Virtue Ethics and Its Opposition to Kantian and Other Ethical Theories - Essay Example

Name ………………… Professor …………… Ethics ………………… Date …………………… Virtue Ethics Introduction Derived from Greek word ethos, ethics means something which is moral. A narrower definition of ethics is a systematic reflection on what is moral. Morality is a sum total of decisions, opinions and actions through which rightness or goodness is expressed by the people. That is a very twisted paradigm. To be ethical does not mean what one thinks is ethical, but is a reflection of what people think is good or bad. Not to be mistaken with a manual on how and when to act, ethics, in fact, is the quest for the right type of morality. Thus this morality or ethics has two fag ends. One is descriptive, which is fact-based, and takes into account existing morality. Another is prescriptive, which is value-based, and thus judges morality. Normative ethics provides a person with a direct value in terms of goodness or badness of an action taken. Virtue ethics, as a standard, thus falls into normative category. As a result of this, virtue ethics presents with some inherent characteristics. It does not emphasize on individual actions, but it emphasizes on character. That means goodness of an action is normally seen as stemming from a person's character, and not the other way round. This is why character traits like patience, benevolence, and courage are termed as virtues, and so characteristics like miserliness, cowardice and laziness as vices. Being virtuous means following virtue ethics, which is the right approach to react in certain specific situations or circumstances. An example could be jumping into a flooded river to save a child from drowning despite the fact that the flood can drown the saver too – a case of being part of dangerous situation despite knowing the danger involved. It is held that to be able to follow virtue ethics, one ought to have good upbringing. Background and Discussion History of virtue ethics is traced back to Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, and Hume's time. Before dealing with the contemporariness of virtue ethics, it would be virtuous to put the ancient order of this form of ethics in a chronological order: Plato (347 - 427BC): Plato said that in order to be virtuous it was essential to have a clear concept on "form of virtue". He said only philosophers had a clear grasp of this form; others had a dim view on the same. That is why, he opined, philosophers were the ones able to rule. Aristotle (322-384 BC): Aristotle rejected what Plato said. He opined that virtue was part of this world and of every human life that could be said was well-lived. It was Aristotle who said good upbringing was a cornerstone for being virtuous. According to him virtue was comparable to skills. Aquinas (1225-1274): Aquinas was a scholar and mainly followed Aristotle. While dealing extensively on accounts of human motivation, Aquinas added to the list of Aristotelian virtues. He further gave a concept of cardinal virtues like fortitude, temperance, justice and prudence, and theological virtues like hope, charity and faith. Hume (1711-1776): Hume had a scientific bent of mind and he looked at virtues and tried to understand them by application of scientific methods. He discussed morality as a quality of mind, and also tried to separate the same from vices as the opposing qualities. Hume created a catalogue of vices and virtues and defined virtues as "qualities of mind useful to or approved of by self or others". For the contemporary virtue ethic, however, it is Aristotle who is considered as the chief inspiration. In the twentieth century, the interest in virtue ethic was further stimulated by Gertrude Elizabeth Margaret Anscombe (born March 18, 1919 in Ireland, died January 5, 2001), who is considered to be a gifted philosopher whose work in moral philosophy and action theory still sparks the minds of scholars in the field. In 1958 she published a paper Modern Moral Philosophy that was seen as the beginning of virtue ethics being considered as an alternative to utilitarianism, social contract theories, and Kantian ethics (Baron 4). Anscombe's work had a tremendous impact on further development of virtue ethics, something that is largely seen as a result of putting forward negative assessments of utilitarianism and Kantian theories, which were considered as leading theories at that point of time. She believed that Kantian ethics was based on 'self-legislation' notion and was incoherent, while simply evil deeds were endorsed by utilitarianism. According to Anscombe an alternative approach to these theories was a must. She suggested virtue ethics as the one that could be followed, and which is positioned, actually, between two extremes. An optimal balance, when established between these extremes, results in correct moral virtue. To cite being courageous as a virtue ethics means one who is courageous has to see the optimal balance between recklessness and cowardice; two extremes here. However the downside of this concept is that being courageous in one situation may not be being courageous in another; the underlying situation matters. This discrepancy gives birth to the subjectivity of moral virtue; it cannot be said that one person's courageousness is not as good as the other person’s. There is not any predefined measure to ascertain this. The only prerequisite is the nature of the person involved in demonstrating virtue ethics; actions taken must be based on right virtues, which emphasize the need for people to be shaped such that they indulge in actions that are morally responsible and good. Virtue ethics is sometimes equated with duty ethics with a difference that while the former is based on certain norms and rules, the latter is based on a set of virtues. Following Anscombe's views, virtue ethics has found some very influential supporters, which include Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre (born in 1929 in Ireland, and known for his contribution to political and moral philosophy), Sir Bernard Arthur Owen Williams (1929 – 2003, described by The Times as the most important and brilliant British moral philosopher), Rosalnid Hursthouse (an ardent scholar of Aristotle, mentored by Philippa Foot and Anscombe, and taught in England for many years at Open University), Philippa Ruth Foot (1920 – 2010, a British philosopher, and known as one of dounders of contemporary virtue ethics), and John Henry McDowell, a South African philosopher, born in 1942, and widely known for his influential work on philosophy of language and philosophy of mind (McDowell 148, Hursthouse 22). Perhaps the reasons