for human beings.
The function argument explains that we flourish when we perform our function of reasoning well.
Virtues are what enable a thing to perform its function well.
The virtues for human beings are character traits or dispositions or habits which enable us to reason well.
Life involves various temptations that threaten to dominate our will and corrupt our reason.
E.g., if we lack the virtue of temperance, then greedy addiction to pleasure might control our behaviour.
So, moral behaviour should aim at cultivating all the virtues essential for being guided by reason in our actions so as to perform our function well and thereby attain eudaimonia.

Clashing virtues

Aristotle says to do what a virtuous person would do. This requires cultivating all the virtues. However what if virtues clashed.
E.g. If a Nazi asked you if you were hiding jews and you were. You can’t simply say nothing, as that would indirectly reveal the truth. You could either be friendly and lie, or you could be truthful but unfriendly because then you get people killed.
This attacks virtue ethics for setting an impossible standard of cultivating all the virtues, when in practical reality we might have to choose between them.
It also means that virtue ethics cannot give us guidance about which action to choose, which is a necessary condition of a normative theory.

Counter

This issue misunderstands virtue ethics.
Virtues are not rules or laws which have to be applied or followed absolutely. Practical wisdom must be used to assess the details of the situation.
Practical wisdom tells us that lying to the Nazi does not cultivate an unvirtuous habit of being untruthful.
If we lied to someone due to selfish greedy reasons, that would be encouraging those feelings and would develop a habit of untruthfulness.
But there’s no issue like that with lying to the Nazi. So, the virtue of truthfulness is not a rule which says we must always tell the truth. It’s simply saying we must ensure that we are a truthful person. A truthful person could lie, so long as it’s not a lie that sets them on a path to being an untruthful person.
The interests of the virtue of truthfulness simply are not at stake in such a case, and your practical wisdom should tell you that. So, there is no clash or conflict between the virtues. They aren’t the sort of thing that can clash.

Evaluation

Sometimes decisions will be difficult. For example, justice is a virtue.
We could question what sort of climate policy best enables justice.
To what degree should we sacrifice the present for future lives. Justice and friendliness could certainly have a trade off there.
However, ultimately practical wisdom will help us decide. When we think carefully, sacrificing in the present to avoid the immense suffering of future lives is both a friendly and just thing to do. Justice involves people receiving their due. People in the future don’t deserve to suffer due to the greed of their ancestors.

Clear guidance

A strength of virtue ethics is that it acknowledges the uniqueness of ethical situations and is capable of taking the situation into account.
Aristotle argues we need to accept that ethics is imprecise and messy. It’s not possible for a set of general rules to apply to the complex and diverse moral situations that life involves.
The situations of life are too complex, nuanced and diverse for that to be a possibility.
This can be difficult to appreciate in our modern context where we’ve come to expect law-like precision from ethics.
For Aristotle, the best we can do ethically is to be the best person we can, which gives us the best chance of doing what a virtuous person would do in moral situations. So, Aristotle would argue he provides the clearest guidance possible.