Aristotelian Virtue Ethics Flashcards
What is Eudaimonia
Aristotle believed that there must be an end to our good actions, a goal which we will achieve from it. Aristotle believed that this end was Eudaimonia which he described as a state of flourishing. Eudaimonia is achieved if we fulfil our distinct role as humans
what is the relationship between Eudiamonia and pleasure
while aristiotle doesn’t treat pleasure as the utilimate good he does treat it as an aspect of a good life and therefore an aspect of Eudaimonia (a state of flourishing which Aristotle deems the goal of our goodness).
Aristotle states that pleasure is a good but not the only good. Enjoying pleasure can be seen as a virtue - and excess of it leads to indulgence while the vice leads to suffering. Therefore a balanced amount of pleasure is needed. (doctrine of the mean)
Aristotle also believes that pleasure plays a crucial role in developing virtues of character and therefore helping us to reach Eudaimonia. The pleasure found in virtuous acts helps the agent become a more virtuous person
What is the function argument and the relationship between function and virtues
The first part of the function argument is used by Aristotle to prove that our function as human beings is to live life guided by reason as that faculty if unique to us.
1. Every person has a distinctive function and every body part has a distinctive function.
2. Therefore human beings must have a distinctive function.
3. Our function cannot be growth/nutrition (shared with plants)
4. Our function cannot be perception (shared with animals).
5. Therefore our function is to live guided by reason
6. X is good if it fulfils its function well.
7. X fulfils its function well if it has the right qualities (virtues)
8. Therefore a good human is someone with the right qualities, which enable them to live well guided by reason.
9. The good life (eudaimonia) is the life of a good human.
10. Therefore eudaimonia is reached by someone with the right virtues which enable them to be guided well by reason.
Explain the role of habituation/ education in the development of moral character
For Aristotle, Habituation was not a passive repletion of virtues acts, but rather one which involved practical reason that honed our development of virtues. Aristotle believed that we are not simply virtuous in nature and that it takes practice to achieve it, just like learning an instrument. For instance, you can only learn the harp by practicing the harp - you can only learn how to be brave by performing brave acts.
In order to know what act to habituate, Aristotle offers guidance by telling us to imitate the action of a morally virtuous person (phronesis). By doing so, you can habituate the virtue and apply it to different situations until you have become a virtuous person.
Explain Aristotle’s skill analogy in his account for virtues
Aristotle made an analogy for habituating virtues by saying it is like practicing an instrument. One can only develop virtues by going out in the world and practicing them. E.g you can only learn the harp by practicing the harp - you can only learn how to be brave by performing brave acts.
However, there are other aspects to this as well. To start, Aristotle believed that you must imitate the actions of a virtuous person which will give you guidance on how to act (much like having a teacher for the harp). However, this isn’t just a passive copying and habituation method, Aristotle believed to really become virtuous one must use their practical wisdom to apply to virtue in multiple different scenarios, without the help of an already virtuous person. Then, with success in applying that virtue, do you then gain it.
Explain the doctrine of the mean and its application to particular virtues
Aristotle believed that Virtue lied between an excess vice which was too much of it, and a deficient vice which was too little. The Virtue, Aristotle believed, lied in the mean - this doesn’t mean in the middle but that they are acted towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reasons and in the right way (R5).
For instance, with the virtue of confidence, one would have the deficiency of fear and the excess of rashness. Aristotle believed that different situations called for different degrees of the virtue of confidence. For instance, in the situation of meeting a tiger, rashness would not be a good idea, but to run isn’t either, confidence to back away slowly would lie somewhere in between. This mean depended on the agent to use their reasoning to find it.
If the agent continues this over time he will develop the virtue of courage. This then applied to all virtues will lead to a virtuous person - someone with virtues and no vices.
Explain Aristotles distinction between voluntary, involuntary, and non voluntary actions.
For Aristotle responsibility for an action was tied down to whether it was freely chosen or not. This will help us make judgements on whether to assign praise or blame. It will also help us understand which actions were relevant in developing our virtue.
Firstly, voluntary actions are those which are chosen freely with intention to choose it. This includes choices that originate from out desire and emotion. We hold responsibility for out voluntary actions and they are also relevant in developing our virtue.
Involuntary action are ones which are contrary to our intention. There are two types of this: done under compulsion and done out of ignorance (non-voluntary). Straightforward involuntary actions do not involve judgement as there is no agency and all aspects are external to the agent (e.g, sailor being blown of course). Mixed involuntary actions involve an aspect of forgiveness as the agent does have agency but is a position where his is forced to choose (commit a robbery or I will kill these children).
Lastly, non voluntary actions are those which are unintended because of ignorance (Oedipus didn’t know he killed his father and married his mother). One is only held responsible for this action if one doesn’t regret it after gaining more information.
Explain the importance of feelings in Aristotelian virtue ethics
Aristotle believed that a good life is where humans fulfil their function of living life guided by reason. This reason can be used for developing moral virtues such as character traits.
Aristotle believes that we can feel our emotions too much or too little but we can use our reason to find the mean of how we should feel. Therefore a virtuous person is one that feel passions at the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, for the right reason, and in the right way. This is Aristotles doctrine of the mean.
