Virtue Ethics

Unlike Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology, Aristotle's theory of ethics is **character-centred** not **act-centred**. This means it focuses on being a good person rather than doing a good thing in a particular situation. It may otherwise be referred to as Nichomachean Ethics, however, historians aren't quite sure where that came from as Aristotle carried on the small village tradition of naming one's son after his grandfather, so being that Aristotle's father and child were both named Nichomacus, it's really a toss-up. (It is possible that baby Nichomacus came along and edited his dad's work posthumously, then stuck a name tag on it, but at this point we're delving into needless conjecture).

## Key Terms

Aristotle used Greek words, which can be a bit confusing as there is often no direct translation to English. Here's the approximate meaning of some of the important ones:

* *Eudaimonia*: "flourishing", or activity exhibiting virtue in accordance with reason.
* *Ergos*: function, or differentiating characteristic - what makes humans different from other things?

Aristotle argues that everything we do aims at some higher goal, and that goal is *eudaimonia*.

## Arguments For

#### **The Function Argument**

1. The difference between humans and other things is that humans have the capacity for reason.
2. Therefore the *ergos* (function) of a human is to employ reason.
3. A good *x* is one which fulfils its function excellently.
4. Therefore, a good human is one that employs reason excellently

(3) refers to the way we talk about a good thing in ordinary life. **For example**, a good pen is one that fulfils the function of writing excellently.

#### **The Doctrine of the Mean**

Aristotle observed that often the best action lies between a deficit and an excess. **For example**, eating too much is unhealthy, as is eating too little. A "mean" between these points should be pursued. But the mean is not necessarily right in the middle, nor is it always the same. Returning to our example, an athlete may need to eat more than an office worker to achieve the mean.

Applying this to morality, Aristotle argues we should pursue the virtuous "mean" between the vices of excess and deficit. He lays out some of the essential virtues, their means, excesses and deficits.

#### **Practical Wisdom**

So how do we determine what the relevant virtues in a situation are, and how we should pursue their means? We need to have practical wisdom. This is a skillset, a bit like what we now call emotional intelligence, that is built up over a lifetime of striving, training and habituation, that allows us to analyse a situation and do the virtuous thing.

#### **Voluntary and involuntary actions**

Aristotle points out a notable caveat to his rule. We should only be judged for voluntary actions, as involuntary actions are not choices we have made so do not contribute to making ourselves virtuous people and achieving *eudaimonia*. **For example**, if you are unable to save a drowning child, this is not an un-virtuous act. However, choosing not to save the child would definitely be un-virtuous (maybe a deficiency of courage).

#### **Special cases**

Aristotle argues that certain acts, especially murder and theft, are ALWAYS wrong. Other acts, such as lying, are usually wrong, but in some cases are good and virtuous (**for example** the Mad Axeman Max scenario).

## Arguments Against

#### Competing/clashing virtues

**Objection**: in a situation where multiple virtues clash, how should we decide which is most important? **For example**, my wife is in great permanent suffering due to an uncurable illness. Is it virtuous to kill her when she asks me to do so? It seems like a clash between the virtues of friendliness and justice.

**Aristotle's response**: you have to use practical wisdom. If you have practical wisdom and apply your reason, you will be able to determine the best course of action.

However, this response lead onto another issue...

#### Circular definition of virtue

**Objection:** Aristotle defines a virtuous act as an act done by a virtuous person. He then defines a virtuous person as someone who does virtuous acts. This means that the words are meaningless, making virtue ethics useless as a normative theory of ethics.

**Aristotle's response:** Aristotle did not see the circular definitions as a problem - he observed that some of his fellow citizens were virtuous and that enabled him to see what a virtuous act was.

**Further objection:** Aristotle's virtuous people were typically his male, wealthy, Athenian friends - a biased and narrow view for constructing a theory of ethics. If the definition of a virtuous person is a matter of personal opinion, the theory is virtually intuitivism: your natural intuitions of who is virtuous would determine your concept of a virtuous act.