VIRTUE ETHICS
Introduction
Although concern for virtue appears in several philosophical traditions, in the West the roots of the tradition lie in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and even today the tradition's key concepts derive from ancient Greek philosophy. These concepts include arête (excellence or virtue), phronesis (practical or moral wisdom), and eudaimonia (flourishing). In the West virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the ancient and medieval periods. The tradition suffered an eclipse during the early modern period, as Aristotelianism fell out of favour in the West. Virtue theory returned to prominence in Western philosophical thought in the twentieth century, and is today one of the three dominant approaches to normative theories (the other two being deontology and consequentialism).
Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics that emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. This contrasts with consequentialism, which holds that the consequences of a particular act form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action, and deontology, which derives rightness or wrongness from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. Virtue theory is not actually in conflict with deontology or teleology: those two viewpoints deal with which actions a person should take in any given scenario, whereas virtue theorists simply argue that developing morally desirable virtues for their own sake will help aid moral actions when such decisions need to be made.
While virtue ethics was born with Plato and Aristotle, their forms of virtue ethics are by no means the only ones. What virtue ethics refers to, rather, is a collection of normative ethical philosophies that place an emphasis on being rather than doing. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions (or consequences thereof) of the individual. Today, there is a great amount of debate among various adherents of virtue ethics about what specific virtues are morally praiseworthy. However, the one thing they all agree upon is that morality comes as a result of intrinsic virtues—this is the common link that unites the sometimes disparate normative philosophies into the field known as virtue ethics.
The main areas of search in our program in respect to virtue ethics are mainly the Platonic and Aristotelian concepts of virtues and the ways or means to attain happiness in one's life by practicing virtues.
Definition
Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism). Or in other words, Virtue ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on the nature or consequences of specific actions performed. The system identifies virtues (those habits and behaviours that will allow a person to achieve "eudaimonia", or well being or a good life), counsels practical wisdom to resolve any conflicts between virtues, and claims that a lifetime of practising these virtues leads to, or in effect constitutes happiness and the good life.
Virtue Ethics, essentially Eudaimonism, was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the Ancient and Medieval periods. It suffered something of an eclipse during the Early Modern period, although it is still one of the three dominant approaches to normative Ethics (the others being Deontology and Consequentialism).
| History of Virtue Ethics |
Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good, or eudaimonia, which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. Discussion of what were known as the Four Cardinal Virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) can be found in Plato's "Republic". He also claimed that the rational part of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue.
The concept reached its apotheosis in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" in the 4th Century B.C. Aristotle held that eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth or power, but by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life, what might be described today as productive self-actualization. This rational activity, he judged, should manifest as honesty, pride, friendliness, wittiness, rationality in judgment; mutually beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge.
Non-Western moral and religious philosophies, such as Confucianism,(a quasi-religious and philosophical sytem) also incorporate ideas that may appear similar to those developed by the ancient Greeks. Like ancient Greek ethics, Chinese ethical thought makes an explicit connection between virtue and statecraft. However, where the Greeks focused on the interior orientation of the soul, Confucianism's definition of virtue emphasizes interpersonal relations. Nick Gier in Buddhist Ethics as Virtue Ethics compares Buddha's ethical teachings to Aristotle's: Like Greek virtue ethics, Buddhist ethics is also humanistic and thoroughly personalist.
The Greek idea of the virtues was later incorporated into Scholastic Christian moral theology, particularly by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologiae" of 1274 and his "Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics". The Christian virtues were also based in large part on the Seven Virtues from Aurelius Clemens Prudentius's epic poem Psychomachia (Battle of the Souls, written c. 410 A.D.): chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility. Practice of these virtues was alleged to protect one against temptation from the Seven Deadly Sins (lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride).
