aristotleian virtue ethics Flashcards

Question

what are Aristotle’s possible responses to the problems with virtue argument against his theory?

Answer 1

— conflicts between virtues are impossible (as they aren’t rigid, unbreakable rules): use phronesis to know which virtue to follow — all virtues link back to 1 of his 12 so the list is essentially exhaustive — Aristotle would say his list of virtues is correct, even if other cultures disagree (but this is kind of a shit response bc how do we know he’s right and others are wrong) OR you could add more virtues, but how do we know what’s right? How many can we add? Does this make it too subjective?

Answer 2

there is a difference between eudaimonia and moral good: people can lead morally good lives without achieving full human flourishing, happiness and eudaimonia so, Aristotleian virtue ethics fail to fully explain what morality is

Answer 3

Aristotle was never trying to answer the question of what a morally good life is. eudaimonia + virtue ethics is about a good life in GENERAL… being morally good is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia

Answer 4

- rejected deontology and consequentialism - acts can’t be moral in themselves, we must consider them in relation to the character of the person committing them - we need to oil a machine not bc oil itself is ‘good’, but because its good for that machine - so we need to do certain acts not bc they’re ‘good’, but because they’re good for our character ALSO - to have absolute moral rules, we need a rule-giver (God) - without God, we can’t have moral system of laws —> so virtue ethics is the only appropriate ethical system

Answer 5

critiques against virtue ethics fail as they fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of virtue ethics, which is to provide general principles of bringing the self closer to eudaimonia, moral fulfillment and virtue rather than to provide categorical, exact, rules or formulations of morality. so, it remains yet to be successfully disproved. 1. circular argument, defines virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, so no exact clear definition of virtue Aristotle: but virtuous person is defined in terms of eudaimonia, virtue is flourishing hollistically as a human being by using rationality to overtime develop phronesis and a sense of what acts should and shouldn’t be done based on doctrine of mean. BUT problems with eudaimonia: morality isn’t eudaimonia. You can live a moral life without eudaimonia e.g. devoting yourself to saving people in an epidemic in a developing country and dying of that disease. Aristotle: simple, VE isn’t simply trying to define morality itself, it focusses instead on a hollistically good life leading to eudaimonia. Morality and virtue is necessary but not sufficient for eudaimonia, as we should allow ourselves to flourish as well as treating others with virtue. SO circular argument and problems with eudaimonia critique are both somewhat convincing but ultimately fail to understand the focus of VE and treat it as a theory of exact guidance like Kant or Util, but it’s not trying to be this. 2. problems with virtues: not exhaustive? clashing? possible but limited response: the list IS correct and all possible virtues fall under the categories of Ari’s listed 12. BUT this isn’t certain and may be disputed, surely a list culturally relative to Ari wouldn’t be exhaustive of all cultures. This is true. but the critique lacks understanding of VE, as the exact list is not important, what’s more important is that we always apply the doctrine of the mean to any situation. The list is subjective and relative to ourselves, as long as we understand and apply the principles of eudaimonia and use phronesis this is good. BUT lack of guidance critique. Aristotle: as said before, this is misunderstanding the purpose of VE. We do not need an exact course of rules laid out for us like util or Kant, this allows us to apply morality to ourselves and deals with the issue of moral authority as we all live our own lives through virtue without conforming to other’s ideas of what it is (Kant’s imperatives, Bentham’s calculus etc)