response eassy
Virtue Ethics
Part 1
What Should I do? vs. Whom Should I be?
Thus far our focus has been on the ethics of conduct that asks “What should I do” in any particular situation.
While this formulation is useful, it really only scratches the surface of the problem for it proposes no changes in the character of the human actor—ethical situations are responded to at a distance, through a form of abstract analysis. It also takes no direct account of the communities or societies in which the ethical breach takes place. Because of this they may recur.
Virtue Ethics attempts to ask a different question in response to ethical dilemmas—Whom should I be?
The advantage of this perspective is that it seeks to change one’s ethical character. The argument would be that a change in character and an understanding of the communitarian aspect of ethical decisions can result in the slow and progressive reduction of ethical problems.
What is Virtue?
Virtue (in English) has a complex meaning.
It’s actual root is from vir in Latin, meaning “male”—so the word “virile” is related to this ancient root.
However, the equivalent for how we use the word today is closer to the Ancient Greek concept of arete.
Arete in Greek meant someone who did things well.
In that sense it was connected with our words “virtuoso” and “virtuosity” for someone who excelled at what they did because they were skillful and had an excellent character.
Q: What does the word “character” mean to you?
Q: Is character inborn and therefore unchangeable, or can it, in fact, be altered by experiences and circumstances? If it changes easily, is it really character?
Q: What virtues, if any, do you ascribe to?
African Virtue Theory
Rosenstand’s text summarizes a text in virtue ethics of the Akan tribe of Ghana.
Though much of the formal study of ethics is western, this is neither the only nor the oldest ethical tradition.
The Akan peoples are organize their society along tribal lines.
They have a strong virtue ethics tradition. When something goes wrong instead of saying “He/she did something wrong” they are more likely to say “He/she is a bad person.”
Note how difficult this latter claim would seem to our modern, individualistic sensibilities.
For the Akan, the best way to learn morals is through stories. This is one reason children are read stories.
Stories help us develop good habits and allow us to be better people.
Their ethics have a communitarian flavor in that they assume that we are born into a community and that what is virtuous is what benefits the community.
First Nations Ethics
The Native American/First Nations tribes of North America had an approach to ethics we might describe as ecological virtue.
For the First Nations the sense of community and reciprocal obligation extended beyond the strictly human world, into the natural one.
So animals, plants, rocks, the water and the sky all were conceived of as living beings, with names and feelings. (Before killing the bear hunters would call him by name and apologize.)
While ecological virtue of the sort First Nations practiced may not longer be practical, in a world in which we have come to see our environment in purely instrumental terms it functions as an important ideal.
Virtue Ethics in the West
Virtue ethics has had a history of being at first the key formulation of ethics and then dropping out of favor for many years before becoming popular again in recent years.
What happened? Christianity.
In the Christian world view humans are inherently sinful because of the fall from the Garden of Eden.
Redemption, (virtue) is achievable only through the intercession of and belief in Jesus Christ.
Protestantism explicitly moves away from judging actions to measuring faith. So it is theoretically possible to commit genocide and still be redeemed.
The ideal of virtue is judged only by God, not by the community.
For these reasons, in the Christian world view ethics are part of the spiritual world, not the earthly one.
Monotheism establishes a largely one-to-one relationship between the individual and God and at its core it is here that virtue lies.
Socrates and Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics (e.g. the idea that character matters) is potentially problematic because it suggests both that we are changeable but not easily changeable.
What this does is make virtue ethics internal, a part of who we are, and not an abstract problem to be solved.
Socrates (471–399 BCE) was the most famous teacher in western philosophy.
His method of teaching was in the form of a dialogue where he would interrogate his interlocutors in an attempt to ascertain the truth.
He famously asserted that he knew nothing, but that the difference between him and others was that he knew that he knew nothing.
The Death of Socrates
In his old age, when he was nearly seventy, Socrates was put on trial for impiety and corrupting the minds of the young.
