VIRTUE ETHICS
Introduction
Introductory Lines
That approach which holds that ethics should be concerned with both the agent of an action as well
as the actions he makes, rather than prioritising the action itself, is virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics, most significantly attributed to Aristotle, is a normative theory which has been
deemed ‘agent centred’, asking not ‘what is a good action’ but rather ‘what is a good man?’
More About Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is greatly incommensurate with other normative theories such as utilitarianism and
Kantian ethics as it seeks not to provide a rulebook for how we should act in particular
circumstances, but instead focuses on who we are as persons and developing a good character as
part of a lifelong process.
If one were to adopt virtue ethics, leaving behind such consequentialist or deontological theories,
then there may not be absolute standards by which we can universally judge specific actions by, as
context is paramount in deciding the course of action for a virtue ethicist.
Aristotle himself acknowledges in his native Greek that “to [act virtuously] with the right person to
the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not
within everybody’s power and is not easy.”
This emphasises the fact that virtue ethics is not a simplistic theory by any standards, with no
apparent rules to follow. Instead, we are told to be virtuous, to do that which a virtuous person
would do.
Societal Implications
In terms of societal implications, the debate of normative ethics is of substantial importance when
agents are faced with morally difficult decisions.
The question is raised of whether one should focus on the consequences, the obligations they have,
or virtuous acts.
Evaluations
Instead, we are told to be virtuous, to do that which a virtuous person would do. Initially, this may
seem vague and circular, however, an evaluation of the rationale behind virtue ethics reveals the
intuitive and relevant nature of the theory.
In fact, many attempts have been made to rectify the issues within the Aristotelian account of
virtue ethics by modern philosophers after these initial criticisms were established.
I will argue that virtue ethics, as a holistic theory, provides a more reasonable account of ethics
than act centred, atomistic theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, which do not account
for the individual identity of people as unique persons with innate connections to others more
significant than just that of their rational will (as per Kant) or their ability to feel pleasure or pain (as
utilitarians would hold).
Normative Ethics
Distinctions of Virtue Ethics
Before an evaluation of virtue ethics is made, it is important to understand how it is distinguished
from utilitarian and Kantian ethics, both of which are popular normative theories.
Both of these theories predicate that it is our actions which hold almost all moral weight, Kant
arguing that an action is right if it is done out of duty and with respect for our identity as rationally
autonomous beings, whilst utilitarians define an action as right if it maximises happiness and
minimises pain.
The two of these theories provides a formula which aids us in deciding how to act, i.e., Kant’s
universalisation principle and ideas like the Hedonic Calculus presented by Bentham as part of
utilitarianism.
Problems With Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
However, there are clear underlying issues within both of these theories.
Firstly, each of these theories make moral prescriptions which are intuitively unacceptable. In
Kantian ethics, the famous example of whether you should tell the truth to an axe-murder who asks
where his target has run; Kant maintains that we should tell the truth as lying cannot be
universalised. Or, from a utilitarian perspective, the idea of the ‘trolley problem’, whether you
should intentionally kill an innocent person to save five; utilitarians would see it fit to kill one person
Introduction
Introductory Lines
That approach which holds that ethics should be concerned with both the agent of an action as well
as the actions he makes, rather than prioritising the action itself, is virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics, most significantly attributed to Aristotle, is a normative theory which has been
deemed ‘agent centred’, asking not ‘what is a good action’ but rather ‘what is a good man?’
More About Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is greatly incommensurate with other normative theories such as utilitarianism and
Kantian ethics as it seeks not to provide a rulebook for how we should act in particular
circumstances, but instead focuses on who we are as persons and developing a good character as
part of a lifelong process.
If one were to adopt virtue ethics, leaving behind such consequentialist or deontological theories,
then there may not be absolute standards by which we can universally judge specific actions by, as
context is paramount in deciding the course of action for a virtue ethicist.
Aristotle himself acknowledges in his native Greek that “to [act virtuously] with the right person to
the right degree and at the right time and for the right purpose, and in the right way – that is not
within everybody’s power and is not easy.”
This emphasises the fact that virtue ethics is not a simplistic theory by any standards, with no
apparent rules to follow. Instead, we are told to be virtuous, to do that which a virtuous person
would do.
Societal Implications
In terms of societal implications, the debate of normative ethics is of substantial importance when
agents are faced with morally difficult decisions.
The question is raised of whether one should focus on the consequences, the obligations they have,
or virtuous acts.
Evaluations
Instead, we are told to be virtuous, to do that which a virtuous person would do. Initially, this may
seem vague and circular, however, an evaluation of the rationale behind virtue ethics reveals the
intuitive and relevant nature of the theory.
In fact, many attempts have been made to rectify the issues within the Aristotelian account of
virtue ethics by modern philosophers after these initial criticisms were established.
I will argue that virtue ethics, as a holistic theory, provides a more reasonable account of ethics
than act centred, atomistic theories such as utilitarianism and Kantian ethics, which do not account
for the individual identity of people as unique persons with innate connections to others more
significant than just that of their rational will (as per Kant) or their ability to feel pleasure or pain (as
utilitarians would hold).
Normative Ethics
Distinctions of Virtue Ethics
Before an evaluation of virtue ethics is made, it is important to understand how it is distinguished
from utilitarian and Kantian ethics, both of which are popular normative theories.
Both of these theories predicate that it is our actions which hold almost all moral weight, Kant
arguing that an action is right if it is done out of duty and with respect for our identity as rationally
autonomous beings, whilst utilitarians define an action as right if it maximises happiness and
minimises pain.
The two of these theories provides a formula which aids us in deciding how to act, i.e., Kant’s
universalisation principle and ideas like the Hedonic Calculus presented by Bentham as part of
utilitarianism.
Problems With Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics
However, there are clear underlying issues within both of these theories.
Firstly, each of these theories make moral prescriptions which are intuitively unacceptable. In
Kantian ethics, the famous example of whether you should tell the truth to an axe-murder who asks
where his target has run; Kant maintains that we should tell the truth as lying cannot be
universalised. Or, from a utilitarian perspective, the idea of the ‘trolley problem’, whether you
should intentionally kill an innocent person to save five; utilitarians would see it fit to kill one person
