Aristotelian virtue ethics Flashcards
explain the meaning of good and bad in virtue ethics
good: a person who is virtuous
bad: a person who is vicious (contains vices)
- virtue ethics focuses on the person who acts
- it is an agent-centred theory
explain ‘the good’ for beings, the meaning of Eudaimonia as the ‘final end’ and the relationship between Eudaimonia and pleasure
the ‘good’ for human beings
1) Aristotle holds a teleological view of the universe, believing that everything in the universe is directed to some final good
2) everything we do is aimed at some good
3) each good is also done for the sake of a higher good
4) this cannot go on forever so there must be an ultimate good which everything is aimed towards
e.g. when I am making a scarf, I am not knitting it for no reason, it is to keep me warm
- Eudaimonia is ultimate good/final end
- it is not pleasure, or wealth
- it Is the ‘most final’ of ends
- it is desirable, something we work hard to achieve
- it is the good life
- also translates to ‘human flourishing’
the relationship between pleasure and eudaimonia
- virtue ethics falls inbetween two extreme views
- it does not say that pleasure IS the good (hedonism)
- it says pleasure is PART of the good
- Aristotle says that pleasure is a good but it’s not THE good
- we aim for other things, like virtue, that do not necessarily bring us pleasure
- we should avoid excessive indulgence in physical pleasures
- but enjoying physical pleasures is still a virtue
- pleasure plays a crucial role in developing virtues of character and enables us to reach eudaimonia
- as we act like a virtuous person, we get pleasure and enjoy being virtuous (being generous etc)
- Aristotle says that the most pleasure we can gain is from theoretical reasoning and philosophy
explain the function argument and the relationship between virtues and function
- the function argument aims to show that Eudaimonia is only achieved through exercising our reason
1. the first part of the argument aims to show that humans have a particular function
2. every person has a distinctive role in society, and every body part has a distinctive function
3. therefore human beings must also have a distinctive function
4. being guided by reason is distinctive to humans, so our function is to live guided by reason
- the second part of the argument aims to show that in order to function well and reach Eudaimonia we need to develop the right virtues
- Aristotle says that Eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues that enable them to live well guided by reason
- if we use reason well we will live well, and to do this we need to develop the necessary virtues
- Aristotle said that Eudaimonia is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue
- through using reason as a guide we can develop virtues within each part of the soul
- virtues are dispositions such as courage, honesty
explain Aristotles account of virtue and vices (virtue as character traits, role of education and habituation, skill analogy, feelings, doctrine of the mean)
virtues as character traits/dispositions
- when reason guides our emotions and desires, dispositions form our character and overtime we develop positive dispositions or character traits, called virtues, which allow us to reach Eudaimonia (courage, honesty)
- when reason fails to shape our emotions/desires we develop flawed character traits - vices (lying, cowardness, selfishness)
the role of education and habituation in the development of a moral character
- virtues are not innate, we have to learn them over time
- we learn them as children, and as adults through commitment, practise and habit
the skill analogy
- Aristotle compares developing a virtue with developing a skill
- we are not born with a skill but we have the capacity to learn that skill
- e.g. learning an instrument
- we start by copying others, practise until it’s a habit, then learn to apply it in different concepts
- to be virtuous you must a) act in a virtuous way and b) act as a virtuous person
- must be consistent over time
- the move from being reliant to being independent
the importance of feelings
- all of our actions are a display of some emotion, desire, fear, confidence, envy
- virtue means expressing the appropriate amount of these feelings, neither too much or too little (in the mean)
- a virtuous person has no inner conflict (don’t have to overcome feelings to do the right thing)
- internal struggle occurs when someone has not developed that virtue
the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues
- virtues lie between displaying ‘too much’ and ‘too little’ of a feeling - the doctrine of the mean
- e.g. in a dangerous situation fear and cowardice are natural responses
- displaying too much fear is cowardly, displaying too much confidence is rash
- reason helps us be driven by the appropriate amount of fear/confidence and we then act courageously
- if we repeatedly do this we will develop the virtue of courage
- people with lots of virtues have what Aristotle calls ‘excellence of character’
- the mean is relative to the individual and the situation
- E.g. the mean amount of protein that a giant Greek wrestler would consume per day would be much more than the mean amount of protein an average human should consume in a day
- Both are means, but they are still different in relation to the situation
explain moral responsibility: voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions
