Chapter 5 Aristotle and Virtue Ethics Michael O. Orimaco Learning Outcomes At the end of this chapter, the students are expected to: articulate the meaning and nature of virtue ethics; distinguish virtue ethics from deontology and consequentialism; explain Aristotelian virtue ethics or Eudaimonism as different from Ethics of Care and Agent-based Theories; describe Aristotle’s ethical points, largely on the concept of happiness, virtue, telos, and good habit; and use Aristotelian ethical frameworks or principles to analyze moral experiences. Introduction Virtue has become a compounding concept in ethics in the modern times not only due to the Greek forefathers, namely, Socrates, Plato and, more particularly, Aristotle, but also from its roots in a more ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius. However, the Greeks overshadowed Confucius and dominated in the development of Western moral philosophy until the Enlightenment era. Subsequently, the formulation of Virtue Ethics is primarily grounded in the Greeks tradition, which demonstrates theories essential for moral development not only to the Westerners but also to the Easterners (Orientals) and to the entire morally capacitated beings in the world. Meaning of Virtue Ethics Basically, virtue ethics is defined as an approach to ethics that emphasizes the person’s character in moral thinking. This implies that Tait or character is essential to the person’s achievement of the9g | GENERAL ETHICS “good”. Hence, virtue ethics is not an action-based ethics (as in the case of deontology and consequentialism), but a person-based one, Thus, in any moral situations, virtue ethics does not provide the moral agent specific principles to guide her actions. What virtue ethics provides in attaining the good are simply ideal behaviors, traits, and characters. That is why in Aristotelian ethics, with which most virtue ethics theories drew inspiration, practical wisdom is a central category that helps individuals become virtuous. But to understand virtue ethics in general, we must first qualify it as being composed of theories that, as mentioned above, lay emphasis on the role that character and virtue play in moral philosophy, rather than those which consider deliberate actions based on duty or on anticipated good consequences. In other words, in virtue ethics, there are no universal principles that oblige the person to act because it is his duty to act or because the situation calls him to render good consequence. Based on this contention, we can extract two distinctive approaches in ethics, namely, deontological approach and consequentialist approach. On the one hand, deontology or rule based ethics, was popularized by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) during the Enlightenment era. The term deontology was derived from the two Greek words deon, which means duty, and logos, which means © study or science. Hence, deontology is etymologically defined as the study of duty. But it is usually understood as a kind of normative theory with regard to what choices are morally required, forbidden, or Serteet ene & Moore, 2012). Deontology, therefore, eoisedaritaiea : ae and obligation to act morally. Pierre pn fe other hand, holds that choices are to be about (Ibid). As ae by the situation or consequences they bring or ieBR rie Ftd as the definitive basis for the rightness apeccinea ie ii lgment. Thus, this ethical doctrine believes that What mite good outcome or consequences. enrene raved jchlsditinet from the two approaches of i logy and consequentialism, is that it does not emphasi action she has to ener (riral agent’s choice as to what course of Practical moral develog Hence, virtue ethics emphasizes the person's ‘opment which is the key to the attainment ofARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 99 authentic happiness. For this reason, virtue ethics deals with broader queries like: What kind of life should | live? What is the good life? How can | be consistent in my moral actions? Indeed, these are some of the ethical questions that we will be dealing in this chapter. The Three Main Strands of Virtue Ethics ‘The “what” or gist of virtue ethics can be properly understood through its three main strands, namely: Ethics of Care, Agent-Based Theories and Eudaimonism. Firstly, the Ethies of Care holds the idea that a moral action centers on social and environmental relationships in which care or kindness is considered as the main virtue. It suggests that “care” is a central category in determining the moral worth of human actions. Michael Slote (1983: 36) corroborates this point by stating that “caring is the primary virtue and that a morality based on the motive of caring can offer a general account of right and wrong action”. Hence, the motive in developing man’s moral practices in which care is the primary virtue is clearly the main objective of the ethics of care. In relation to this, according to Held (2006), the ethics of care examines moral practices and values. It focuses on moral development which is more possible through the reformation of practices than the mere use of reason from any abstract rules. Thus, this reformation of practices, which is to be nurtured and developed into virtue, is the foremost emphasis of ethics of care. Secondly, ‘Agent-Based Theories are unitary normative theories. ‘This means that the status of actions is entirely