VIRTUE ETHICS

Street, Dresden Ernst Ludwig Kirchner (1908/1919)

ACTION AND VIRTUE

Action ethics focuses on the rightness and wrongness of obligations, rules, and actions.

Virtue ethics focuses on character traits of the individual. Accordingly, it is concerned with the question of what kind of person the individual should be.

Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.) said that the good person is the virtuous person. Thus, for Aristotle, ethics is concerned with the virtues or what is virtuous.

For Aristotle, as for Socrates and Plato before him, the question is what makes a person virtuous, or “What traits of character make one a good person?”

REASON AND DIVINITY

The virtuous life for the Greeks was inseparable from reason.

But Rachels notes that Christianity changed things. Christianity changed things because it saw God as

the supreme law giver - divine command theory - and the good person was the person who obeyed God’s laws by obeying the commandments of the Christian Bible.

In addition, St. Augustine distrusted reason, and thought that “moral goodness depended on subordinating oneself to the will of God.” And so what was emphasized was the Divine Law.

After Augustine, the theological virtues of faith, hope, charity, and obedience are emphasized.

THE MORAL LAW

Rachels says that, after the Renaissance, the Divine Law was replaced by the Moral Law.

The moral law was thought to come from human reason rather than from divine commands.

The moral law was thought of as being “a system of rules specifying which actions are right.”

Moral agents are obligated to follow these rules of correct actions.

FROM CHARACTER TO ACTION

Because man was thought to have a duty to moral law, philosophers no longer asked about which character traits made a person good or virtuous.

Instead, they asked “what is the right thing to do?”

This question shows a shift to action from character as the concern of moral theory.

It led philosophers to talk about rightness and obligation.

ETHICS AFTER VIRTUE ETHICS

Ethical egoism - the view that each person ought to act in his or her own interests - do what is good for you.

Utilitarianism - we ought to do whatever will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

Kant’s deontological theory (duty ethics) - a person’s duty is to follow rules that could be consistently willed for everyone to follow in all circumstances. Here we get universal rules such as ‘always tell the truth.’

Social contract theory - rational, self-interested people agree to a moral system that will protect each person from the interests of others so that we avoid the problems inherent in Hobbes’s “state of nature.” By agreeing to the contract everyone benefits.

THE RECRUDESCENCE OF VIRTUE ETHICS

Rachels notes that a number of 20th century philosophers thought that the notion of a moral law without a lawgiver was nonsensical. This is because the notion of a law seemed logically to require a lawgiver.

Therefore they returned to virtue ethics.

For instance, G. E. M. Anscombe thought that philosophers should give up talk about obligation, duty, and rightness and go back to Aristotle’s approach to ethics as based on virtue.

Although virtue theorists disagree amongst themselves about certain aspects of virtue theory, they agree that all other moral theories are on the wrong track.

COMPONENTS OF VIRTUE THEORY

Rachels says that a theory of virtue should:

1. Tell us what virtue is.

2. Tell us which character traits are virtues.

3. Explain what these virtues consist in.

4. Tell us why these character traits are good ones to have.

5. Tell us whether the virtues are the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen. Or do they differ from culture to culture, from time to time, or even from person to person?

WHAT IS VIRTUE? I

Aristotle said that “a virtue is a trait of character that is manifested in habitual actions.”

Thus the honest person habitually tells the truth, and does so as a matter of principle. Her truthfulness comes from her character, which is “firm and unchangeable.”

The problem here is that a character trait can be manifested in habitual actions that is not a virtue but a vice, as when someone typically lies instead of telling the truth.

WHAT IS VIRTUE? II

Perhaps the virtuous person is one we prefer and the person of vice is one we avoid, as Edmund Pincoffs has suggested.

Then virtuous character traits are those had by people whose company we would seek rather than avoid.

Rachels thus says that virtue can be defined as “a trait of character, manifested in habitual action, that is good for a person to have.” Thus the answer to the first question ‘What is virtue?’ is virtue is a trait of character, manifested in habitual action, that is good for a person to have.

