Assignment on

“Aristotle’s Theory of Virtue Ethics”

COURSE TITLE: PHI401

SECTION:01

Submitted to:

Professor Dr. Muhammad Kamrul Ahsan

Department of History & Philosophy

North South University

Submitted by:

Ragib Yeasar Akhour

ID: 1611477030
 SUBMISSION DATE & TIME: 25th May 2020.

Table of Contents
Introduction:......................................................................................................................3
Virtue Ethics vs. Other Theories:........................................................................................4
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics:...................................................................................................4
Clashing Virtue Ethics:........................................................................................................5
Criticism of Virtue Ethics:...................................................................................................6
Advantages of Virtue Ethics:..............................................................................................7
1. Character Traits...........................................................................................................7
2. Better People..............................................................................................................8
3. Broad and Holistic.......................................................................................................8
4. Agent-centered...........................................................................................................8
5. Sense of Community...................................................................................................8
Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics:.............................................................................................9
1. Without Focus.............................................................................................................9
2. Nature of Virtues........................................................................................................9
3. Self-centeredness.......................................................................................................9
4. Misguidance................................................................................................................ 9
5. Limited........................................................................................................................ 9
Conclusion:....................................................................................................................... 10
Introduction:
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be
identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach
that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions
(consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian
will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist
to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do
unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person
would be charitable or benevolent. This is not to say that only virtue ethicists attend to virtues,
any more than it is to say that only consequentialists attend to consequences or only
deontologists to rules. Each of the above-mentioned approaches can make room for virtues,
consequences, and rules. Indeed, any plausible normative ethical theory will have something to
say about all three. What distinguishes virtue ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the
centrality of virtue within the theory (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). Whereas consequentialists
will define virtues as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as
traits possessed by those who reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to
define virtues in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather,
virtues and vices will be foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will
be grounded in them.
Virtue Ethics vs. Other Theories:
In Aristotle's time, most philosophers were focused on one of two types of ethics. One is called
deontological ethics, which judges ethics by how well a person follows the laws and rules of
society. Deontologists would say, ''it doesn't matter what happens, following the rule is always
the right thing to do.'' The second, teleological ethics, judges ethics based on the outcomes of a
person's actions. Teleological ethicists would say, ''If what you do leads to something good, you
did the right thing.'' There are flaws in both types of thinking, so Aristotle introduced a third
option. Aristotle’s perspective on ethics was based on the virtue of being human; in other words,
virtue ethics. There are two important distinctions between Aristotle's approach to ethics and the
other predominant perspectives at the time. First, Aristotle did not consider ethics just a
theoretical or philosophical topic to study. To understand ethics, Aristotle argued, you actually
have to observe how people behave. That led to the second distinction. Ethics weren't about
''what if'' situations for Aristotle; instead, he took a very practical approach and much of his ideas
on ethics were based on what someone did and how their virtues impacted their actions

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics:

Aristotle was a scholar in disciplines such as ethics, metaphysics, biology and botany, amongst
others. It is fitting, therefore, that his moral philosophy is based around assessing the broad
characters of human beings rather than assessing singular acts in isolation. Indeed, this is what
separates Aristotelian Virtue Ethics from both Utilitarianism and Kantian Ethics

Aristotle emphasized that virtue is practical, and that the purpose of ethics is to become good, not
merely to know. Aristotle also claims that the right course of action depends upon the details of a
particular situation, rather than being generated merely by applying a law.

Virtue ethics is an expansive term for hypotheses that stress the part of character and prudence in
moral theory as opposed to either doing one's obligation or acting keeping in mind the end goal
to realize great results. A virtue ethicist is probably going to give you this sort of good
exhortation “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.” Most virtue ethics
speculations take their motivation from Aristotle who announced that an ethical individual is
somebody who has perfect character characteristics. These attributes get from common interior
propensities, yet should be supported; be that as it may, once settled, they will wind up stable.
Aristotle initially utilized the expression "morals" to name a field of concentrate created by his
forerunners Socrates and Plato. Aristotle accentuated that virtue is practical, and that the reason
for morals is to wind up great, not only to know. Aristotle likewise guarantees that the correct
strategy relies on the points of interest of a specific circumstance, instead of being produced only
by applying a law. “The type of wisdom which is required for this is called "prudence" or
"practical wisdom3" as opposed to the wisdom of a theoretical philosopher” (Audi, Robert, 2009,
P.19). However, in spite of the significance of viable basic leadership, in the last investigation
the first Aristotelian and Socratic response to the topic of how best to live, in any event for the
best kinds of human, was to carry on with the life of logic. Aristotle characterizes that bliss is the
most noteworthy great and the end at which every one of our exercises eventually point. Every
one of our exercises go for some end, however the vast majority of these closures are implies
toward different finishes. Temperance refers to the attitude with which one behaves well, to that
which is decent and proper. The upright actions, as Aristotle put it, express reason. We are
accomplished through preparation and habit. Someone winds up idealistically by behaving
upright by doing what one should do and should do as the virtuous person does. Therefore, the
person with a high mind is tempted to act. Ideals are difficult to achieve because we end up
poorly as we simply follow our slopes. So our natural tendencies always lead us away from our
true happiness, even though we are characteristic for the bliss.

