Summary of Virtue Ethics Outline the basics of

Summary of Virtue Ethics Outline the basics of Virtue Ethics on your whiteboards…

Summary of Virtue Ethics • P 1. Everything has a function (ergon) • IC. Therefore humans must also have a function • P 2. We share nutrition/growth with plants (so that cannot be our function). We share perception with animals (so that cannot be our function). But only humans have a rational soul. • IC. Therefore the function of a human is to exercise the rational aspects of our soul. • P 3. To be a good X requires X fulfilling its function well through the exercise of the appropriate virtue / excellence (arête). • P 4. To be truly rational we need to guide our character (moral virtues) by making the right decisions (intellectual virtues). • M. C. Therefore we can say the good life for a human (Eudaimonia) is achieved by exercising those moral virtues through the use of the rational aspects (intellectual virtues) of the soul.

Summary of Virtue Ethics • P 1. Everything has a function (ergon) • IC. Therefore humans must also have a function • P 2. We share nutrition/growth with plants (so that cannot be our function). We share perception with animals (so that cannot be our function). But only humans have a rational soul. • IC. Therefore the function of a human is to exercise the rational aspects of our soul. • P 3. To be a good X requires X fulfilling its function well through the exercise of the appropriate virtue / excellence (arête). • P 4. To be truly rational we need to guide our character (moral virtues) by making the right decisions (intellectual virtues). • M. C. Therefore we can say the good life for a human (Eudaimonia) is achieved by exercising those moral virtues through the use of the rational aspects (intellectual virtues) of the soul. In addition to this we looked closer at how we should apply the virtues, using the doctrine of the mean. We explained how Virtues can be developed through habit and practice. We also covered actions can be classed as voluntary, involuntary, mixed and non-voluntary and this classification dictates whether or not someone should be deemed responsible for their actions. Finally we discussed how pleasure plays an important role in developing the virtues, and how the use of practical reason (an intellectual virtue) can guide us to the correct choices but requires moral virtue in order to actually follow those choices.

The VE Process 1. Desire to achieve the Good (Eudaimonia). 2. Deliberate about the ways you can achieve this good. 3. Choose the correct way to achieve this good. 4. Voluntarily carry out the action that will allow you to achieve this good. 5. Practice and habituate the action until it becomes part of your character. 6. Excel at the particular action and make it one of your virtues. Develop a virtuous disposition. 7. Having a virtuous disposition means you will act in the right way when that virtue is applied. 8. Achieve this in all areas of life and your decision making and you will achieve Eudaimonia.

Whiteboards! Is there anything you find appealing about Virtue Ethics? Explain why

Homework 1. Read carefully through the weaknesses text. 2. Outline the 4 issues with Virtue Ethics highlighted in the text. You may not need to read the entire text of each section to do this. 3. Can Aristotle or any other philosophers give responses to these criticisms? There a number of potential responses to most of the weaknesses in the text. Add these to your notes. 4. Are these criticisms good / bad? Are they adequately answered by the responses? Everyone should at least complete 1 + 2 and have a go at 3 + 4. Anyone aiming at higher grades should complete all 4.

Big Whiteboards Weakness 1 – Lack of Guidance Weakness 2 – Clashing Virtues Weakness 3 – Circularity Weakness 4 – Virtues and Eudaimonia

Criticism 1: Lack of Guidance If I asked you to put together an explanation from a virtue theorist explaining to someone how to work out whether they should give money to a particular charity, and if so how much… • What problems would you encounter? • What has virtue ethics not provided us? • What do the other theories have that VE lacks?

Virtue Ethics Vs Moral Rules One of the features we expect to see in an effective ethical theory is some clear guidance on how to act. Utilitarianism (hedonic calculus) and Kantian ethics (categorical imperative) provide rules or guidelines that can be applied to different situations and explain how we should make judgements, but does Aristotle’s virtue ethics do the same?

Virtue Ethics Vs Moral Rules We might say that his doctrine of the mean provides these guidelines – if we ascribe to the view that it means “Act moderately in any situation”. The problem is, as we’ve already said this is not the view that Aristotle himself took of his theory.