WHICH CHARACTER TRAITS ARE VIRTUOUS?

benevolence fairnessreasonableness

civility friendliness self-confidence compassion generosity self-control conscientiousness honesty self-discipline cooperativeness industriousness self-reliance courage justice tactfulness courteousnessloyalty thoughtfulness dependability moderation tolerance

Colin McGinn lists kindness, [benevolence] honesty, justice, and independence [self-confidence, self-control, self-discipline, self-reliance] as the four main virtues.

WHAT DO THE VIRTUES CONSIST IN?

Rachels says that “each virtue [virtuous character trait] has its own distinctive features and raises its own distinctive problems.” And it may be hard to say exactly what a virtuous character trait consists in.

Rachels looks at the virtues of courage, generosity, honesty, and loyalty to family and friends. (We will look only at the first and the rest you are responsible for reading through and seeing what the problems are with each.)

COURAGE I

According to Aristotle, courage is a virtue that is the mean between the excess of foolhardiness and the excess of cowardice - both of which are vices.

What about someone who displays courage in the advance of an unworthy cause. Is his courage still virtuous?

Is a Nazi soldier’s courage still a virtue since he is fighting for an evil cause?

COURAGE II

Peter Geach says no: “Courage in an unworthy cause is no virtue; still less is courage in an evil cause.”

For Geach, the Nazi soldier who faces danger cannot even be called courageous since he is fighting for an evil cause.

Rachels thinks that this is unjustified, even if he understands Geach’s point - which is not wanting to praise the action by calling it courageous.

COURAGE III

Rachels thinks that Geach’s view is wrong since, if the Nazi is not cowardly or foolhardy in facing danger then he must be courageous.

Rachels says maybe we should say that the Nazi is courageous in facing danger and that his courage is an admirable character trait.

But he is also to be deplored for following an evil regime, or his willingness to follow an evil leader and cause is a dishonorable character trait.

Then, although we can call him courageous, overall we can say that his behavior is wicked since he is fighting for an evil cause.

WHY ARE THE VIRTUES IMPORTANT?

Why is it good for a person to be honest, generous, kind, loyal and so forth?

Here Rachels notes that the answer can depend on which virtue it is which we are talking about. Thus, each virtue may be valuable for a different reason.

For instance, courage is good because there are dangers in life that we could not cope with if we lacked courage. Generosity is good because unfortunate people need help. Honesty is important because human relationships depend on it. And loyalty is “essential to friendship.”

ARISTOTLE AND VIRTUES

Aristotle thought that the virtues are important because the virtuous person will fare better in life, and the virtuous person is the happy person.

For Aristotle, we need virtues in order to live well, in order to conduct ourselves properly.

Despite all of their differences, we can say that the virtues all have in common that they are needed to live successfully.

ARE THE VIRTUES THE SAME FOR EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, EVERYWHEN?

Although we get our sense of value from the society in which we were raised and live, and societies differ, still it may be true that there will be some virtues that will be needed by all people, at all places, at all times.

Aristotle thought that there will be some virtues that will be needed by all people, at all places, at all times.

He thought that, in spite of our differences, all people have a great deal in common.

MAJOR VIRTUES

Societies may differ greatly from one another, but there will be some basic needs that people in all societies will have. And there will be some basic problems that people in all cultures will face.

For instance: a. Everyone needs courage. b. There will be considerations of personal property in

every society, and as some people will be better off than others, generosity will always be a virtue.

c. Because people will communicate with one another in any society, honesty will always be prized - civilization depends in large part on telling the truth.

d. Man is a social animal. As social we all need friends, and as friends count on one another, loyalty is a virtue.

MAJOR VIRTUES AND FACTS ABOUT HUMANITY

Rachels notes that the list could be extended, and it is by Aristotle, but it is enough to note that the major virtues - such as those just listed - are not determined by social convention. Rather, they are determined by basic facts about humanity - what it means to be a human being.

And as the major virtues are determined by basic facts about humanity, they do not vary from culture to culture but are true of everyone, everywhere, everywhen. (This might be disputed by ethical relativists, as we have seen.)

MORAL MOTIVATION I

Proper moral motivation means that a person does the right thing for the right motive.

Rachels says that virtue ethics gives an account of moral motivation that is both attractive and natural.