Virtue Ethics has been a recurring theme of Political Philosophy, especially in the emergence of classical Liberalism, the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th Century, and the theoretical underpinnings behind the American Revolution of 1775. However, although some Enlightenment philosophers (e.g. David Hume) continued to emphasize the virtues, with the ascendancy of Utilitarianism and Deontology, Virtue Ethics moved to the margins of Western philosophy. In the second half of the 20th Century, there was a minor revival of Virtue Ethics, principally due to the efforts of Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 - 2001), In 1958 Elisabeth Anscombe a British analytical published a paper titled "Modern Moral Philosophy" that changed the way we think about normative theories. She criticized modern moral philosophy's pre-occupation with a law conception of ethics. A law conception of ethics deals exclusively with obligation and duty. Among the theories she criticized for their reliance on universally applicable principles were J. S. Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's deontology. The term Cosequentialism was introduced by her in analytic philosophy. Philippa Ruth Foot (1920 - ), a British philosopher, is considered as one of the founders of modern virtue ethics. She attempted to modernize Aristotelian ethical theory. Trolly problem is a thought experiment in ethics introduced by her. Alasdair MacIntyre (1929 - ), a Scottish philosopher, who is the author of the famous work in modern ethics, "After Virtues", is also a great proponent of virtue ethics. He says, 'good judgment comes from good character. Paul Ricoeur (1913 - 2005) a French philosopher, who is famous for his combination of phenomenological description with hermeneutics, also contributed much to the development of modern ethics. American Methodist theologian Stanley Hauerwas has also found the language of virtue quite helpful in his own project. More recently, Rosalind Hursthouse has published On Virtue Ethics and Roger Crisp and Michael Slote have edited a collection of important essays titled Virtue Ethics, while Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have employed virtue theory in theorizing the capability approach to international development.
Plato (c.427-c.347 BC)
Plato was a student of Socrates (c.470 - 399 BC), and is primarily remembered for his Theory of Ideas. He was a classical Greek philosopher, mathematician, writer of philosophical dialogues, and founder of the Academy in Athens, the first institution of higher learning in the Western world. Along with his mentor, Socrates, and his student, Aristotle, Plato helped to lay the foundations of natural philosophy, science, and Western philosophy. Plato's sophistication as a writer is evident in his Socratic dialogues; thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to him. Plato's writings have been published in several fashions; this has led to several conventions regarding the naming and referencing of Plato's texts.
a) Platonic Concept of Virtues
Plato's views on virtues can be traced from his celebrated work Republic, because, discussion of what were known as the Four Cardinal Virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) can be found in Plato's Republic. He also claimed that the rational part of the soul or mind must govern the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia, the principal constituent of which is virtue and eudaimonism is the classical formulation of Virtue Ethics. It holds that the proper goal of human life is eudaimonia (which can be variously translated as "happiness", "well-being" or the "good life"), and that this goal can be achieved by a lifetime of practising "arête" (the virtues) in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise of "phronesis" (practical wisdom) to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise. Indeed, such a virtuous life would in itself constitute eudaimonia, which should be seen as an objective, not a subjective, state, characterized by the well-lived life, irrespective of the emotional state of the person experiencing it.
Besides Republic, Plato's concept of virtue can be traced from his work Meno. Plato's Meno is a Socratic dialogue in which the two main speakers, Socrates and Meno, discuss human virtue: whether or not it can be taught, whether it is shared by all human beings, and whether it is one quality or many? The dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates to tell him if virtue can be taught. Socrates says that he is clueless about what virtue is, and so is everyone else he knows. Meno responds that virtue is different for different people. Socrates says he finds this odd. He suspects that there must be some virtue common to all human beings.
Socrates rejects the idea that human virtue depends on a person's gender or age. He leads Meno towards the idea that virtues are common to all people, that temperance and justice are virtues even in children and old men. Meno proposes to Socrates that the "capacity to govern men" may be a virtue common to all people. Socrates points out to the slaveholder that "governing well" cannot be a virtue of a slave, because then he would not be a slave.
No satisfactory definition of virtue emerges in the Meno. Socrates' comments however show that he considers a successful definition to be unitary, rather than a list of varieties of virtue, that it must contain all and only those terms which are genuine instances of virtue, and must not be circular.
However, Platonic Ethics is based on the concept that virtue is a sort of knowledge (the knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good ("eudaimonia" or happiness), which is what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. It holds that there are three parts to the soul, Reason, Spirit and Appetite, which must be ruled by the three virtues, Wisdom, Courage and Moderation. These are, in turn, all ruled by a fourth, Justice, by which each part of the soul is confined to the performance of its proper function. Just as it was possible to perfectly define a triangle Plato reasoned that abstract virtues, such as love, truth, and beauty could also be defined. More than that, whatever we see of these virtues in this world is but a shadow of the original which exists in the unseen world of forms. The ability to recognise that something in this world resembles its eternal ideal is innate: acquired before the soul is clothed in its physical body. Plato's aim was to educate those who had the ability to comprehend them to concentrate on the realities rather than the images which they perceived with their flawed natural senses.
Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC)
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. Aristotle's writings were the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics.
Aristotelian Ethics
Aristotle considered ethics to be a practical rather than theoretical study, i.e., one aimed at doing good rather than knowing for its own sake. He wrote several treatises on ethics, including most notably, the Nichomachean Ethics. The three Aristotelian ethical works survive today are: Nicomachean Ethics, (the most popular), Eudemian Ethics, and Magna Moralia. Each is believed to be a collection of Aristotle's lecture notes (although authorship of the Magna Moralia is disputed), possibly containing several different lecture courses, which can be sparse and difficult to read.
A virtue is a habit or quality that allows individuals to succeed at their purpose. Therefore, Virtue Ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological (i.e. it includes an account of the purpose or meaning of human life), a matter of some contention among philosophers since the beginning of time. Aristotle, with whom Virtue Ethics is largely identified, categorized the virtues as moral virtues (including prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) and intellectual virtues (including "Sophia" or theoretical wisdom, and "phronesis" or practical wisdom). Aristotle further argued that each of the moral virtues was a golden mean, or desirable middle ground, between two undesirable extremes (e.g. the virtue of courage is a mean between the two vices of cowardice and foolhardiness).
b) Aristotle's Account of Rational Agents, Choice, Deliberation and Action
Aristotle taught that virtue has to do with the proper function (ergon) of a thing. An eye is only a good eye in so much as it can see, because the proper function of an eye is sight. Aristotle reasoned that humans must have a function specific to humans, and that this function must be an activity of the psuchē (normally translated as soul) in accordance with reason (logos). Aristotle identified such an optimum activity of the soul as the aim of all human deliberate action, eudaimonia, generally translated as "happiness" or sometimes "well being". To have the potential of ever being happy in this way necessarily requires a good character (ēthikē aretē), often translated as moral (or ethical) virtue (or excellence).
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices. We learn moral virtue primarily through habit and practice rather than through reasoning and instruction. Virtue is a matter of having the appropriate attitude toward pain and pleasure. For example, a coward will suffer undue fear in the face of danger, whereas a rash person will not suffer sufficient fear. We can only be held responsible for actions we perform voluntarily and not for cases involving physical compulsion or unavoidable ignorance. The best measure of moral judgment is choice, since choices are always made voluntarily by means of rational deliberation. We always choose to aim at the good, but people are often ignorant of what is good and so aim at some apparent good instead, which is in fact a vice.
Aristotle taught that to achieve a virtuous and potentially happy character requires a first stage of having the fortune to be habituated not deliberately, but by teachers, and experience, leading to a later stage in which one consciously chooses to do the best things. When the best people come to live life this way their practical wisdom (phronēsis) and their intellect (nous) can develop with each other towards the highest possible ethical virtue, that of wisdom.
Aristotle claims a human's function is to do what makes it human, to be good at what sets it apart from everything else: the ability to reason or Nous. Or, as Aristotle concludes, "The function of man is activity of soul in accordance with reason, or at least not without reason." He identifies two different ways in which the soul can engage: reasoning (both practical and theoretical) and following reasoning. A person that does this is the happiest because they are fulfilling their purpose or nature as found in the rational soul.
To do this, Aristotle had to first establish the so called virtuous life. He began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is 'good': Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly, every action and choice of action is thought to have some good as its object. This is why the good has rightly been defined as the object of all endeavors.
But, he explains, if action A is done with the goal B, the goal B would also have a goal, goal C. Goal C would also have a goal and this would continue until something stopped the infinite regress. This was the Highest Good. Aristotle said the Highest Good must have three characteristics: a) desirable for its own sake, b) not desirable for the sake of some other good and c) all other 'goods' desirable for its sake.
Aristotle resolves this Highest Good in eudemonia, which is usually translated as "happiness," but could also be "well-being" or "flourishing." What is the highest good in all matters of action? As to the name, there is almost complete agreement; for uneducated and educated alike call it happiness, and make happiness identical with the good life and successful living. They disagree, however, about the meaning of happiness."
It is initially puzzling that virtuous people decide to act virtuously for its own sake as a result of deliberation. If they decide on virtuous action for its own sake, then their deliberation causes them to choose it as an end in itself, not simply as a means. Decision and deliberation, however, are not about ends but about 'the things promoting ends' (ta pros ta telos, often rendered 'means to ends'). Aristotle's description of the virtuous person, then, seems to attribute to decision a role that is excluded by his explicit account of decision.
