Analyse the view that Virtue Ethics is a more satisfactory way of
dealing with ethical dilemmas than Kant in today’s world (20).
Virtue ethics was introduced by Aristotle as a teleological theory, whereas Kantian ethics
primarily focuses on deontology. Robert Louden summarised the difference between the two
by arguing that for virtue ethics, “the question is not what we ought to do (Kant), but rather
what sort of person we ought to be”. This ultimately demonstrates how Aristotle put
emphasis on developing a ‘good character’ rather than a ‘good will’ by habitually practising
our virtues and so it is therefore agent-centred rather than act-centred. It also displays the
teleology aspect of the theory because our aim is to become virtuous beings that can then go
to heaven, which may appear more satisfactory to those who possess this goal.
On the other hand, Kant focuses on deontology and what we ought to do. For him, this is to
follow the objective law of reason because it is our duty to do so, thereby making it
act-centred. Many criticise Kant’s deontology and argue that in practice it is too difficult to
perform his ideas. Kant fails to recognise that humans have emotions which can influence
our moral decision making to some extent because we are not robots that can choose to
switch emotions off. Virtue ethics, however, observes that emotions play a key role in
influencing our moral decisions, but argues that we need to learn how to not let these
emotions stop us from becoming virtuous. For example, a driver with road rage is allowed to
experience feelings of rage or anger, however should reflect on such feelings in order to
become temperate and therefore virtuous in the eyes of Aristotle. In other words, it is about
learning to control our emotions, not eradicating them like Kant. Perhaps at face value this
appears to make virtue ethics more satisfactory for some individuals because it notices the
reality of emotions; however for others it may not be more satisfactory because overall,
Aristotle still says that these emotions should not be the basis of moral decisions which is
similar to Kant.
It could be argued that Kant displays some elements of teleology because he argues that the
goal of practising our duty is to get to the ultimate end known as the Kingdom of Ends
(Summum Bonum). Similarly, Aristotle focuses on becoming virtuous through habitual
practice so that we can go to heaven. Furthermore, virtue ethics is also similar to how
hypothetical imperatives are formulated. You do an act because of the outcome it brings with
Kant and you act in a way that allows you to become virtuous with Aristotle. However, Kant
stresses the importance of categorical imperatives over hypothetical ones so the similarity is
weakened. Arguably, Kant may be equally as satisfactory as virtue ethics for some as it
displays ideas of teleology. However, for others it may not be as satisfactory since the
teleology displayed does not appear to be as strong or as consistent as virtue ethics.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, virtue ethics recognises that although we are influenced
by pleasure and pain, we can still choose how to respond in order to allow us to become
virtuous beings. Similarly, Kant suggests that nothing going on in our lives can prevent us
from acting rationally so there are no excuses for not doing our duty. This highlights how
both argue in different ways that humans always have the freedom of choice to act morally.
This therefore implies that potentially neither are more satisfactory than the other. Perhaps
the idea of one being more satisfactory than the other will come down to one’s own belief on
dealing with ethical dilemmas than Kant in today’s world (20).
Virtue ethics was introduced by Aristotle as a teleological theory, whereas Kantian ethics
primarily focuses on deontology. Robert Louden summarised the difference between the two
by arguing that for virtue ethics, “the question is not what we ought to do (Kant), but rather
what sort of person we ought to be”. This ultimately demonstrates how Aristotle put
emphasis on developing a ‘good character’ rather than a ‘good will’ by habitually practising
our virtues and so it is therefore agent-centred rather than act-centred. It also displays the
teleology aspect of the theory because our aim is to become virtuous beings that can then go
to heaven, which may appear more satisfactory to those who possess this goal.
On the other hand, Kant focuses on deontology and what we ought to do. For him, this is to
follow the objective law of reason because it is our duty to do so, thereby making it
act-centred. Many criticise Kant’s deontology and argue that in practice it is too difficult to
perform his ideas. Kant fails to recognise that humans have emotions which can influence
our moral decision making to some extent because we are not robots that can choose to
switch emotions off. Virtue ethics, however, observes that emotions play a key role in
influencing our moral decisions, but argues that we need to learn how to not let these
emotions stop us from becoming virtuous. For example, a driver with road rage is allowed to
experience feelings of rage or anger, however should reflect on such feelings in order to
become temperate and therefore virtuous in the eyes of Aristotle. In other words, it is about
learning to control our emotions, not eradicating them like Kant. Perhaps at face value this
appears to make virtue ethics more satisfactory for some individuals because it notices the
reality of emotions; however for others it may not be more satisfactory because overall,
Aristotle still says that these emotions should not be the basis of moral decisions which is
similar to Kant.
It could be argued that Kant displays some elements of teleology because he argues that the
goal of practising our duty is to get to the ultimate end known as the Kingdom of Ends
(Summum Bonum). Similarly, Aristotle focuses on becoming virtuous through habitual
practice so that we can go to heaven. Furthermore, virtue ethics is also similar to how
hypothetical imperatives are formulated. You do an act because of the outcome it brings with
Kant and you act in a way that allows you to become virtuous with Aristotle. However, Kant
stresses the importance of categorical imperatives over hypothetical ones so the similarity is
weakened. Arguably, Kant may be equally as satisfactory as virtue ethics for some as it
displays ideas of teleology. However, for others it may not be as satisfactory since the
teleology displayed does not appear to be as strong or as consistent as virtue ethics.
Moreover, as previously mentioned, virtue ethics recognises that although we are influenced
by pleasure and pain, we can still choose how to respond in order to allow us to become
virtuous beings. Similarly, Kant suggests that nothing going on in our lives can prevent us
from acting rationally so there are no excuses for not doing our duty. This highlights how
both argue in different ways that humans always have the freedom of choice to act morally.
This therefore implies that potentially neither are more satisfactory than the other. Perhaps
the idea of one being more satisfactory than the other will come down to one’s own belief on
