|
Some basic notes:
Virtue Ethics stands in contrast to the two major ethical theories that have
dominated western philosophy in the modern period: Kantian absolutist ethics and
Utilitarianism. It is also very different from the earlier Natural Law approach
to Christian ethics.
All three of these take as their staring point the moment of moral choice.
They require you to assess whether a chosen action is:
-
in line with a rational interpretation of nature (natural law),
-
able to be universalised (Kant), or
-
likely to give the greatest happiness to the greatest number
(utilitarianism).
BUT, when we describe someone as ‘good’ or ‘moral’ we do not generally refer to
particular decisions they have made (a good person may sometimes make a
mistake; a rogue may sometimes behave honourably), but to a disposition
– a quality that they have as a person.
Virtue ethics is about
the virtues that make for the good life. This approach, which became
popular once more from the middle of the 20th century, developed an
approach that had already been explored by Aristotle.
The other approaches acknowledge virtues,
but make them secondary to formulating general principles and rules of moral
action.
The virtues are seen as dispositions to follow certain principles or rules.
Virtue Ethics, by contrast, makes them
central.
For
Aristotle,
you can’t explain right or wrong simply in terms of rules, but rather you can
show how a virtuous person can be trusted to do the right thing in a variety of
situations, each of which may be unique and cannot therefore be covered by way
of a rule.
Developing qualities is not antisocial, or unrelated to the needs of others.
Aristotle saw ‘happiness’ (eudaimonia) as the goal in life. But that was
about
living a good life, as much as enjoying the good things of life.
He considered qualities that enabled people to live together; only when those
qualities were displayed could one enjoy happiness, because they were necessary
for one’s development as a social being.
So developing the virtues is a necessary feature of living alongside others – it
is therefore a social, political and moral feature of life, not just a personal
one.
Aristotle also considered it important to strike a balance (or mean) between
extremes – and it is recognising that balance that leads to virtue.
Four
cardinal virtues are found in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics and Aquinas. They
are: temperance (moderation), justice, courage and wisdom. They represent the
human qualities that reason suggests are required in order to live a moral life
and to achieve the ‘final cause’ or overall purpose in life.
The opposite
of these cardinal virtues are the seven capital vices: pride, avarice, lust,
envy, gluttony, anger and sloth - often referred to as the ‘seven deadly sins’.
For Virtue Ethics, morality is about the person, not so much the action. What is
it like to be a good or moral person? What qualities should I develop?
Virtue is a
disposition, a habitual way of acting.
You can only gain virtues by practice – and you are only described as virtuous
once you are seen to act in a particular way, apparently of your own free will
and with honesty of intention (i.e. pretending to be kind in order to gain
something is not the same thing as
actually
being kind).
Virtue Ethics was revived by
Elizabeth Anscombe in Modern Moral Philosophy, 1958),
who developed an approach to ethics based on the qualities or virtues that are
associated with someone who lives a ‘good’ life.
This was in contrast to the prevailing ethics of the day because it moved moral
debate
away from general rules and principles of behaviour,
and towards more general questions about value and meaning in life, and
qualities that were worth developing and encouraging.
It was thought that the other main theories – particularly Utilitarianism and
Kantian ethics – were inadequate and
lacked a sound foundation,
since many people no longer believed in God as an external law-giver or
guarantor of rewards.
Virtue Ethics
involves personal responsibility and is entirely secular – it is about
developing qualities that will promote eudaimonia. It is therefore
compatible with religion, but independent of it.
BUT, what do
you do when you are faced with two different possible courses of action, neither
of which seems to be any more an expression of virtue than the other? Moral
dilemmas occur because people want to be good, but do not know what they
should do to be good.
The revived virtue ethics appealed to feminist thinkers, who felt that
the other ethical theories, based on rights and duties, were a particularly male
ways of approaching life, whereas virtue ethics included a recognition of the
value of relationships and intimacy.
Virtue Ethics is naturalistic: it moves away from the idea of obeying
rules, to an appreciation of how one might express one’s own fundamental
nature, and thus fulfil one’s potential as a human being.
These are some of the key questions raised by Virtue Ethics:
-
Do we have a fixed ‘essence’? Are there particular qualities that
we should all seek to express?
-
Is our nature dependent upon our surroundings and upbringing?
-
If our nature has been shaped by factors over which we have no control
(e.g. our culture or religion, or some traumatic experience in
childhood) are we responsible for our actions?
-
If there are different ways of expressing the same virtue (e.g. out of
love, one person might seek euthanasia, another seek to prolong life),
how should you choose between them?
This last question is important. Virtue Ethics revived because it was thought
that the existing ethical theories did not have an adequate foundation. But if
there are dilemmas about what action can express a virtue, do you not than fall
back on one of the other ethical theories in order to judge between your
options?
Virtue Ethics has shown that morality goes beyond rules and regulations, and
should be concerned with questions about the value and purpose of human life.
|