dependent upon the moral status of an agent's motives and character traits. As Slote (2001: 38) writes: ‘A warm agent-based virtue ethics puts a fundamental emphasis on a person's motives and, more particularly, on a person’s overall morally relevant motivation. Say for example, an act is morally acceptable if and only if it comes from good or virtuous motivation involving benevolence or caring (about the well-being of others) or at least doesn’t come from bad or inferior motivation involving malice or indifference to humanity.100 | GENERAL ETHICS Thus, again, in agent-based theory, an action is right if it expresses a virtuous motive or at least does not exhibit a malicious intention from the agent. Finally, Eudaimonism comes from the Greek word Eudaimonia, which can be translated as happiness, well-being or the good life. For Aristotle, happiness or the good life is the highest goal of man which can be achieved by a lifetime of actively exercising moral virtues or “aréte” (a Greek word which precisely combined with qualities, such as valor, to make up good character). And to enhance moral virtue, according to Aristotle, we need phronesis or practical wisdom, which can resolve any concurrent ethical problem. Indeed, with moral virtue, human life would attain Eudaimonia, the happiness which should be seen as a final end, and not as a subjective state characterized by the seemingly well-lived life irrespective of the emotional state of the person experiencing it. This will be further discussed in the later section. However, to speak of dissimilarities between Eudaimonism against the first two main strands of virtue ethics is obvious. Say for instance, the former comprises the entire development of a moral person, that is, to become holistically good as she reaches to the point of the ultimate end, while the two latter strands emphasize morally 800d action within the sphere of a certain circumstance or event. Thus, Eudaimonism aims for eternal goodness rather than depending on the contingent recurrence of certain actions. Furthermore, to determine their resemblance is too apparent. As mentioned above, bade ens a general does not particularly deal with the rightness of mae jal als ene! Rather, with the aid of Peele But because this cfaptantec the moral agent in seeking the “B0%" | focuses chiefly on Aristotle's virtue ethics, will only discuss the key 7 it 'y concepts ; Let me develop them below, ‘pts of Aristotle’s moral teaching. Aristotle's Virtue Ethics Aristotle was born Greece), in 384 BCE. Since fondness for medical analogi in Stagira, in Macedonia (now northern his father was a doctor, he also has the ies in the Ethics. He traveled to AthensARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 101 the age of seventeen where he became a student of Plato (Barlett & Collins, 2011). As is well known, Athens was the center of learning in the Greek world during this time. Aristotle remained for more or less 20 years at the Academy established by Plato. When Plato died in 347 BCE, Aristotle left Athens for thirteen years, during some of which he was a tutor to Alexander the Great. In 334 BCE, Aristotle founded the Lyceum in Athens and started giving lectures to audience who were primarily youths. Meanwhile, before his death in 322 BCE (Aristotle, 2004), Aristotle gives lectures on ethics that centers on the concept of Eudaimonia or happiness. His ethics was first written in Eudemian Ethics which later developed into Nichomachean Ethics. Accordingly, the latter work is believed to have been named in honor of Aristotle's son, Nicomachus. In this particular book, Aristotle offers moral principles of conduct that would guide humans in attaining the “good life”. To fully understand Aristotle's ethics, we must take into consideration the notions of virtue, telos and good habit in relation to happiness because these concepts will help render the true nature of Aristotle’s notion of happiness or Eudaimonia, That is why, in this section, these concepts are profoundly explicated. Let me start with the notion of happiness. On Happiness As is well known, Socrates understands virtue as the major source of happiness. Plato continued this tradition and argued that moral virtue is vital to the rational soul of man. Aristotle followed Socrates and Plato’s agenda, but according to Crisp, Aristotle's concept of happiness differs from Socrates and Plato's happiness for Aristotle’s concept of happiness consists only in virtuous activity (Aristotle, 2004). Happiness, which most of Aristotle’s interpreters call Eudaimonia, is the ultimate goal/end of human life. This happiness or the ultimate end is genuinely desired for its own sake or without qualification. So, actions which precede this end become the most valuable and cannot be superseded by any actions driven by ordinary kinds of ends. As Lear (2004: 20) corroborates, “to choose for actions102 | GENERAL ETHICS which result in honor, wealth and power is definitely part of man’s inclination to seek for happiness (as pleasure), but unfortunately this could not be the end which offers true happiness.” Like Eudaimonia, pleasure is also good. That is why Aristotle does not condemn man for desiring pleasure because it is a significant part in human flourishing. But for Aristotle, the desire and actions that ead to pleasure only presuppose limited value since its end is temporary. Hence, the