The Resurgence of Virtue Ethics
While Deontology focuses on duties and Utilitarianism focuses on consequences, Virtue Ethics focuses on the character of the person acting. Instead of asking “What should I do?”, it asks “What kind of person should I be?”
This approach was the dominant ethical framework of the ancient world, particularly in the work of Aristotle. In the 20th century, it saw a major resurgence (led by philosophers like Elizabeth Anscombe and Alasdair MacIntyre) as a response to the perceived “dryness” of modern rule-based ethics.
Eudaimonia: The Goal of Life
Aristotle begins his Nicomachean Ethics with a simple question: What is the “highest good” for humans? Most things we seek (money, fame, health) are tools to get something else. The only thing we seek for its own sake is Eudaimonia.
Often translated as “happiness,” Eudaimonia is more accurately described as “human flourishing,” “thriving,” or “living well.” It is not a fleeting emotion or a state of mind, but a way of being—a life lived to its fullest potential through the exercise of reason.
Ergon: The Function Argument
To understand what it means for a human to flourish, Aristotle looks at our “function” (ergon).
- A “good” knife is one that cuts well.
- A “good” plant is one that grows and reproduces well.
- What is the unique function of a human? It is our ability to use reason.
Therefore, a “good” human is one who uses reason excellently. Living excellently in accordance with reason is what Aristotle calls Virtue (Arete).
The Doctrine of the Golden Mean
What exactly is a virtue? Aristotle defines virtue as a point of balance between two extremes: a Deficiency and an Excess. This is known as the Golden Mean.
| Deficiency (Vice) | Virtue (The Mean) | Excess (Vice) |
|---|---|---|
| Cowardice | Courage | Rashness |
| Stinginess | Generosity | Extravagance |
| Humility (Too low) | Magnanimity | Vanity |
| Sullenness | Friendliness | Obsequiousness |
| Shamelessness | Modesty | Bashfulness |
Virtue is not a mathematical midpoint; it depends on the situation. Courage for a soldier in battle looks different than courage for a shy person speaking in public. A virtuous person has the Phronesis (practical wisdom) to know how to act in any given context.
Habituation: How We Become Virtuous
One of the most important insights of virtue ethics is that you cannot become virtuous just by reading a book or memorizing a rule. Virtue is a habit (hexis).
Aristotle argues that virtues are acquired through repeated action rather than mere instruction.
- You become brave by doing brave acts.
- You become generous by giving.
Over time, these actions shape your character until doing the “right” thing becomes second nature and actually brings you pleasure.
Intellectual vs. Moral Virtues
Aristotle divides virtues into two categories:
- Intellectual Virtues: Developed through teaching and study (wisdom, scientific knowledge, technical skill).
- Moral Virtues: Developed through habit and practice (justice, temperance, fortitude).
For Aristotle, the highest form of human life is the “contemplative life”—using our highest faculty (reason) to understand the highest truths of the universe.
Criticisms of Virtue Ethics
- Lack of Specific Guidance: If someone is facing a complex moral dilemma (like whether to use stem cells for research), saying “do what a virtuous person would do” isn’t very helpful. It doesn’t provide a clear decision-making procedure.
- Circular Reasoning: We define a virtuous act as what a virtuous person would do, but we define a virtuous person as someone who performs virtuous acts.
- Cultural Relativism: What counts as a “virtue” varies wildly between cultures. A Viking’s “virtues” were very different from a Buddhist monk’s “virtues.” Is there really a universal set of human virtues?
Conclusion: The Ethics of Self-Actualization
Virtue ethics is powerful because it addresses the whole person, not just isolated actions. It recognizes that emotions, desires, and relationships are all part of the moral life. By striving for the Golden Mean and seeking Eudaimonia, we don’t just “follow rules”—we embark on a lifelong journey of self-improvement and flourishing.
Test this with an example in this practice exercise:
In Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, what does the term 'Eudaimonia' mean?
Analytical Worked Example
A strong philosophical analysis does not merely name a doctrine; it tests what the doctrine can explain, what it must assume, and where it becomes costly. Consider a student evaluating Virtue Ethics and Aristotelianism through an ordinary disagreement. One person claims the position is attractive because it gives a clear standard for judgment. Another objects that the same standard may oversimplify human experience. The useful response is not to choose a side immediately, but to reconstruct the argument in stages: define the central claim, identify the reasons offered for it, state the strongest objection, and then decide whether the theory can answer that objection without changing into a different theory.
For this topic, that means asking three questions. First, what is the theory treating as basic: reality, knowledge, duty, happiness, virtue, language, power, experience, or social order? Second, what does it count as evidence: logical consistency, perception, historical explanation, practical success, reflective equilibrium, or lived experience? Third, what would falsify or seriously weaken the view? A doctrine that cannot name its own pressure points is not yet a philosophical position; it is only a slogan.
A good revision also distinguishes exposition from evaluation. Exposition asks what the view says and why its defenders found it compelling. Evaluation asks whether the view survives comparison with rival accounts. Keeping those tasks separate prevents two common errors: rejecting a theory before understanding its internal logic, and summarizing a theory so sympathetically that no critical judgment remains.
Example
Suppose an essay argues that Virtue Ethics and Aristotelianism is persuasive because it gives a disciplined answer to the lesson’s central problem. The essay should give a concrete case, not just a definition. It might compare two decisions, two interpretations of an artwork, two accounts of personal identity, or two political institutions. The example should show how the view changes the conclusion. If the same conclusion would follow without the theory, the example has not done enough philosophical work.
Exercise
Write a short argument map for this lesson’s main view. Use four labeled lines: claim, reason, objection, and reply. The claim should be one sentence. The reason should explain why an intelligent defender would accept it. The objection should be charitable rather than dismissive. The reply should either answer the objection or concede a limit. After writing the map, revise the claim so it becomes more precise and less rhetorical.