Clashing Virtue Ethics:

Related to the general objection from lack of guidance, a developed objection may question how
we are supposed to cope with situations in which virtues seem to clash. Courageous behavior
may, in certain cases, mean a lack of friendliness; generosity may threaten modesty. In these
situations, the suggestion to “be virtuous” may again seem to be unhelpfully vague. To this
particular objection, the Aristotelian virtue ethicist can invoke the concept of practical wisdom
and suggest that the skilled and virtuous person will appropriately respond to complex moral
situations. A Formula One car, for example, will be good when it has both raw speed and
delicate handling and it is up to the skilled engineer to steer a path between these two virtues. So
too a person with practical wisdom can steer a path between apparently clashing virtues in any
given situation. Virtue ethicists have no interest in the creation of a codified moral rule book
covering all situations and instead put the onus on the skill of the virtuous person when deciding
how to act. Again, whether this is a strength or weakness is for you to decide and defend.

Criticism of Virtue Ethics:

In contrast, virtue ethics focuses on being rather than just doing. The goal of virtue ethics is to
develop a good moral character. It is from this character that our actions flow. If our character is
good, then our actions will demonstrate this. Actions do not stand alone, but proceed from who
we are as people. However, virtue ethics can also be criticized in several areas:

1. When asked what we should do in any given situation, the virtue ethicist generally answers
that we should do what a virtuous person would do. However, how do we identify this ideal
virtuous person upon whom we should model ourselves? For example, the Christian Tradition
would identify the “ideal virtuous person” as Jesus. However, non-Christians might disagree.
Virtue

ethics does not tell us how to resolve this.

2. Likewise, how are we to identify the virtues to which we should aspire? Aristotle, an advocate
for virtue ethics, proposed, what he called, “the Golden Mean,” which represents the middle
between extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is found between the extremes of
cowardice, on the one hand, and recklessness, on the other. While that sounds good, it is vague.
Where exactly along that spectrum does the virtue of courage reside?

3. Virtue ethics also does little to help us determine how to behave in morally confusing
situations, where virtues appear to conflict. For example, what would a virtuous woman, who is
both honest and compassionate, do when faced with a murderer who is asking her where the
friend she just invited into her house is hiding?
 Virtue Ethics (specifically Aristotle)

Advantages Disadvantages

 Recognizes everything
and everyone has a
purpose
 Emphasizes personal
and spiritual side of
ethics by speaking in
terms of disposition and
character
 Inspiring and Idealistic
 Can be difficult to define the virtues and determine who is virtuous
 Virtues can clash in some situations or can be clash of ethics e.g.
Bonhoeffer showed courage in attempt to kill hitler but this is
murder?!
 Fails to adequately address issues like abortion as there are ne
guidelines to moral issues like these.
 Arguably moral codes are necessary to maintain a moral
community e.g. do not murder
 Cannot correctly assess certain actions which happen occasionally
by virtuous people - virtuous people are still morally fallible

 In such a multicultural society it is virtually impossible to create a

virtue ethic that is applicable to everyone.

 Virtues can be displayed in bad actions e.g. courage of a villain

Advantages of Virtue Ethics:

1. Character Traits
Virtue Ethics deals with a person’s virtues and how he or she uses them in making the lives of
other people better. If a person has virtues, he or she can act morally and will be able to treat
others with respect, compassion and love. These virtues prompt a person to do good things to
others because these are innate in him or her, as opposed to the theory of Kant where people are
forced to do good deeds out of duty.

2. Better People
Virtues such as generosity, honesty, compassion, friendliness, assertiveness and the like are
already present in people and should be practiced in everyday living. The theory of Virtue Ethics
makes it possible for people to be better individuals and members of society who are willing to
help other people, thinking of others first over personal interest. With these virtues, people
become better persons.