satisfaction that one gets from these actions cannot be truly called happiness. For Aristotle, these actions, which only lead humans into the pit of the two opposing vices (either excess or deficiency), drive them away from the ultimate end. Hence, for Aristotle, only virtuous acts can lead man toward living the good life or happiness. This is indeed the central concept in Aristotle’s virtue ethics: virtue or the mean is the key to happiness. And by the word “mean”, we mean that which settles at the middle ground. Please see below Aristotle’s Table of Virtues and Vices. Meantime, let me briefly discuss Aristotle’s concept of virtue. M The Concept of Virtue Virtue is defined as a behavior showing high moral standards - ee Quality of goodness in a person. An example to this is fhe nee cicled or truthfulness. Following Aristotle, the wee BS the eo, 2nd ed. (2006: 678) categorically describes mee Gee ite of vice. Vice in this context should not be Sica within the specific context of social vices, like drug according to Aree mete. Smoking, and gambling. Rather, 8 Aristotle, vices, whe ‘the twa “eotrames of HEARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 103 of man’s proper or moral behavior. The table below helps us understand the relation between virtue and vices in the Aristotelian sense. TABLE OF ARISTOTLE'S VIRTUES AND VICES [Fear and \Confidence IRashness \courage \Cowardice [Licentiousness/ Kettinduigence _|emperance _|insensbility Pleasure and Pain (Getting and = ‘ iliberality/ spending (minor) _|[Prodteality sberatty’ IMeanness (Getting and ulgarity/ Pettiness/ Ispending (major) _||Tastelessness [Magnificence |icsinginess Honor and i ha Dishonor (major) _|N2nity IMagnanimity _|[Pusillanimity lHonor and fambition/empty |[Proper (Unambitiousness/ [Dishonor (minor) _||vanity lambition/pride |lundue humility ‘ [Patience/Good ||Lack of spirit/ [Anger frascibility ltemper lunirascibility [Understatement/ self-expression _|[Boastfulness_jfruthfulness | modesty [Conversation Buffoonery ittiness _|[Boorishness [cial Conduct _|[Obsequiousness |[Friendliness _||Cantankerousness [shame Shyness iModesty [Shamelessness [Malicious Righteous " indignation Em 4 lenjoyment/ I A indignation pitefulness Aristotle, The Ethics of Aristotle: The ‘Nicomachean Ethics Revised Edition, trans. J. K. Thomson (New York: Viking, 1995), 104. For Aristotle, as we can see above, there are two kinds of Virtues, namely, intellectual virtue and moral virtue. On the one hand,104 | GENERAL ETHICS intellectual virtue corresponds to the act of thinking which affirms or negates something. On the other hand, moral virtue signifies the act of choosing which actions to pursue or avoid. For Aristotle, intellectual virtue involves two stages, namely, the contemplative stage and practical stage. According to Aristotle, the contemplative stage is neither practical nor productive because it is purely intellectual in nature. Aristotle argues that it is in this stage that the categorization of the good as truth and the bad as falsity occurs. Interestingly, Aristotle claims that the practical intellect already possessed the truth, In intellectual as practical, according to Aristotle, the truth or the understanding of the good which is in agreement with the right desire is already obtained (Aristotle, 2009). In this stage, intellectual virtue is accomplished because, here, the moral agent’s determination for the virtues or the mean adheres with the desire for right and truth. Therefore, the accomplishment of intellectual virtue can be done through the possession of “practical wisdom”. In contrast to intellectual virtue, moral virtue emphasizes the role of the will in choosing the good and right actions. As is well known, moral virtue is always inclined toward the correct conduct. This kind of virtue, according to Aristotle, is the actualization of practical intellect whereby the agent has a disposition to behave in the right manner or to act according to the mean between extremes of deficiency and excess. However, with deliberate desire and habitual choice for the good and truth, moral virtue can be a constant practice of a rational acting agent. According to Aristotle, the capacity of the human person to Possess intellectual and moral virtues is what makes him distinguishable from the lower forms of animals. Though animals are eee pe Perception, they do not have, according to Aristotle, the aad 2 ; ect and will. For this reason, animals anne Aston ee pore es right action which is based on truth a state of chores er dins to Aristotle (2009), since a moral virtue is or character that is concerned with choosing the good and the right, then both the act of reasoni Gel dst Be true and right. soning and deliberate desire 1mARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 105 Telos or the Ultimate End Literally, the Greek word telos is translated as “result” or “end”. Its verb form teleo means “to come to an end,” as for the death of an individual. Based on this literal meaning of telos, Aristotle conveys two distinct notions of end, namely: telos as ordinary ends, which is also composed of hierarchy (lower and higher ends), and telos as the ultimate achievement of human being or the final end. On the one hand, ordinary ends signify a goal wherein accomplishments are simply viewed as byproducts of human beings’ common desire. This goal is the stopping point or the “last