5 Virtue Ethics

Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is a pluralistic framework that contrasts with action-focused, monistic theories like Utilitarianism and Deontology. Instead of asking "What should I do?", Virtue Ethics asks "What sort of person should I be?".

5.1 The landscape of normative ethics

We have seen Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology. They are classified as "monistic theories", meaning they rely on a single, overarching principle to determine if an action is right or wrong. Both of these theories ask the fundamental question: "What should I do?".

• Utilitarianism: This framework dictates that an action is morally right if it maximizes overall well-being, and wrong if it does not . This implies there is usually only one strictly "right" action in any given scenario.

• Deontology (Kantian): This framework argues that morality is not just about consequences. An action is morally right if and only if it can be universally applied as a rule, and if it treats human beings as ends-in-themselves rather than mere means to an end.

Virtue ethics is a "pluralistic" theory. This means it acknowledges that moral situations are complex, and it is entirely possible for there to be two different, equally right actions at the same time. Furthermore, Virtue Ethics shifts the foundational question of morality entirely. It asks "What sort of person should I be?", "What is noble?", and "What is the chief good for humans?".

5.2 The core of Virtue Ethics

This shift in questioning represents a move from deontic claims to axiological claims.

• Deontic claims evaluate actions (e.g., determining if an action is permissible, wrong, or right).

• Axiological claims evaluate things, events, states of affairs, and people—specifically their character traits, emotions, and intentions (e.g., determining if a person is virtuous, vicious, praiseworthy, or blameworthy) .

According to this framework, an action is morally right if and only if it is what a virtuous person would do in that specific situation.

5.3 Defining Virtues and Moral Exemplars

To figure out what a "virtuous person" would do, we must understand what a virtue actually is.
A virtue is a character trait that manifests as a deep commitment to think, act, and feel in specific ways.

Some virtues are specific to a role—for example, it is good for a doctor to possess the virtue of medical skill and knowledge. However, moral virtues (like courage, honesty, fairness, benevolence, and patience) are not specific to any profession. They are character traits that are considered good for any human being to possess because they are necessary for living a "good human life".
Because Virtue Ethics doesn’t provide a strict rulebook, we rely on "moral exemplars" to guide our decisions. A moral exemplar is an ideally virtuous role model whose character makes them worthy of imitation.
To make a moral decision using this theory, you simply insert a moral exemplar’s name into this prompt: "In this situation, what would [Name] do?". A crucial detail here is that a moral exemplar does not need to be a perfect human being who perfectly embodies every single virtue; they might even have vices. You are only meant to imitate them in situations where the specific virtue they excel at is relevant.
For example, you should imitate Martin Luther King Jr. when you are faced with bigotry and injustice. However, because he plagiarized parts of his PhD dissertation, he would not be the correct moral exemplar to imitate when you are writing an academic paper.

5.4 Aristotle’s framework

5.4.1 Context: A Purpose-Driven View of Life

To understand Aristotle’s framework, we have to look at his view of the world. Aristotle believed that everything in the universe has a specific purpose or function. For example, the function of a knife is to cut, and a "good" knife is one that cuts well. He applies this same logic to human beings through his Function Theory.

According to Aristotle, while we share basic functions like growth with plants and perception with animals, the function peculiar to humans is the "rational principle"—our ability to reason. Therefore, a "good" human is one who reasons well, and virtues are the specific character dispositions that enable a person to function well and be good .

5.4.2 Eudaimonia: The Ultimate Goal

If we function well and live virtuously, what is the end result? Aristotle calls this Eudaimonia, which translates to "The Human Good," "Happiness," or "Living Well".

• The nature of Eudaimonia: It is the ultimate goal of human existence because it is pursued entirely for its own sake and is considered more valuable than any single activity.

• The requirements: Achieving Eudaimonia is not a temporary state of mind; it requires using reason well over the course of an entire lifetime.

• The role of luck: Interestingly, Aristotle acknowledges that being virtuous isn’t always enough on its own. Living well also requires "good fortune" and the possession of external goods like wealth, friends, and power.

5.4.3 How Do We Become Virtuous?

Aristotle divides virtue (excellence) into two distinct categories, which are acquired in different ways:

1. Intellectual Virtues: These are acquired through teaching and learning.

2. Moral Virtues: These are acquired through habit.

Aristotle argues that moral virtues do not arise in us by nature. You are not born courageous or honest. Instead, virtue is a predisposition built through repeated practice. You become brave by repeatedly doing brave things until it becomes second nature.

5.4.4 The Doctrine of the Mean

When faced with a situation, how do we know what the virtuous action actually is? Aristotle provides a framework called the Doctrine of the Mean.