Therefore a virtuous person expressed their feelings in the mean. A virtuous person also shouldn’t have any inner conflict - they don’t need to overcome their emotions to do the right thing.
The issue that Aristotelian virtue ethics doesn’t give sufficient reasoning on how to act
(do we need to talk about Hursthouse V Rules?)
A good ethical theory should be one which provides guidance for their agents on how to be moral. Aristotelian ethics seems to do this at first with the doctrine of the mean which tells us to act moderately with the virtues applied in any given situation. Yet, moderation doesn’t simply mean the middle every time, the point of moderation changes depending on the given situation which may even entail strong responses (being furious at a large unethical corporation). Therefore, it seems like judging how to act virtuously is up to the agent in every situation as there is not one defining rule. Yet how can the agents be sure what the correct moderation is.
Hursthouse suggests that Aristotelian virtue ethics gives us guidance through the examples of virtues we should strive for and vices we should avoid. Together this becomes V-rules that we can follow. There is the V-rule to be courageous and the V-rule ‘do not do what is dishonest’. However, even if Hursthouse is correct, just because these virtues were valued in ancient Athens, doesn’t make them relevant today.
The issue of clashing/competing virtues
Moral theories can be tested against ‘hard cases’ which are moral dilemmas where there is no clear cut path of action. For Aristotle, when confronted with one, there is often a clash of virtues that leaves the agent clueless on which virtue to draw upon.
For instance, picture you have a dying friend in a lot of pain, they ask you to kill them. On one hand you have the virtue of charity, on the other you have the virtue of justice. Both seem to be equally important here considering how much pain the friend is in and the fact euthanasia is illegal.
Aristotle doesn’t seem to provide ample guidance on how to act. There is no hierarchy of virtues which Aristotle has proclaimed (e.g, that justice is higher than charity). therefore there are cases in which virtue ethics cannot provide moral guidance and therefore fails as an ethical theory.
What is the issue of circularity with virtue ethics
Virtue ethics demands the agent to learn what a virtuous action is. Aristotelian virtue ethics suggest that we should learn from the actions of virtuous people in order to know what virtues actions to habituate. Therefore we must be able to define who is virtuous. Aristotle states that a virtuous person is one who does virtuous actions. Therefore the issue here is the definition includes the term which we are trying to define. And this is clearly circular:
1) A virtuous action = one which is done by a virtuous person
2) a virtuous person = someone who performs virtuous acts
In the ends, the agent still cannot know what a virtuous action is or how to identify a virtuous person. This is an issue as the agent cannot proceed to habituate his virtues if he doesn’t know which ones to act on, or is able to learn from an expert.
Issue: must a trait contribute to eudaemonia in order to be a virtue
In Aristotles function argument, he reached the conclusion that to live a life of flourishing (eudaemonia), one must habituate certain virtues (character traits). These character traits are positive ones for Aristotle (e.g, justice), although some negative traits such as dishonesty are needed sometimes, they are generally discouraged. This is as it can be clearly noted that a person who has habituated the trait of honestly is not living a flourishing life. Therefore, in order to flourish, Aritstole claims that we must habituate the right virtues.
However, the question arises as to whether we can find a virtue that does not contribute to Eudaimonia. For instance in the extreme case of war, Dishonesty and theft can be deemed the right virtues to act on in order to protect yourself and others - they are acted towards the right person to the right extent at the right time for the right reasons and in the right way (R5). However, if the war is for instance five years long, these virtues seem to be the right ones to act on and to habituate. Therefore the agent is habituating futures that are right under these circumstances but yet not getting closer to reaching eudaemonia.
Therefore these negative traits can become virtues but not lead to Eudaimonia. Therefore it seems like being virtuous is not the only criteria for a flourishing life as Aristotle suggests.
The issue of whether virtue ethics is too focused on the individual good and not the moral good
The distinction bewteen the moral good and the individual good is that the individual good is centred around what is good for the agent at hand while the moral good is for the society at large, Therefore, theories based on the individual good can be accused of being self interested rather than for the greater good.
Virtue ethics can be seen as a theory for the individual good.Much of the developement of virtues in to improve upon our own character traits while not helping others, for instance the virtue of being ambitious. Furthermore, the character traits are aimed at ahcieving Eudaimonia, a state of flourishing for only the agent. It is all about achieving individual goals.
This is an issue for virtue ethics as it may be seen to be a selfish account for morality. Furthermore, some may no longer consider it a moral theory due to its focus on the individual good over the moral good. Moral theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics seem to be focused on the good for all, but Virtue ethics doesn’t.
Explain the role of practical reasoning in Aristotelian virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics gives us no simple rules on how to behave
Instead, it emphasises the importance of practical reasoning, which investigates what we can change and aims at making good choices
When exercised with the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom (phronesis), practical reasoning helps us make the right decision in a given situation. This involves excellence in deliberation, right understanding of the situation, making the correct choice, and cleverness in choosing the right means to our goal.
We can’t have practical wisdom without the moral virtues, since these establish the right goals for practical reasoning to work out how to achieve.
But we don’t have fully developed moral virtue without practical wisdom, since practical wisdom helps us use our practical reason well to work out how to achieve our virtuous goals.
Exercising practical reasoning in accordance with phronesis is thus an essential part of living a morally virtuous life, a life of eudaimonia.