thing” (Lear, 2004: 11), but it is not really the final or the ultimate one. Since it is ordinary, it entails only temporary fulfilment from one’s experience of an apparent good. Yet, we can assert that, at this juncture, telos is indeed the point of completion of an activity that an individual wishes to achieve because of the foreseen apparent good. Consider these two examples as guides. Mario decides to play basketball. Most likely, he wants to solely experience pleasure by playing the game itself or by winning it (if he will actually win), or to maintain a healthy body, or something else which prompts and motivates him to play the game. However, when he is about to play basketball, he remembers that he has an appointment with his thesis adviser on the same time. Consequently, he cancels the game and proceeds immediately to his adviser. In relative manner, Maria studies hard all the lessons in school because she wants to earn higher grades in all her subjects so that, later, she might become a scholar. If we examine tightly these examples, both demonstrate ends which correspond to the desired good. So ‘in this context, Lear (2004: 15) states that every human person Is directed toward a goal or end which is good because such good is, most of all, the desired end, As we can see, the end (telos) of the actions in these examples is simply viewed as an ordinary end towards an ordinary Bood. Nonetheless, the first example above implies that nereett actually a hierarchy of ends. As Aristotle (Phys. 3 195a23-25), wit “and then there is the end and the good of the other things: nt - the sake of which will be the best and the end of the other supe lp the first example, Mario opted to see his thesis advisor rather106 | GENERAL ETHICS play basketball. For sure, choosing to play basketball is a lower end, while choosing to see the advisor is a higher end, which other higher ends are possibly attached, e.g. to finish his thesis and pass the subject. In addition to the idea of hierarchy of ends, we may also talk about a series of ends. This statement is clearly manifested in the second example above, whereby higher end determines the extent to which lower end is worth pursuing. Thus, Maria’s desires for higher grades in order to achieve an honorable reward during the graduation ceremony becomes a springboard for another higher ends, such as landing on a good job in the future. As we can see, in these series of ends, there is this pattern of relations between lower and higher ends, which is also applicable to other modes of action which involves desirable results, Now, what we can infer from the discussion on the series of ends is that the hierarchies cannot go on ad infinitum (toward infinity). For Aristotle, there must be an apex of the hierarchy which is also known as the ultimate end or the highest good. This is because, for Aristotle (2004: 20), without a final resting point, “our desire (orexis) would be empty and vain”. This is means that without the highest Bood as the ultimate end, there would be no reason for a rational being to act morally. And again, for Aristotle, the highest good as the ultimate end of moral actions is “happiness” without qualification. Allow me to develop Aristotle’s concept of happiness below so we ‘may be able to understand it fully. This is important because, as We already know, happiness is the focal Point of Aristotle's virtue ethics. Moral Virtue as Good Habit The formation of a i it is it id _ moral virtue or good habit is indee essential to Aristotelian ett ‘ hics. This is due to the fact that a moral Seige SE in happiness by being consistently living a good life ‘tually in accordance to the habit is i 800d. Thus, a good hal in Katee: to the development of virtue because itis considered t0 1003a) writes a eattern for doing virtuous actions, Aristotle (NE II, are made perfert adapted by nature to receive these virtues and Perfect by habit”. in this sense, though virtue is already partARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 107 of our natural inclination, human being still needs the habit of doing good for him to become virtuous. What we must do then is to constantly practice doing virtuous acts in order to develop a habit. For instance, we acquire the virtue of patience by repeatedly integrating it into our deliberate actions, or by being constantly patient. In similar way, we can obtain the virtue of courage by maintaining it within the purview of the mean while avoiding rashness and cowardice. Therefore, our actions can only be morally good and right if there is a habitual practice of virtues. This is to say that to eventually maintain these moral actions which lead us to attain authentic happiness, the formation of good habits is a requisite. Moreover, the formation of virtue or good habit has two stages: first, the habit of contemplation or the education of thought for the formation of intellectual virtue and, second, the habit of the actual practice of moral virtue. On the one hand, the habit of contemplation is a matter of constantly acquiring knowledge and using one's mind in the right way that leads to the habitual exercise of virtue (Aristotle: 2004). Through the habit of education of thought, the state of character is constituted by the stable equilibrium of the soul (NE Il:1, 1003a). This is to say that the state of character which shapes moral virtue primarily requires