As other theories don’t do this very well, this is an advantage of virtue ethics.

For instance, simply doing something out of a sense of duty does not seem to be the right kind of motive, as when one person visits another in the hospital out of a sense of duty rather than out of a genuine interest.

MORAL MOTIVATION II

There is a clear difference between being motivated by genuine concern and friendship and being motivated by an abstract sense of duty that lacks feeling.

Wouldn’t we prefer the former and not the latter if we were the one being visited?

We tend to think that someone who acts only out of a sense of duty rather than interest and compassion is not a complete person, or is not the right kind of person.

ACTIONS AND DUTIES VS. VIRTUES

We think of persons as being centers of feeling rather than things that merely act according to duties.

Ethical theories that emphasize actions, such as Kant’s deontological theory, do not, according to virtue ethics, provide the right kind of moral theory.

What should be emphasized is not duties and right actions but “such personal qualities as friendship, love, and loyalty.”

People who are motivated by such virtuous qualities have proper moral motivation.

FEMINISM

According to Rachels, the third advantage for virtue ethics concerns feminism.

For some feminists, much of ethical theory has shown a male bias.

Feminist thinkers note that humans have traditionally divided their social lives into public and private realms that have their own concerns.

Men have been in charge of public affairs and have dominated politics and law. Women have been assigned - by men - to take care of the private life of the home and family.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, MEN AND WOMEN

The public world is large, impersonal, and unemotional, and often involves relationships that are contractual and sometimes adversarial.

The private world is smaller and more intimate, involving fewer people with whom our relations are more personal and emotional.

For feminist thinkers, ethical theory that has been written by males reflects the public realm in which men typically operate.

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AND ETHICS

Ethical theory written by men emphasize such things as impersonal duty [Kant and deontological theory]; contracts [Hobbes and social contract theorists]; and the calculation of costs and benefits [calculating the greatest good or happiness for the greatest number as in Bentham’s utilitarian theory].

When interests compete, men try to use reason to iron out the differences.

Feminist thinkers note that the concern of the private realm - or the traditional sphere of women - is almost wholly neglected by male ethicists.

FEMINISM AND VIRTUE ETHICS

It is thought that virtue ethics can address this imbalance between the public and the private worlds, by recognizing that certain virtues will be required in public life and others will be required in private life.

This is why many feminist philosophers advocate a return to virtue ethics.

MORAL CONFLICT I

Rachels calls the view that virtue ethics is complete in itself - and so not supplemented by other ethical theory - radical virtue ethics.

A problem for radical virtue ethics is how to account for cases of moral conflict.

For instance, how do you choose between doing something that is kind but dishonest - such as telling a friend a lie about himself in order not to hurt his feelings - and doing another thing that is unkind but honest - such as telling him the truth?

MORAL CONFLICT II

Both honesty and kindness are virtues, but in a case where they conflict it is not clear how in appealing to virtue theory alone we could know what to do.

You may just have to wonder which virtue is more important.

But that will not satisfy philosophy, and we need some moral theory that would resolve the issue.

VIRTUES AND REASONS I

Rachels also wonders if there is a virtue that matches every morally good reason for doing something.

Radical virtue ethics thinks that “for any good reason that may be given in favor of doing an action, there is a corresponding virtue that consists in the disposition to accept and act on that reason.”

VIRTUES AND REASONS II

But Rachels says that this does not seem to be true.

Is there a virtue that corresponds to a legislator’s deciding that the best way to spend the taxpayers’ money is for the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people? Since this is utilitarianism, is there a virtue that ought to be called ‘acting like a utilitarian?’

HUMAN WELFARE

Rachels suggests that we begin with the notion of human welfare as the most important value.

Considering human welfare means that we want a society in which everyone has the opportunity to lead happy, healthy lives.

HUMAN WELFARE ANDACTIONS AND CHARACTER To promote this state of health and happiness, we

would have to ask what sort of human actions and social policies or laws would contribute to this goal.

And we would have to look at what qualities of human character would also contribute to the goal of creating and maintaining a state of human welfare.

If both human actions and human character were elements of a larger theory, then one could illuminate the other, and we would have a better chance of arriving at a proper ethical theory.

End