Virtue Ethics and Virtue Theory: Strengths and Weaknesses

 

 

 

Abstract

After centuries of debate, many modern philosophers have concluded that both virtue ethics (character) and virtue theory (action) are inadequate on their own merits.  They must compromise and support one another. 

Virtue Ethics and Virtue Theory: Strengths and Weaknesses

       While utilitarians emphasize the consequences of actions that promote the most good, and deontologists like Kant point to rules and duties, virtue ethicists hold up moral character as the highest form of normative ethics (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).

       Traditionally, virtue ethics encompass the ideas of “virtues and vices, motives and moral character, moral education, moral wisdom or discernment, friendship and family relationships, a deep concept of happiness, the role of the emotions in our moral life and the fundamentally important questions of what sorts of persons we should be and how we should live” (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  Virtue ethics are teleological in nature because they deal with human reason and the purpose of human existence (Frost, 1989).  They address “the goal of life: living well and achieving excellence” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       It’s important to separate “virtue ethics” from “virtue theory.”  Virtue ethics is an approach to ethics apart from utilitarianism and deontology.  Virtue theory addresses virtue as it is found in ethical systems (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).

       Virtue theory is considered “action-based theory” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017) and calls on people to act virtuously by following certain rules.  People are judged by their actions and not whether they possess virtuous character traits.  Virtue theory is strong on action-guiding rules but weak on producing people with solid moral characters.

       Virtue ethics, on the other hand, are founded on ancient Greek philosophy and include the concepts of arête (excellence), phronesis (practical wisdom), and eudaimonia (happiness, flourishing) (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  Aristotle believed that humans are the “highest

creation,” endowed with the “spark of the divine” (Frost, 1989).  For him, the goal of life for humans is to achieve the highest self-realization (Frost, 1989).  He saw God as “pure intelligence . . . [and the] unifying principle of the universe” (Frost, 1989).  God is the reason that all things, including humans, strive for realization (Frost, 1989).  But humans “use reason in pursuit of the good life” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  This is what separates humans from animals.   

       A virtue is an inherent character trait that makes somebody “a certain sort of person” (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  The virtuous person consistently behaves in a way that reflects his or her deepest-held convictions.  Virtuous does not mean perfect — even the most virtuous people have flaws.  But truly virtuous people, according to Aristotle, “do what they should without a struggle against contrary desires.  The continent have to control a desire or temptation to do otherwise” (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  A virtuous person “does these things because he desires to do them from the depths of his own being” (Frost, 1989).  A virtuous person will not be tempted to do wrong.  He will do good because he is good (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  The more “good” people who live in society, the more society benefits.

       Phronesis is moral or practical wisdom (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  Without wisdom to back up virtue, even the most virtuous people can use their virtue in the wrong way.  And they are held accountable when their actions go wrong.  Virtuous people have a firm understanding of situational ethics and apply their virtues accordingly (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2016).  But wisdom comes with experience, and moral virtues must be lived in order to be fully realized (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  Some people will never develop wisdom, no matter how long they live.  Wisdom, common sense, and critical thinking skills cannot always be learned.

       Aristotle placed emphasis on the Golden Mean — or moderation — which he considered the “rational attitude” (Frost, 1989).  Moderation leads to balance.  Living a moderate life develops “noble, just, honest, considerate” (Frost 1989) character traits.  But Aristotle also believed in free will.  People are “free to debase [themselves] or strive for self-realization” (Frost, 1989).  Therefore, it is not guaranteed that people will choose to become virtuous people or follow action-guiding rules.

       According to Aristotle, “man is by nature a social animal” (Frost, 1989).  He can only flourish and achieve self-realization within the context of the state.  In fact, “the goal of the state . . . is to produce good citizens” and “to the extent that the state does not enable the individual to live a virtuous and happy life, it is evil” (Frost 1989).  If a person is unlucky enough to live in a country where human rights are not respected, it is unlikely that he will have the opportunity to achieve self-realization and live a happy life.

       Although people can be born with good or bad character traits, Aristotle believed that “the aim of education should be to make people virtuous” (Frost, 1989).  But what traits make people virtuous? According to Pojman & Fieser, moral virtues include “honesty, benevolence, nonmalevolence, fairness, kindness, conscientiousness, gratitude.”  But this leads to a conundrum.  People with virtuous character traits must still be guided by action-guiding principles.   Otherwise, they have no parameters by which to act (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  As philosopher William Frankena said, “Traits without principles are blind, but principles without traits are impotent” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

Conclusion

       Action-guiding principles, as found in virtue theory, are uninspiring and do not produce people with inherent moral characters.  Virtue ethics, on the other hand, strive to produce people with strong moral characters but fail to provide guidelines to put those traits into action.  Virtue theory and virtue ethics must compromise and support one another in order to provide a complete moral system.

References

 

Frost, S.E. (1989). Basic teachings of the great philosophers. New York, NY: Anchor Books

Hursthouse, R., & Pettigrove, G. (2003). Virtue ethics. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford

       encyclopedia of philosophy (winter 2016 ed.). Retrieved from

       http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/ethics-virtue/

Pojman, L.P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Boston, MA:

       Cengage Learning

 

Dawn Pisturino

March 2017

Mohave Community College

Kingman, Arizona

Copyright 2017 Dawn Pisturino. All Rights Reserved.