proper mental activity aside from the actual performance of moral action. In other words, before we can actually practice virtue, we have to think about practicing virtue all the time; or, to put it in a Heideggerian jargon, we need to attune ourselves (our consciousness) to virtue all the time. On the other hand, the habitual actual practice of virtue presupposes that every human being has brought out the contemplated understanding of virtue into actions. In other words, we put into practice what the mind thinks. In addition, the putting into practice of this understanding should be done consistently so that it would lead to the formation of 800d habit, True enough, virtue is defined as a behavior showing high Moral standards, or a good moral quality, or the general quality of goodness in a person. But for Aristotle, we should push this further by developing a habit of doing the good all the time. Therefore, the process by which a state of character and moral virtues are formed is just similar to the process of habit- formation. Let’s take the case of walking. Learning to walk is an108 | GENERAL ETHICS activity characterized by choice; it is not automatically accomplished once a certain level of physical development has been attained Children learn to walk by actually practicing the act of walking-by standing, taking a few steps, falling down, and then repeating the whole process over and over again until the action becomes second nature and can be done with ease. In this analogy, a repeated performance of the action is necessary in order for the child to learn how to walk, whether she ends up learning to walk well or badly, In like manner, the habituation of virtue necessitates the deliberate repetition of doing virtuous action consistently to increase the degree of moral virtues until perfection is attained. Conclusion As we can see, to understand Aristotle’s ethics in general, we have to begin with knowing virtue as the key toward man’s authentic happiness. Virtue, which is a state of character that is concerned with choosing the good and the right, is the only requirement for happiness. Happiness is the ultimate end of rational being that is not to be confused with pleasure in the ordinary ends. As the final telos, it is the end for the sake of itself, without any qualifications. So, man cannot just aim for pleasure alone since it only leads us toward an infinite chain of ends. There should be a final resting point of the aeary of ends. For Aristotle, this is the ultimate end or the highest good. Virtue ethics then centers on the moral character of the person carrying out an action. In other words, virtue ethics is person ae, i” contrast to actions which are based on duties and rules of Seas and the consequences of particular actions of oe en ‘olism. In fact, the three main strands of virtue ethics ia z fore, Ment Based Ethics, and Eudaimonism) mous Rewevse enor tee in the achievement of the “g00 * p mdiffers from the Ethics of Care and Age”ARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 109 Moreover, since virtue ethics focuses on the inherent character of a person, its concern therefore is the whole person, rather than the particular events or actions. Its method recognizes the agent's habits and behaviors that will allow her to achieve “Eudaimonia,” or a good life. This is to say that good life can only be attained if the person possesses and completely practice these virtues. ‘As James Keenan (1995) puts it: “Being virtuous is more than having a particular habit of acting, e.g. generosity. Rather, it means having a fundamental set of related virtues that enable a person to live and act morally well.” Therefore, with the fundamental necessity of practical wisdom, a lifetime practice of these virtues leads to true happiness. Finally, virtue ethics also fundamentally includes an account of the purpose or meaning of a human life, In Aristotelian sense, human flourishing or happiness is man’s purpose or goal. But Aristotle did not condemn man for desiring pleasure as an ordinary end because it is a significant part in human flourishing. What he emphasizes is that ordinary ends cannot sustain authentic happiness. Pleasure as an ordinary end is only tantamount to an apparent good whose quality is only temporary. In contrast to pleasure, true happiness is a state wherein man experiences the highest good. So, this noteworthy experience, for Aristotle, is supposedly the ultimate or final end of man.ARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 111. Chapter Exercise Note: Limit your answers to ten (10) sentences only. i, In your own words, what characterizes virtue ethics in general? 2. What are the different strands of virtue ethics? Kindly explain briefly each strand. 3. How do you distinguish virtue ethics from deontological and consequentialist ethics?112 | GENERAL ETHICS 4. Make a brief descriptive explanation on Aristotle's virtue as the mean. 5. How relevant are intellectual and moral virtues to the final end or Eudaimonia?ARISTOTLE AND VIRTUE ETHICS | 113 How does Aristotle consider the formation of virtue as good habit? Distinguish ordinary ends from Eudaimonia or the ultimate telos. Explain your answer.114 | GENERAL ETHICS 8. — Formulate a critique on Aristotle's virtue ethics. 9. Establish your own moral principle(s) as a consequence of your criticism on Aristotle. Say what is it and explain why?