This puzzle is less severe once we recognize that Aristotle regards different sorts of things as 'promoting' an end. Sometimes he means (a) that the action is external and purely instrumental to the end; in this way buying food 'promotes' eating dinner. Sometimes, however, he means (b) that the action is a part or component of the end, or that performing the action partly constitutes the achieving of the end; in this way eating the main course 'promotes' eating dinner. Deliberation about this second sort of 'promotion' shows that, an action is worth choosing for its own sake, in so far as it partly constitutes our end.
This role for deliberation explains how virtuous people can decide, as a result of deliberation, on virtuous action for its own sake; they choose it as a part of happiness, not as a merely instrumental means. Prudence finds the actions that promote happiness in so far as they are parts of the happy life. Such actions are to be chosen for their own sake, as being their own end; they are not simply instrumental means to some further end. The virtuous person's decision results from deliberation about the composition of happiness; virtuous people decide on the actions that, by being non-instrumentally good, are components of happiness in their own right.
Aristotle's demand for the virtuous person to decide on the virtuous action for its own sake is connected with two further claims: (a) the virtuous person must take pleasure in virtuous action as such; (b) in doing so, the virtuous person has the pleasantest life. In these claims Aristotle relies on his views about the nature of pleasure and its role in happiness (Nicomachean Ethics VII 11-14, X 1-5).
c) Nichomachean Ethics and Virtue
The core of the Aristotelian ethics mainly lies in his most renowned work Nichomachean Ethics and one can trace that the concept of virtue spread throughout the whole work, from the very beginning to the end, but books I-VI mainly deals with virtues. Books II-V deals with virtue of character or moral virtues and book VI deals with intellectual virtues. The work, which plays a pre-eminent role in defining Aristotelian ethics, consists of ten books, originally separate scrolls, and is understood to be based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum, which were either edited by or dedicated to Aristotle's son, Nicomachus. The Nicomachean Ethics is widely considered one of the most important historical philosophical works, and had an important impact upon the European Middle Ages, becoming the core of Medieval Philosophy. It therefore indirectly became critical in the development of all Modern Philosophy as well as European law and theology. The theme of the work is the Socratic question which had previously been explored in Plato's works, of how men should best live. Ethics, as now separated out for discussion by Aristotle, is practical rather than theoretical, in the original Aristotelian senses of these terms. It is partly intended to help people become good, and not just a contemplation of things. It is therefore connected to Aristotle's other practical writings, on Politics, which also aim at people becoming good, though from the perspective of a law-giver, looking at the good of a whole community.
The salient Features of Nicomachean Ethics in Respect to Virtue Ethics
The Nicomachean Ethics advances an understanding of ethics known as virtue ethics because of its heavy reliance on the concept of virtue. The word we translate as virtue is aretê, as we have already seen, and it could equally be translated as "excellence." Something has aretê if it performs its function well. Aristotle says, a good horseman, for example, has the aretê of being good at handling horses, and a good knife has the aretê of sharpness. For the Greeks, moral virtue is not essentially different from these other kinds of excellence. The Greeks do not have a distinctive concept of morality like we do, which carries associations of sanctity or duty. Moral virtue is simply a matter of performing well in the function of being human. For the Greeks, the motivation for being good is not based in a divine legislator or a set of moral dos and don'ts but rather in the same kind of striving after excellence that might make an athlete train hard. The Greek word ethos, from which we derive the word ethics, literally means "character," and Aristotle's goal is to describe what qualities constitute an excellent character. The salient feature can be summed up as follows:
*Modern virtue ethics takes its inspiration from the Aristotelian understanding of character and virtue. Aristotelian character is, importantly, about a state of being. It's about having the appropriate inner states. Nichomachean Ethics is mainly dealing with virtue viz., Books I-VI and how to attain a good character.
* Aristotelian theory is a theory of action or practice since having the virtuous inner dispositions will also involve being moved to act in accordance with them. Character is also about doing.
*Another distinguishing feature of virtue ethics is that character traits are stable, fixed, and reliable dispositions. If an agent possesses the character trait of kindness, we would expect him or her to act kindly in all sorts of situations, towards all kinds of people, and over a long period of time, even when it is difficult to do so. A person with a certain character can be relied upon to act consistently over a time.
*It is important to recognize that moral character develops over a long period of time. People are born with all sorts of natural tendencies. Our natural tendencies, the raw material we are born with, are shaped and developed through a long and gradual process of education and habituation.