 

 



 



Utilitarianism and Kantianism: A Comparison

 

 

 

 

Abstract

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory that determines good and bad actions based on the consequences. Kantianism is a deontological ethical theory that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the acts themselves, the intention behind the acts, or the rules which govern the acts. Both theories seek to maximize good and minimize suffering for the human race.

Utilitarianism and Kantianism: A Comparison

Utilitarianism

       Classical utilitarianism originated with Jeremy Bentham in the 18^th century.  He broke down utilitarianism into two basic principles: the consequentialist principle and the utility principle.

       According to the consequentialist principle, “the rightness or wrongness of an act is determined by the goodness or badness of the results” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  An act should result in “the greatest good of the greatest number” (Frost, 1989).  He also believed that “good and bad . . . are determined by social factors” (Frost, 1989).  From this perspective, the end justifies the means.

       The utility (hedonist) principle states that “the only thing that is good in itself is some specific type of state” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  A state is good if it provides more pleasure than pain.

       Bentham devised a formula, called the hedonic calculus, which assigns hedons — units of happiness — to experiences (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  The number of hedons determines whether the act is good or bad.

       Bentham is known as an act-utilitarian.  He believed that “an act is right if and only if it results in as much good as any available alternative” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       John Stuart Mill, on the other hand, wanted to distinguish pleasure from sensualism.  He believed that “intellectual, aesthetic, and social enjoyments” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017) were more important for human happiness than lower pleasures such as food, drink, and sex.  Lower pleasures can lead to pain, whereas higher pleasures tend to provide more substantial, long-term benefit. 

       Mill was a rule-utilitarian who believed that “an act is right if and only if it is required by a rule that is itself or member of a set of rules whose acceptance would lead to greater utility for society than any available alternative” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       John Stuart Mill was also a Utopian in the sense that “he dreamed of a society in which the happiness and prosperity of all was certain, and in which all would share the wealth of the group” (Frost, 1989).  But he admitted that humans are complex creatures and “the factors which must be taken into consideration are so numerous that it is impossible for us to predict with any high degree of certainty” (Frost, 1989).

       Humans need action-guiding rules to help them make choices that maximize the good for the greatest number and minimize suffering (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  At the lowest level are simple commands such as “Don’t Kill.”  On the next level, the commandment can be modified to adapt to a changing situation: “Don’t Kill Unless . . .”

       The remainder rule, as a last resort, says to use best judgment when two moral principles conflict (act utilitarianism) (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       Modern philosopher Kai Nielsen is an act-utilitarian who added another dimension by concluding that human responsibilities include what they do and what they fail to do (negative responsibility) (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

Kantianism

       By contrast, Immanuel Kant believed that “by reason we can form an idea of this world, this universe” (Frost, 1989).  Humans need “an absolutely necessary Being, God, who is the cause of everything” (Frost, 1989) in order to perform good acts.  They must act “as if this kind of a

world existed” (Frost, 1989), whether real or not.  The moral law, for Kant, is derived from reason and shapes human values.  This is called rational intuition (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).
      The phenomenal world, according to Kant, is based on experience (Frost, 1989).  The noumenal world is based on reason (Frost, 1989).  Reason leads to the practical experience.   In developing his overriding  doctrine of the categorical imperative, Kant commanded humans to “always act so that you can will the maxim or determining principle or your action to become universal law [the principle of the law of nature]; act so that you can will that everybody shall follow the principle of your action [the principle of autonomy]” (Frost, 1989).

       Kant believed that the Good Will is the only thing that is intrinsically good (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  Mental intellect and talents do not qualify because they can be corrupted.  But they are redeemed if accompanied by a Good Will.

       He further believed that humans have a “dominant place in the universe” (Frost, 1989) and should be treated as an end rather than a means.  This is called the principle of ends (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

       Kant was a rule-intuitionist and continued Samuel Pufendorf’s list of duties that humans must perform: duty to God, duty to oneself, and duty to others (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).  But the most important duty is to fulfill “moral duty solely for its own sake” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).

Conclusion

       While utilitarians were empiricists who considered the consequences of their actions to determine good and bad, Kant was an absolutist and rationalist who believed that a transcendental world could be detected through reason and intuition.  He believed that a higher power was necessary in order for humans to understand the moral laws that would guide their actions.  An inherent Good Will, accompanied by mental acuity and talents, was also necessary to ensure good acts that would influence universal law.

 

References

 

Frost, S.E. (1989). Basic teachings of the great philosophers. New York, NY: Anchor Books

Pojman, L.P., & Fieser, J. (2017). Ethics: Discovering right and wrong. Boston, MA: Cengage

       Learning

 

Dawn Pisturino

Ethics 151

Mohave Community College

Kingman, Arizona

March 8, 2017

Copyright 2017 Dawn Pisturino. All Rights Reserved.