This was essentially a trumped up charge, but Socrates and his method of teaching through a form of irony made him many enemies.
Socrates chose to stand trial (though he could have fled) and was tried and convicted.
He argued that he believed in the truth and that he was innocent and that in order to prove it he had to stand trial.
After the conviction a majority of the jury also voted for his execution because they were shamed by the power of his rhetoric.
Socrates, who again could flee, chooses to stay out of respect for the law.
He argues that the laws have protected him throughout his life and that therefore if laws are to mean anything, even if unjust, he must accept and submit to them.
“In questions of just and unjust, fair and foul, good and evil, which are the subjects of our present consultation, ought we to follow the opinion of the many and to fear them; or the opinion of the one man who has understanding?...Then, my friend, we must not regard what the many say of us: but what he, the one man who has understanding of just and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.”
Read/Discuss Plato’s Apology.
Q: Does Socrates have a point? How would you negotiate the relationship between MLK and his contention that “an unjust law is no law at all” and Socrates obedience to a verdict that he believes is unjust?
The Good Life
Socrates famously said, “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
In practice what this meant was that he argued that one should live according to the ethical principles or rules one discovered.
Many of use have opinions about things, but these opinions are often based on weak evidence.
In order to be of value our opinions need to be examined in the light of an unbiased analysis and if unsound be discarded.
This is true even if the opinion is held by someone rich or powerful or challenging the opinion might hurt someone’s feelings.
Opinions that have passed the scrutiny of reason (e.g. that are logically and intellectually sound) are in fact knowledge.
This passage from opinion to knowledge is at the heart of what philosophy stands for.
Today we view problems as having multiple possible truths and answers, but for Socrates and Plato there is one Truth that stands over and above our ordinary experience.
Virtue then, is living according to the principles of the examined life. The good life is not the life of pleasure, but the life devoted to the attainment of Truth.
The Virtuous Person
A person who does something unjust is certainly ignorant or sick.
For Socrates injustice was the result of ignorance. With the right teacher and the right use of knowledge no one would do wrong since no one willingly does wrong.
Sickness in a Socratic sense is not a lack of physical wellness, but rather a form of ethical imbalance.
One role of philosophy is to restore balance through the use of reason. The unjust person, contrary to what Gyges said, for Socrates is always unhappy.
Q: What does a well-balanced person mean to you? If you give the answer of someone who doesn’t have any extremes what role does passion play in your life?
The Tripartite Soul
All of us have desires—desires for sex, for food, for power, and for many other things. These desires Plato calls appetites. Appetites must be controlled in order to be virtuous.
Appetites are controlled by reason (our rational capacity). We exert this control over our appetites because we come to understand that giving in to our appetites will not make us happy. (This does not mean that we ignore our appetites but rather that we set clear limits on their functioning.)
We also have a third capacity that Plato calls will or spirit. The function of this third capacity is our emotional response to the errors of the appetites.
When working correctly the spirit experiences indignation at the errors of the appetites and guides them back to reason.
The proper functioning of all three parts as a unified whole leads to justice and a good, properly functioning society.
The Tripartite Soul and Virtue
| Elements of the Soul | Virtues |
| Reason | Wisdom |
| Willpower | Courage |
| Appetites | Temperance |
The Pyramid of Power
Q: What do you think of this schema? Is the fact that the merchants (business people) are on the bottom a problem?
Reason—Philosopher Kings
Willpower (Passion)—Auxiliaries
Desires (Appetites)—Merchants (General Population)
Plato’s Theory of Forms
For Plato physical material existence is misleading. “Reality” in fact is metaphysical.
All good things (food, love, etc.) have an associated divinity.
So while there are many beds, there is only one “BED”—an idea of bed which exists behind each individual bed.
This bed does not exist in reality, but intellectually, in our minds.
He analogizes this through the Allegory of the Cave.
Allegory of the Cave
For Plato the highest form is the form of the Good (everything has a form)
The form of the Good is that from which all other things derive. (note connection to Christianity)
The Allegory of the Cave helps explain how hard it is to see the good.