• The Golden Mean: Virtue is defined as a state of balance between two extremes. Both of these extremes—the "Excess" and the "Deficiency"—are considered vices.

• Relative to us: This mean is not a strict mathematical average. It is "relative to us" and must be determined by reason and practical wisdom based on the specific situation. You must consider who you are, who is involved, and the specific facts of the scenario.

Examples:

• Passions (Fear and Confidence): The excess is Rashness, the deficiency is Cowardice, and the mean virtue is Courage.

• Actions (Giving Money): The excess is Prodigality/Vulgarity, the deficiency is Meanness/Pettiness, and the mean virtue is Liberality/Magnificence.

5.4.5 Virtue, Emotion, and Pleasure

A vital part of Aristotle’s framework is that virtue is not just about robotic action; it heavily involves our internal state. To be truly virtuous, one must be disposed to do the right thing, in the right way, at the right time, to the right person, for the right reason, and with the right amount of emotion.

The Ultimate Test of Virtue: To test if someone truly possesses a virtue, you must ask: Do they take pleasure in performing the action?. Through proper habituation, our relationship with pleasure is redefined so that doing the right thing actually feels good. For instance, a temperate person finds the act of abstaining from bodily pleasures to be pleasant in itself.

5.4.6 The Contrast with Kant:

This creates a sharp contrast with Kant’s Deontology. Kant believed that moral worth is derived purely from duty, and that an action has no moral content if the person simply enjoys acting that way or does it out of natural sympathy. For Kant, the highest moral worth is seen in someone who is deeply sorrowful and lacks all natural sympathy, but forces themselves to act charitably out of pure duty anyway. For Aristotle, such a person is merely "continent" (exhibiting self-control) but not yet fully, joyfully virtuous.

5.5 Advantages and Objections

We have to evaluate it as a functional moral theory. Is it actually useful for guiding our lives?

5.5.1 Advantages

One of the most attractive features of Virtue Ethics is its realism; it aligns with our everyday experience that morality is deeply complex.

1. No absolute rules: Unlike Kant’s rigid rules, Virtue Ethics insists there is no single procedure that can dictate the precise right action in every single situation. While it uses virtue-based rules (like "Be generous"), it recognizes these are not absolute and do not apply uniformly to all cases.

2. Striking a balance: The theory acknowledges that different virtues often compete. For instance, virtues requiring narrow concern (like loyalty to a family member) often conflict with virtues requiring broad concern (like general benevolence to society).

3. The role of Practical Wisdom: To resolve these conflicts, a virtuous person uses "practical wisdom" and rational reflection to judge on a case-by-case basis which virtue should take priority.
   Implication/Example: The slides contrast two scenarios to prove this point. In the story of Andrew and Belle, loyalty rightfully trumps benevolence. However, in the true story of Ted and David Kaczynski (the Unabomber), David’s benevolence to society rightfully trumped his loyalty to his brother, leading him to turn Ted in.

   • Scenario 1: Loyalty Trumps Benevolence (Andrew and Belle). Think of a common, lower-stakes ethical dilemma where a family member makes a mistake or needs your help in a way that slightly inconveniences the broader community. A purely utilitarian approach might demand you prioritize the "greater good" of society at all times. However, Virtue Ethics recognizes that being a good human means honoring the deep, narrow bonds of loyalty to the people closest to you. In the case of Andrew and Belle, the ethical choice is to prioritize loyalty over general benevolence.

   • Scenario 2: Benevolence Trumps Loyalty (The Kaczynski Brothers). Ted Kaczynski was the infamous "Unabomber," who conducted a 17-year domestic terror campaign using mail bombs. His brother, David, eventually recognized Ted’s distinct writing style in a published manifesto and realized his own brother was the killer.
     David faced a devastating moral dilemma with two heavily competing virtues:

     • Loyalty (Narrow Concern): Protect his brother from the FBI and the potential of the death penalty.

     • Benevolence (Broad Concern): Protect the general public from future bombings and save lives.

     In this extreme situation, the narrow virtue of familial loyalty was outweighed by the massive harm being done to society. David chose to turn his brother in. The slides use this to demonstrate that in contexts involving severe harm, broad benevolence rightfully trumps narrow loyalty.

5.5.2 Objections

1. Conflicting Advice: If we are supposed to ask "What would a virtuous person do?", what happens when different virtuous people give conflicting advice? This suggests the theory cannot give us a clear answer.

   • The Response: Virtue ethicists argue that the advice of perfectly virtuous people would not actually conflict. Because perfectly virtuous individuals possess practical wisdom, they know exactly how to rationally balance conflicting considerations.
     The implication: If you are looking at less-than-perfect role models whose advice does conflict, the theory advises you to follow the person who best exemplifies the specific virtue that is most relevant to the situation at hand.