for widespread following of Aristotle’s virtue ethics are its naturalist background. Aristotle said everything has purpose or ergon. Just as growing seeds, flowers, or leaves are the functions of a geranium, exercising their capacities properly is the function of human beings. That means they have a function to flourish according to the reason, which is unique to human beings (Parfit 24). It is this reason that develops excellence of morality and thus virtues. Aristotle termed this phenomenon of virtuous living as eudaimonia, which means a life interpreted in fullness, fulfillment, and goodness gained through being virtuous. Some critics equate this with happiness which is a wrong comparison. Aristotle further said that it is important for virtues to be in harmony with whatever surrounds human soul since society form an important determinant of virtuosity. Eudaimonia comprises of 12 moral virtues, which are temperance, magnificence, courage, proper ambition, magnanimity, patience, wittiness, truthfulness, modesty, friendliness and righteous indignation. Each virtue has two vices, denoting deficiency and excess. For example in the sphere of fear and confidence, courage is the virtue. Its deficiency is cowardice and excess is rashness. Again, for truthfulness as a virtue, the deficiency is understatement and excess is boastfulness. And for wittiness a virtue, boorishness and buffoonery is the deficiency and excess respectively. Truthfulness falls under the sphere of self-expression and wittiness falls under the sphere of conversion. In the same manner within the sphere of conversion wittiness is the virtue of which boorishness the deficiency and buffoonery the excess. Mean between excess and deficiency is a virtuous action; this is termed as The Doctrine of Mean. Aristotle, however, cautions that finding just the mean only is not the only requisite for conducting a virtuous action. One virtue will also have to be balanced between many of them arising and implemented in a single condition. For example, if one has to be courageous, he must also know when courage must be given way by loyalty. That means, having just one virtue in a person will not suffice, since the person must have all of them together. "Unity of Virtues" is and must be a natural phenomenon of virtues. There is, though, a flip side to Aristotelian virtue ethics and critics, time and again, have raised a number of questions regarding this. The truthfulness of whether or not humans have a function has been debated, and is it enough to expect Aristotelian virtue because of that function; what distinction can be established between skills and virtue and is there any distinction at all. Another question that is raised is; is the list of virtues propounded by Aristotle complete; are there any superfluous virtues listed in there, and was that list, by any chance, a product of the period in which Aristotle lived. What is the relevance of those virtues today? Favorable criticism has always hailed virtue ethics for many reasons, the notable one of which is that it is not bound by rules, just as most of the other ethical theories are. Rules are challengeable, and often undermined even though one may realize the consequence of doing so. Notwithstanding the criticism, for or against, a common sense necessity for developing virtue is living in harmony with ones surroundings. It makes it a moral and political feature of life to follow for better living outcomes than merely a choice meant to enhance only personal value. As a result of this it becomes a disposition, a way of living, a way of acting in a unique way. One who becomes virtuous by practice can only be deemed as virtuous when he is seen practicing that action or virtue with an honest intention and as per his free will. Only pretending to be virtuous and not practicing the same with honest intentions does not constitute virtuosity. Present world is trying to find a deeper meaning in virtue ethics, a move driven eroding social values in different societies across the world. People are trying to find values, meaning, and qualities of life through actions that are virtuous and morally correct. The dilemmas surrounding the modern stressful lives find answers to greater extent in virtue ethics in comparison to other ethical theories that are believed to lack sound foundations to provide these answers. Not bound by hard and fast rules, virtue ethics is secular in nature and involves personal responsibility – it is about practicing habits that are part of eudaimonia. Its wider appeal makes it person-specific and religion-compatible. One aspect that has been widely applauded of virtue ethics is its feminist following. Critics are of the opinion that it is so because other ethical theories have predominantly been male-dominant – mostly talking about duties and rights – whereas virtue ethics is the only theory that has kept room for intimacy and relationships and recognized their intrinsic value to life. There have also been some unbiased views on this comparison. Robert Louden (191), for example, has argued that virtue ethics does not necessarily require to be seen in comparison with other forms of ethics, but can be actually seen as a theory that can complement them in order to ascertain what characteristics must a virtuous person have, and which actions can be deemed as right or wrong. Conclusion Virtue ethics stands on its own and is clear from this paper but it has generally been seen in opposition to Kantian and other ethical theories. Some of it must have a firm debatable base, but there are critics who say that pitching one against another should not necessarily have been the case. Virtue ethics tends to appeal to a cross-section of audience because it is simple and puts character at the center stage of every virtue or action. Works Cited Baron, M . “Kantian Ethics” in Three Methods of Ethics Baron M, Pettit, P, and Slote,M, Blackwell, (1997). Oxford, p. 4 Hursthouse, R. “Normative Virtue Ethics” in How Should One Live?: Essays on the Virtues Crisp, R (ed) OUP, (1998). Oxford, p. 22 Hursthouse, R. “Virtue Theory and Abortion” in Virtue Ethics Crisp, R and Slote, M (eds), O.U.P. Hursthouse compares Virtue Ethics, Deontological Ethics and Utilitarian Ethics by considering them all in an act formulation. (1997) Louden, R.B. “On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics” in Virtue Ethics: A Critical Reader Statman, D (ed), Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, (1997). p.191. McDowell, J. “Virtue and Reason” in Crisp, R and Slote, M (eds.) Virtue Ethics , O.U.P., (1997). p. 148. Parfit, D. Reasons and Persons Clarendon Press, Oxford, (1984). p. 24 Read More