*Virtue is determined by the right reason. Virtue requires the right desire and the right reason. To act from the wrong reason is to act viciously.
*The aspect of feeling or emotion is also emphasized i.e., the felling of plain or pleasure, which is very crucial in modern psychology.
Book 1 of Nichomachean Ethics had ended by pointing to the importance of virtue of character (moral virtue) as a pre-condition for happiness and the highest virtues Book 2 concerns virtue of character. Chapter 1 of the Book 2 points out that whereas virtue of thinking needs teaching, experience and time, virtue of character (moral virtue) comes about as a consequence of following the right habits. According to Aristotle the potential for this virtue is by nature in humans, but whether virtues come to be present or not is not determined by human nature.
Chapter 2 once more reminds that we should not try to speak too precisely in any discourse where the material makes it inappropriate. When it comes to deciding, what are the actions we should choose in order to develop and hold a good character, we should always look at all circumstances surrounding an occasion. With this approach in mind, Aristotle says that we can describe virtues as things which are destroyed by deficiency or excess. Someone who runs away becomes a coward, while someone who fears nothing is rash. In this way the virtue "bravery" can be seen as depending upon a "mean" between two extremes. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defined a virtue as a balance point between a deficiency and an excess of a trait. The point of greatest virtue lies not in the exact middle, but at a golden mean sometimes closer to one extreme than the other. For example, confidence the mean between self-deprecation and vanity, and generosity the mean between miserliness and extravagance. It requires common-sense smarts, not necessarily extreme intelligence, to find this golden mean. In Aristotle's sense, it is excellence at being human, a skill which helps a person survive, thrive, form meaningful relationships and find happiness. Learning virtue is usually difficult at first, but becomes easier with practice over time until it becomes a habit.
Chapter 3 of the Book 2 point out that virtue is also an aptitude which affects when we feel pleasure or pain. A virtuous person feels pleasure at the most beautiful actions. A person who is not virtuous will often find his or her perceptions of what is most pleasant to be misleading. For this reason, any concern with virtue or politics requires consideration of pleasure and pain.
The important lesson to draw from Aristotle's Doctrine of the Mean is that virtue consists of finding an appropriate middle ground between two extremes. As such, each virtue has not one opposite but two. The opposite of courage is both cowardice and rashness, for example. This idea that there are two opposites for every virtue goes against much of the received wisdom of Aristotle's time, including Plato's writings on virtue. It also emphasizes the importance of moderation: we achieve virtue by finding a middle ground, not by aiming for an extreme. Where exactly this middle ground lies, however, is less obvious.
d) Practice of Virtue and Attainment of Happiness
Aristotle is clear that we arrive at moral virtue primarily through practice and that the value of studying ethical texts such as the one he has written is limited. This view makes sense when we consider that moral virtue is not essentially different from other forms of excellence as far as the Greeks are concerned. If we want to achieve excellence in rock climbing, for instance, it helps to study texts that show us how to improve our technique, but we can't make any significant improvements except by getting on a rock wall and practicing. Analogously, it helps to read texts like the Nicomachean Ethics to get a clearer understanding of moral virtue, but the only way to become more virtuous is through practice. We can only become more courageous by making a point of facing down our fears, and we can only become more patient by making a habit of controlling our anger. Since practice, not study, is the key to becoming virtuous, Aristotle takes a strong interest in the education of the young. He perceives that there is only so much we can do to improve a nasty adult, and we can more easily mold virtuous youths by instilling the proper habits in them from a young age.
Aristotle calls happiness an "activity," which distinguishes his conception of happiness both from our modern conception of happiness and from virtue, which Aristotle calls a "disposition." We tend to think of happiness as an emotional state and hence as something we are, rather than as something we do. The Greek word generally translated as "happiness" is eudaimonia, and it can equally be rendered as "success" or "flourishing." People who are eudaimon are not in a particular emotional state so much as they are living successfully. While happiness is the activity of living well, virtue represents the potential to live well. Excelling in all the moral virtues is fine and good, but it doesn't ensure our happiness unless we exercise those virtues. Courageous people who never test their courage by facing down fear have virtue, but they are not happy. Aristotle illustrates this distinction between happiness and virtue by saying that the best athletes only win at the Olympic Games if they compete. A virtuous person who does not exercise virtue is like an athlete who sits on the sideline and watches. Aristotle has a proactive conception of the good life: happiness waits only for those who go out and seize it.