voluntary
- moral responsibility is tied to wether an action is freely chosen or not
- understanding which acts are freely chosen will help us make moral judgements
- a voluntary action is an intended action
- only voluntary actions contribute to our character and virtues
involuntary
- an involuntary action is one that is contrary to our intention
- one type of involuntary actions is those done under compulsion, which fall into two categories
- a straightforward example of an action done under compulsion is a sailor who is taken off course by kidnapping - he had no intention of this and the sailor is not responsible because there is a lack of agency
- a mixed example of an action done under compulsion is a sailor told to commit a robbery or his children will be killed - there is some intention as the sailor was in control committing the robbery but he felt compelled too
- there is some agency but judgements should take into account the circumstances and so we could be forgiven
non-voluntary actions
- a non-voluntary action is unintended because it is done from ignorance
e.g. greek hero didn’t know he killed his father and married his mother
- we can be ignorant when we don’t know all the facts, or misunderstand the situation
- we are responsible for non-voluntary acts
a) but if we regret and wish we acted differently then the action was not our intention and we could be forgiven
b) if we show no regret and would not have acted differently we should be held fully responsible
explain the relationship between virtues, actions and reasons and the role of practical reasoning/wisdom
relationship
- our virtues are dispositions built up from voluntary actions
- voluntary actions relevant to virtue are the result of the internal reasoning process of choice
- an action is chosen if it is the result of prior deliberation
- reason (deliberation –> leads to choice)
- action (choice –> voluntary action –> habituation)
- virtue (habituation –> virtue)
role of reasoning/wisdom
- virtue ethics requires us to have practical reasoning skills that mean we will make the right decision in each situation that we encounter
- these skills include; the ability to deliberate, understanding the situation, judging,
- to reach Eudaimonia we need to practise and do these things well (develop practical wisdom)
- practical wisdom is not possible without excellence of character (having lots of virtues, honesty, courage, generosity etc)
- virtues lead to having practical wisdom, which enables us to reach eudaimonia
explain the issue for Aristotelian virtue ethics: wether it can give sufficiently clear guidance on how to act
- Virtue ethics is an agent-centred theory, so it is focused on the actions of someone, but it does not seem to actually tell us what the right actions are
- it has no clear rules
- the doctrine of the mean does not mean ‘act moderately in every situation’ It means ‘do the right/virtuous thing in every situation’
- this is unhelpful as we want to know exactly what to do
- Aristotle admits that knowing what we need to do is very difficult
- (however, virtue ethics does accept that every situation is different and complex and moral rules always have exceptions)
- but how do we know which rules have exceptions and when?
- (but some philosophers have said that virtue ethics does give guidance as we know which virtues to develop and which to avoid - ‘v-rules’)
- but different cultures may value different traits - relative to the culture
explain the issue for virtue ethics: clashing/competing virtues
- there are cases where virtues conflict with each other
- imagine this moral dilemma: someone you love who has a painful terminal illness pleads with you to help them die
- the virtue of charity motivates you towards helping them get euthanasia
- but the virtue of justice prevents you from killing them
- (virtue ethics respond to this by saying that practical wisdom will help determine which virtue is right in this situation, or by creating a hierarchy of virtues (Aristotle would put justice above charity) or admitting that sometimes there is no resolution of the clash)
- another example is; someone asks you if you like their new hairstyle
- the virtue of honesty conflicts with the virtue of kindness, so how would one approach this situation?
explain the issue for virtue ethics: the possibility of circularity involved in defining virtuous acts and virtuous persons in terms of each other
- Aristotle says that a virtuous act is one done by someone who is virtuous
- but how do we identify who is virtuous?
- virtuous people are defined as those who do virtuous acts
- so the definition contains the term being defined, which creates circularity
- a virtuous act = an act done by a virtuous person
- a virtuous person = someone who habitually performs virtuous acts
- so a virtuous act = an act done by someone who habitually performs virtuous acts
- the circular definition is problematic because it does nothing to help explain the nature of virtuous actions/people
explain the issue for virtue ethics: wether a trait must contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue
- Aristotle argues that we cannot live the good life for humans (Eudaimonia) without being a good human (and having virtues)
- so by being virtuous I contribute to my own eudaimonia
- but is it possible to have virtues that don’t contribute to our Eudaimonia?