3. Broad and Holistic

Having no particular criteria, Virtue Ethics encompasses different virtues which are important
live in harmony with other people. It also does not attempt to worsen the complexity of things by
categorizing what are moral acts or not nut instead had developed throughout the years. Also, as
compared to other ethical theories which can be a threat to morality and are confusing, Virtue
Ethics is a holistic approach that it considers the totality of a person, including the skills,
character traits and emotions.

4. Agent-centered
Another powerful attribute of Virtue Ethics is its centeredness or focus on the character of the
moral agent and not concerned on consequence and duty or obligation. This also makes it
flexible since it allows an individual to decide depending on his or her moral values and not just
by simply following the law.

5. Sense of Community
Virtue Ethics motivates an individual to have high regard to personal relationships and
encourage or motivates a person to be sensitive of others and take care of other people.

6. Preservation of Goodness

According to Tacitus, people can be easily corrupted with power and luxury which can impede
liberty. Having said this, Virtue Ethics serves as a shield against polluting the minds of
individuals and making them bad people. Instead, this approach makes it possible for an
individual to preserve and make better the life he or she already has and enjoy it rather than
dream of a life with luxury and power.

Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics:

1. Without Focus
Critics of virtue ethics say that this theory lacks focus when it comes to determining the types of
actions that are morally acceptable and permitted from the ones that should be avoided. Instead,
it concentrates more on the qualities an individual has to enhance or improve in order to become
a good person. Virtue theorists can consider murder as an immoral act which makes it unsuitable
to be used as a moral act when it comes to legislation, say in court. It is also considered to be not
action-guiding.

2. Nature of Virtues
Another weakness attributed to virtue ethics is the difficulty in determining the nature if virtues.
This is due to the difference in opinions and perspectives of people who are inherently different
from each other and came from diverse cultures and societies. These aspects lead to differences
on what is morally right or wrong for people. Thus, it is hard to identify these virtues.

3. Self-centeredness
According to opponents of virtue ethics, it deals with a person’s own character when it is
supposed to be how the actions of an individual affect other people. Other theory of ethics
expects a person to think or regard other people instead of personal gain and interest.

4. Misguidance
Those who are not in favor of virtue ethics find this theory to be misguiding when it comes to
educating or motivating people. This is because it leads people to rely on luck when it comes to
attaining moral maturity. Also, this can result to people asking why others are luckier to have
achieved moral maturity while there will be those who are not lucky enough even if this is not
brought about by their own doings.

5. Limited
Since Virtue Ethics concentrate on only a limited number of virtues, it is not able to help the
population but only an individual. This is one of the weaknesses seen by opponents, saying that
this theory is not concentrating on the bigger picture.
Conclusion:
The mentality of doing the right thing is called deciding virtue uprightness, as the Aristotle
suggests, as a means between exceptional inefficiency and diversity. We should recognize that
trust can only be gained through continuous actions and generated by involvement in insurance
activities rather than instruments. Temperance means the right path to torture and pleasure. We
can see that a less certain person or gabby person can manage an intense period. Given what can
be expected, a shrewd person can with an incongruous hand control extreme time.
Bibliography:
1. Svensson, Frans, 2010, “Virtue Ethics and the Search for an Account of Right
Action”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 13: 255–71.
2. Athanassoulis, Nafsika, 2000, “A Response to Harman: Virtue Ethics and
Character Traits”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (New Series), 100:
215–21.
3. Solomon, David, 1988, “Internal Objections to Virtue Ethics”, Midwest Studies in
Philosophy, 13: 428–41, reprinted in Statman 1997.
4. White, Nicholas, 2015, “Plato and the Ethics of Virtue”, in Besser-Jones and Slote
(2015), pp. 3–15.
5. Bloomfield, Paul, 2014, The Virtues of Happiness: A Theory of the Good Life,
New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Clarke, Bridget, 2010, “Virtue and Disagreement”, Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice, 13: 273–91.
7. Kristjánsson, K., 2008, “An Aristotelian Critique of Situationism”, Philosophy,
83: 55–76.
8. McAleer, Sean, 2007, “An Aristotelian Account of Virtue Ethics: An Essay in
Moral Taxonomy”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88: 308–25.
9. R. Hursthouse, ‘Normative Virtue Ethics’, pp. 701–03.
10. Upton, Candace (ed.), 2009, Virtue Ethics and Moral Psychology: The
Situationism Debate, a pair of special issues of The Journal of Ethics, 13 (2/3).