Virtue Ethics Vs Moral Rules • Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean provides a complex analysis of virtue. It describes how virtuous acts are in a mean between excessive and deficient response, but that this mean is relative to the situation. • It describes how the mean response is the right response, leading to the most appropriate behaviour. But that this sometimes may even sometimes entail an extreme response. • So, far from offering clear guidance, the doctrine of the mean suggests that every situation is different and there is no single rule to guide us in how we should act. Just about anything could be ‘in the mean’ if the circumstances are right!

Criticism 1: Lack of Guidance What explicitly is the issue here?

How might a virtue ethicist respond?

Criticism 2: Clashing Virtues Does Virtue Ethics have an issue with clashing or competing virtues?

Does VE have an issue with moral dilemmas? • Axe-murderer style dilemmas do not seem to be a problem. • Virtues can sometimes be moderate and sometimes in the extreme! The whole point for Aristotle is that they are not universals. • In these cases then a deficiency of honesty and an excess of loyalty / justice is appropriate. But what about cases where two or more virtues seem to clash? Due to the vagueness previously mentioned it’s sometimes unclear which virtues we are supposed to follow!

Criticism 2: Clashing Virtues • There are some moral dilemmas where there is more than one virtuous thing we could do. • Both also have negative consequences. • Virtue ethics provides no way to choose what the right thing to do in these situations is.

Example: Euthanasia Virtues of charity and love that may lead us to end someone's life. Virtues of justice that might prevent us from ever taking a life.

Criticism 2: Clashing Virtues What explicitly is the issue here?

How might a virtue ethicist respond?

Criticism 3: Circularity Copy this into your notes or take a photo. • Aristotle attempts to answer the question ‘what is a virtuous act’ by pointing to virtuous people. • In what way is this circular reasoning?

Criticism 3: Circularity What explicitly is the issue here?

How might a virtue ethicist respond?

Criticism 4. 1: Virtue And Eudaimonia For Aristotle the main aim of Virtue Ethics is ultimately to achieve Eudaimonia – to live well and flourish. He doesn’t seem to distinguish between a life that is good for me and a life that is morally good. But does this idea of moral goodness being a flourishing life fit with what we usually consider to be moral? Surely morality sometimes requires elements of self-sacrifice? For example charity: Option 1: Donate a small amount to charity , ensure my own flourishing and good life with the money I have left over. Option 2: Donate a lot more to charity, help many more people yet make it much harder for myself to truly live ‘well’. Which would we usually consider to be the moral action? Which does Aristotle seem to imply is correct?

Criticism 4. 2: Virtue And Eudaimonia During the Ebola crisis (2013 -2016) in Africa, a huge amount of aid workers and volunteers operated round the clock care centres for those sick and dying. Were they acting virtuously? Unfortunately due to the highly contagious nature of the virus, more than 120 of these aid workers died performing what they saw as their moral obligation. Were they acting virtuously?

Criticism 4. 2: Virtue And Eudaimonia Aristotle seems to suggest throughout all his ethical writing that by acting on the virtues we will eventually achieve Eudaimonia. We will flourish and live well. But this does not seem to be the case for many people we would say are explicitly demonstrating virtues. Instead they have put themselves (willingly) in situations in which they are enduring extremely tough conditions. They are certainly not flourishing or living well.

Criticism 4. 2: Virtue And Eudaimonia The philosopher Christine Swanton articulates this criticism – she argues that virtues are not always and should not always be about the Eudaimonia of the person who has them. There are other values, other ‘final ends’ – the good of others, environment, knowledge etc. that are just as important and in some cases even more important than personal Eudaimonia. A virtuous person is one who can apply their virtues correctly and appropriately in regards to these ends. Sometimes being virtuous may be about improving our own life, but we also need to accept that sometimes to be truly virtuous will require self-sacrifice.

Criticism 4. 1/4. 2: Virtue And Eudaimonia What explicitly are the issue(s) here?

How might a virtue ethicist respond?