- hume gave a non-aristotelian account of the positive character traits which we call virtues
- hume makes no mention of Eudaimonia, but argues that we approve of virtues because of their utility
- for hume, these virtues arise from our sympathy for other people
- so hume says that a trait doesnt need to contribute to Eudaimonia in order to be a virtue
- e.g a woman who aimed to cure cancer and help people, a charity worker, she is very virtuous but falls ill so cannot live her best life
explain the issue for virtue ethics: the individual and the moral good
- moral philosophy draws a distinction between actions that are self-interested (good for the individual) and actions that benefit others (morally good)
- some have pointed out that Aristotles theory might be primarily a self-interested theory
- Aristotles ethics is about good for the individual because the ethics is an account of how we can flourish and live a good life
- some of the virtues only benefit the individuals possessing them: traits like being ambitious, proud
- even intellectual virtues like practical wisdom are also self-interested in that they help me reach Eudaimonia for ourself
apply Aristotelian virtue ethics to stealing
Aristotle: would say that there is no right time or manner for stealing
- theft is never in a mean and is always unjust because it deprives people of what is their fair share
a virtue ethicist: would consider the context of the action
- e.g. consider Robin Hood who steals from the rich to give to the poor in the context of an unfair society
- if robin possessed practical wisdom, he would have assessed the options he had to achieve his goal, and chosen the right one
- if he possessed a virtuous character then is action must have sprung from the right goal - the virtue of charity
would also consider what other options are available
- they would ask if other options were available that might achieve the same goal whilst avoiding the vice of theft (e.g. setting up a charity trust)
- the virtue of practical wisdom is needed to weigh up these options
would consider the long-term effect on someones character
- if this theft is a one off action then it wont become a habit, if it becomes a pattern then the virtue ethicist would encourage robin to find another outlet for his charitable urges
apply virtue ethics to eating animals:
Aristotle: says it is okay to eat animals
- he recognised a continuum between humans and other animals (we eat, grow)
- but unlike animals we have the capacity for reason and virtue
- so in his hierarchy of living things he places humans above other animals and argues that plants exist for the sake of animals and other animals for the sake of humans
a virtue ethicist: hursthouse says that the practises of modern factory farming are undeniably cruel
- and we do not need factory farming to survive, so the deaths of billions of chickens a year are a result of human desire and pleasure
- our failure to exhibit compassion is a vice, and our failure to be less greedy is a vice
- so eating factory-farmed animals is the opposite of virtue
apply virtue ethics to telling lies
Aristotle: Aristotle describes the virtue of truthfulness as a mean between someone who boasts too much and someone who is too self-deprecating
- but when we are discussing honesty we are talking about the world
- Aristotle condemns these falsehoods as ‘bad and reprehensible’
virtue ethicist: consider honesty
- all forms of virtue ethics require us to develop an honest character
- we flourish as individuals if we are honest
- we flourish as a community if we are honest because we can trust the information we share, the judgements we cast
- we can build our moral character by practising honesty and avoiding dishonesty and telling lies
consider habits
- virtues are habits emerging from voluntary actions
- if our understanding of the situation is based on lies, this makes it difficult for an action to be genuinely voluntary and harder for us to develop virtues
consider the context
- there may be an occasion when doing the right thing entails telling a lie
- practical wisdom will enable us to determine when we can tell lies
- we should look at our range of options and only lie as a last resort
- e.g. the Kantian example of the axeman- the right and virtuous thing to do is lie, as long as this doesn’t develop into a habit
apply virtue ethics to simulated killing
- Aristotle said that watching a tragedy (always ends in death) is cathartic for the audience
- there is a climactic build up until the final scene which triggers a cathartic release
- this ‘cleansing’ of negative emotions is seen by aristotle as part of the education of our character
- by watching tragedies on stage we can practise feeling the right emotion, and so helps the development of a virtue
- a virtue ethicist would say that playing simulated killing games is morally problematic because the advanced graphics are becoming more upsetting for people
