Virtue Ethics Flashcards
What were Anscombe’s problems with Ethics? (2)
1) Tells you what’s right and wrong but not the problem itself
2) Concept of ‘forbidden’ and ‘obliged’ presupposes a law maker (God)
What were Anscombe’s solutions to her problems with Ethics? (2)
- Go back to ancient philosophy & focus on diff concepts and questions
- Concepts of obligation and rightness replaced with “honest”, “just” and “cruel” because these are more descriptive
What does Aristotle’s eudaimonia consist of? (3)
- In the end, all we seek is flourishing/a life worth living
- Life worth living consists of excellent virtuous activity in accordance with reason
- HOWEVER virtue is not only sufficient in eudaimonia, other things are needed
What is Aristotle’s Ergon (function) argument? (2)
- You flourish by completing your function in life (e.g. horse flourishes by completing function of riding)
- Human flourishing = excellence in virtue
What are the virtues to focus on (JPWITCH)
Justice Prudence Wisdom Intelligence Temperance Courage Honesty
What are the 5 things to know about Aristotle’s virtue? (5)
1) Virtues are character traits not actions
2) Virtues are “multi-track” dispositions
3) Virtues use doctrine of the mean
4) Virtues require practical wisdom (phronesis) to hit the mean
5) Virtues are developed through habit
What does it mean to refer to virtues as “multi-track” dispositions? (+example)
It’s not about how you act; it’s about the way you are and the emotions you experience rather than what you do.
e.g. an honest person doesn’t just act honestly, they are also pleased with others when they tell the truth and sad when they are dishonest.
Quote for doctrine of mean
“Virtue can be found between the two vices of excess and deficiency”
Quote for phronesis
“It’s no easy task to be good”
What is Hursthouse’s book & aim (2)
BOOK: On Virtue Ethics
AIM: show Virtue ethics as genuine rival to contemporary ethical theories (e.g. consequentialism)
What is Hursthouse’s account of right action
Break down the parts (3)
An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances
1) Virtuous Agent: one who has and exercises the virtues
2) Virtues: hard bc many ethicists disagree
3) “Characteristically”: Don’t rule out the possibility that a virtuous agent might sometimes act in wrong way (e.g. when drunk or exhausted)
Explain the action guidance objection to Hursthouse
- If unsure of what to do in a situation, simply saying ‘Do what a virtuous agent would do’ is not helpful if you yourself are not a virtuous agent yet.
- We want a normative ethical theory to tell us what to do, and this doesn’t
What are Hursthouse’s 2 responses to the action guidance objection? (2)
1) Deny that virtue ethics aren’t any more worse off than competing approaches
2) Argue that virtue ethics does provide an appropriate level of action guidance
Explain how Hursthouse denies that virtue ethics is any worse-of than competing approaches
The right action account may be unhelpful when it stands alone, but so it Utilitarianism stating that ‘an act is right iff it promotes the best consequences’
A utilitarian would have to still explain what ‘the best consequences’ are in the same way that Hursthouse would have to explain ‘what a virtuous agent would characteristically do’
Explain the 3 ways Hursthouse argues that virtue ethics does provide an appropriate level of action guidance (3)
1) Non-virtuous people do have some idea of how a virtuous person would act, without being virtuous themselves. e.g. I know not to leave dirty dishes in the sink, however I may still do it sometimes
2) You can use to virtues to create your own set of “v-rules” e.g. act honestly, act charitably, act justly
3) It provides the right level of action guidance… Strict rules aren’t applicable to modern day situations as morality is much more complex than that, so this provides the right balance
What suspicion is left regarding Hursthouse’s account of right action? (murder argument)
There might be situations where virtues conflict
murderer at door
Now unclear what how a virtuous agent would act as they can’t exercise both
Where is Supererogation discussed? (Book & guy)
Saints & Heroes by Urmson
Explain supererogation
Urmson stated that the 3 categories of action (permissible, obligatory and forbidden) are insufficient, we need a category for things that aren’t obligatory but more than just permissible
What are the 3 categories of action?
Permissible
Obligatory
Forbidden
Explain the grenade example of supererogatory action
Soldier jumps on grenade in line of duty, saving surrounding soldiers and dying in the process
Explain the plague example of supererogatory action
Doctor learns of plagued people in far away city, leaves life of comfort to help them, risking his own life in the process
Would a virtuous agent perform a supererogatory action? (YES & NO)
YES: makes it morally obligatory -> we should all jump on grenades, seems wrong
NO: then these actions are immoral, again seems wrong
What are the 3 responses to supererogatory actions?
1) Deny possibility and say they’re obligatory acts/vices
2) Bring in a range of virtuous agents - the minimal virtuous agent would not be obliged to perform supererogatory acts (but then why bother trying harder?)
3) Abandon for alternative
What are the 3 types of incorrect verdicts (and explain what an incorrect verdict is)
1) self-monitoring (noting your actions down and why you do them in an attempt to change)
2) self-control (forcing yourself to take steps to do the right thing)
3) seeking guidance (Trying to get help to fix yourself)
Whilst these all seem like right actions, a virtuous agent would never have to do these. So, HOW can an action be right iff it is an action that a virtuous agent would characteristically perform?