Happiness is the highest good and the end at which all our activities ultimately aim. All our activities aim at some end, though most of these ends are means toward other ends. For example, we go grocery shopping to buy food, but buying food is itself a means toward the end of eating well and thriftily. Eating well and thriftily is also not an end in itself but a means to other ends. Only happiness is an end in itself, so it is the ultimate end at which all our activities aim. As such, it is the supreme good. The difficulty is that people don't agree on what makes for a happy or good life, so the purpose of the Ethics is to find an answer to this question. By its nature, the investigation is imprecise because there are so many variables involved when considering a person's life as a whole.
Aristotle defines the supreme good as an activity of the rational soul in accordance with virtue. Aristotle analyzed the nature of the soul. Aristotle saw the soul as existing in three parts, each of which had a specific function:
-Nutritive Soul (vegetative soul) - found in plants, animals and human beings; responsible for growth and reproduction
-Perceptive Soul (sensitive soul) - found in animals and man; responsible for perception via the senses
-Rational Soul - found in humans only; responsible for thinking
Virtue for the Greeks is equivalent to excellence. A man has virtue as a flautist, for instance, if he plays the flute well, since playing the flute is the distinctive activity of a flautist. A virtuous person is someone who performs the distinctive activity of being human well. Rationality is our distinctive activity, that is, the activity that distinguishes us from plants and animals. All living things have a nutritive soul, which governs growth and nutrition. Humans and animals are distinct from plants in having a sensitive soul, which governs locomotion and instinct. Humans are distinct above all for having also a rational soul, which governs thought. Since our rationality is our distinctive activity, its exercise is the supreme good.
Aristotle contended that happiness could not be found only in pleasure, as "it would be absurd if the ends were amusement and if trouble and hardship throughout life would all be for the sake of amusing oneself." He also surmised that it was not in only fame and honor, as "it seems to be more superficial than what we are looking for, since it rests in the man who gives the honour rather than in him who receives it." He finally finds happiness "by ascertaining the specific function of man. In the case of flute players, sculptors, and all craftsmen - indeed all who have some function and activity – 'good' and 'excellent' reside in their function. Now the same will be true of man, if he has a peculiar function to himself."
Aristotle conceives of ethical theory as a field distinct from the theoretical sciences. Its methodology must match its subject matter—good action—and must respect the fact that in this field many generalizations hold only for the most part. We study ethics in order to improve our lives, and therefore its principal concern is the nature of human well-being. Aristotle follows Socrates and Plato in taking the virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Like Plato, he regards the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as complex rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato's idea that training in the sciences and metaphysics is a necessary prerequisite for a full understanding of our good. What we need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honour and wealth fit together as a whole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular cases, we must acquire, through proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of action is best supported by reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, as he conceives it, cannot be acquired solely by learning general rules. We must also acquire, through practice, those deliberative, emotional, and social skills that enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into practice in ways that are suitable to each occasion.
Conclusion
Virtue ethics initially emerged as a rival account to deontology and consequentialism. It developed from dissatisfaction with the notions of duty and obligation and their central roles in understanding morality. It also grew out of an objection to the use of rigid moral rules and principles and their application to diverse and different moral situations. Characteristically, virtue ethics makes a claim about the central role of virtue and character in its understanding of moral life and uses it to answer the questions "How should I live? What kind of person should I be?" Consequentialist theories are outcome-based and Kantian theories are agent-based. Virtue ethics is character-based. Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one's duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: "Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation."
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—"How should I live?" and "What is the good life?" and "What are proper family and social values?"
Since its revival in the twentieth century, virtue ethics has been developed in three main directions: Eudaimonism, agent-based theories, and the ethics of care. Eudaimonism bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one's distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life "worth living" is one which we reason well. An agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. The third branch of virtue ethics, the ethics of care, was proposed predominately by feminist thinkers. It challenges the idea that ethics should focus solely on justice and autonomy; it argues that more feminine traits, such as caring and nurturing, should also be considered.
Here are some common objections to virtue ethics. Its theories provide a self-centered conception of ethics because human flourishing is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Virtue ethics also does not provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than "act as a virtuous person would act given the situation." Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person's control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person?
References
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/plato.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meno
Aristotle. Nichomachean Ethics, trans. Ross David. Oxford. Oxford University Press,1925.
Finnis, John. Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
prepared by PREPARED BY JOSE PENNAPARAMBIL