Let’s read the Allegory of the Cave…
Aristotle and Virtue Theory
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was Plato’s student at The Academy and one of the most comprehensive philosophers of all time. He was also the teacher of Alexander the Great.
Aristotle didn’t believe in Plato’s forms.
For Aristotle, instead, everything had a purpose. So a knife has a purpose, a building has a purpose, a human has a purpose.
Virtue lies in the distinction between merely doing something (e.g. the dishes) and doing it well.
Since the purpose of a knife is to cut well then a knife that cuts well is a virtuous knife.
Things that are young or not yet whole have potential virtue.
Aristotle and Teleology
Telos is a Greek word that means “goal,” or “purpose.”
For Aristotle everything has a purpose.
How do we discover what the purpose of something is?
We investigate it and try to ascertain what it does best.
Aristotle is considered one of the progenitors of modern science because of his willingness to investigate.
Even if many of his claims were wrong (he didn’t understand gravity) the idea of investigation was a powerful one.
Whatever it does best becomes it purpose.
If the thing does its purpose well, then it is virtuous.
This is not disconnected to our own idea of “the meaning of life.”
Human Purpose
Humans have a purpose (for Aristotle it was men).
Each part of us also has a purpose—the eyes to see, the ears to hear, and so on.
We may have an individual purpose (e.g. to be a carpenter) but we also have a collective purpose to reason well.
Through this idea we connect our own purpose to the purpose of the community—which is flourishing in general through the use of reason.
The flourishing of humans through through the use of reason he describes as morally good.
So moral goodness for Aristotle is not the conventional idea of being good, e.g. keeping promises, not cheating, etc. Rather the emphasis is on being good at something.
This idea of good at something is an active principle (beyond simply avoiding doing harm) that animates our connection to those around us.
Aristotle recognizes two forms of virtue: moral and intellectual.
Worldly concerns where our mind controls the desires of the body are moral;
when we concentrate on intellectual concerns we engage our sophia (wisdom) or intellectual virtue.
The Golden Mean
The middle way, or not too much, not too little idea is an old one, but it lies at the heart of Aristotle’s idea of virtue.
The virtuous person should strive to take actions that respond to other actions at the right time, in the right way, with the right intensity, for the right reason.
Moderation is connected to happiness for Aristotle.
“Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean, i.e., the mean relative to us, this being determined by a rational principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions, while virtue finds and chooses that which is intermediate.” Nichomachean Ethics qtd. in Rosenstand 450–1)
Courage, for example, is the mean between cowardice and recklessness.
Q: Using Aristotle’s definition discuss possible virtues: kindness, generosity, humility. How does the notion of the golden mean apply to real situations?
Q: What is the role of passion in your life? Do you enjoy intense feelings or are you suspicious of them?
Landscape with the Fall of Icarus
Peter Breugel c. 1560
Aristotle on Character
The connection of Aristotle’s ethics to community leads to the important idea of habit.
The focus in Aristotle is not on who you you are, but on what you do.
However, these are connected, because for Aristotle in the end you are what you do repeatedly.
One instance of a virtue is not really a virtue.
(Being courageous once, or even in a big way is not, for Aristotle a sign of the virtue of courage, merely an instance of it.)
We find the golden mean of virtue through reasoning; we learn how to judge when is too much or too little etc. By repeated practice we arrive at virtue.
Character, then, develops over time as we practice virtue and become better at it.
Virtue in Aristotle’s schema leads to moral goodness, and moral goodness to happiness.
Virtue Ethics Problems?
Must the moral good always be linked to what we do well? If we are good cheaters should we then practice cheating?
Why is it important to have a purpose? Does nature have a purpose? What evidence do we have for “purpose”?
If we aren’t very good at being rational all the time isn’t this too demanding a standard for moral goodness? Don’t too many of us fall by the wayside?
Why is our only purpose to be rational? What other purposes might we have?