2. What is the good life?: Virtue Ethics claims moral virtues are absolutely necessary for a good human life. Critics argue this is false; it seems entirely possible to live a "good," successful, or happy life without being a morally virtuous person.

   • The Response: Aristotle’s defense rests on his Function Theory: a good life inherently requires the successful exercise of reason. To reason successfully, one needs practical wisdom, and someone with practical wisdom will naturally acquire the moral virtues.
     Context: Modern psychology also supports this Aristotelian view, showing a strong connection between virtue and well-being. For example, research indicates that people who act benevolently are generally happier.

3. Are character traits even real? (Situationism): This is a modern critique driven by psychological research, specifically "Situationism." Famous studies like the Stanford prison experiment (1971) and the Milgram electric shock experiment (1963) show ordinary people committing shocking atrocities when placed in specific environments. This suggests that external factors (the situation), rather than internal character traits (virtues), dictate how we act.
   Responses:

   1. Lack of virtue: The people who committed atrocities in these experiments simply didn’t possess the relevant virtues in the first place.

   2. A continuum: Being virtuous isn’t a strict "all-or-nothing" binary; it exists on a continuum, so being virtuous in some situations still has moral value.

   3. Frail traits: Philosopher Robert Adams (2006) suggests that while human character traits might be "frail and fragmentary," they still count as virtues.

5.5.3 The Perennial Problem

The Objection: Philosopher Julia Annas (2004) outlines a fundamental problem: If right action is defined as what a virtuous person would reliably do, how do we actually identify a truly virtuous person? Furthermore, if the "virtuous person" is just a theoretical ideal and doesn’t exist in reality, how does the theory actually work to give us actionable advice?
The Response (Annas’s Solution): Annas argues that critics are misunderstanding the purpose of the theory. Virtue Ethics is not a "technical manual" designed to merely tell you what to do in every scenario. Instead, it is a developmental framework. It is designed to help you understand your own moral reasoning and justify your choices, because ultimately, your decisions are your own.

5.6 Application - Corporate Whistleblowing

A whistleblower is an employee (an "insider") who informs a government agency or the general public about an illegal, harmful, or unethical activity being committed by their own business or institution.
The slides point to Edward Snowden, who leaked highly classified information from the National Security Agency, as a famous example of a whistleblower.

5.6.1 The dilemma - Competing Virtues

Whistleblowing creates a profound moral dilemma because there are highly compelling reasons both for and against taking action.

• Reasons For: It exposes the truth and can prevent harmful or unethical activity by the business.

• Reasons Against: It requires acting directly against your employer, often comes at a massive personal and professional cost, and might not even be successful in changing the bad behavior.

When viewed through the lens of Virtue Ethics, this dilemma is a clash of competing character traits. A potential whistleblower is forced to balance the virtues of Justice and Compassion (which demand exposing the harm to protect the public) against the virtues of Loyalty, Obedience, and Prudence (which demand protecting the company, honoring contracts, and protecting oneself).

5.6.2 The Virtuous Response and Practical Wisdom

If you were to ask, "What would a moral exemplar do in this situation?", the answer is notoriously difficult to pin down.

• No Simple Rule: Because Virtue Ethics rejects absolute rules, there is no single procedure to follow. The moral exemplar must rely entirely on "practical wisdom" to weigh exactly how much personal sacrifice is appropriate to prevent a specific harm.

• Multiple Right Answers: While some virtue ethicists argue there is still only one truly right answer for any specific scenario, others argue that in highly complex situations, both whistleblowing and keeping silent might be morally permissible. The dilemma can become so convoluted that even a perfectly virtuous person might be genuinely undecided on the best course of action.

5.6.3 DeGeorge’s Model of Whistleblowing

To provide a more structured way to navigate this, the slides introduce a model created by moral philosopher Richard DeGeorge. Even though DeGeorge wasn’t strictly a virtue ethicist, his model illustrates how we can rationally balance competing virtues to determine when whistleblowing is justified.
When is whistleblowing morally permitted? It is permitted when an employee successfully balances Justice and Compassion with Loyalty and Obedience. According to the model, this occurs when:

• The firm’s product or policy will do serious harm to employees, users, or the public.

• The employee has already reported the concern to their immediate supervisor.

• All internal possibilities to fix the issue have been completely exhausted, yet the concern remains unaddressed.

When is whistleblowing morally required? The action elevates from merely permitted to strictly required when the employee balances Justice and Compassion with Prudence (acting with careful, rational foresight). This occurs when the previous conditions are met, plus:

• The employee possesses convincing, documented evidence that serious harm will occur.

• The employee has good reason to believe that publicizing the information will actually bring about the required changes, ensuring their sacrifice isn’t in vain.