Answers a different question than Kant or utilitarianism - instead of 'whatshould i do?' Aristotle seeks to answer 'what sort of person should i be
Eudaimonia
The good life for human beings
The good life for a human being must consist of something unique to human beings
Human beings are rational animals and reason is their unique characteristic activity (ergon)
the good life (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to reason
Virtues are character traits that enable us to act according to reason
The virtue is the middle point between a vice of deficiency and a vice of excess
Virtues are developed through habit and training
Eudaimonia
Translated as 'human flourishing'
Good lives - eudaimons
Good life for a good human being
Not just a good life in a moral sense but also a desirable, enjoyable and valuable life you'd want for yourself
A property of someone's life taken as a whole
Good people sometimes do bad things and vice versa
Aristotle says that eudaimonia is a final end
Intrinsically valuable and not used as a means to achieve a goal as it is the end goal
Arête, ergon and virtue
Ergon: the function/characteristic of a thing
Arête: property/virtue that enables a thing to achieve its ergon
ie a knifes ergon is to cut things and a good knife has the arête of sharpness because this enables it to cut things well
Arête, Ergon and Virtue
Aristotle argues that eudaimonia must consist of something unique to humans
ergon of humans is to use reason
reason is what makes us unique from animals and everything else
Humans always choose actions for some reason good or bad
Aristotle says that eudaimonia is one full of actions chosen according to good reason
Arête, ergon and virtue
Virtues are character traits that enable us to choose our actions according to good reason
The arête of virtues help humans fulfill their ergon which is to choose actions according to reason
They are part of what we are and a virtuous character changes over time
The doctrine of the mean
Also called the golden mean
the doctrine of the mean says that virtues are intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes
If you never stand up for yourself then you are cowardly (vice of deficiency) but it you pick fights for seemingly no reason then you are reckless (vice of excess)
The correct and virtuous way to act is somewhere in between these two extremes
Vices and Virtues examples
Vice of deficiency: cowardice, shyness, stingy, self-denial, surly
Vice of Excess: recklessness, shameless, wasteful, self-indulgence, obsequious
Vices and Virtues
Virtues are character traits, a good-tempered character in general doesn't mean you should be good-tempered in every situation
There are times when anger is the virtuous response
A virtuous character is not one that never feels angry or other extremes of emotions but one whos character allows them to feel these emotions when it is appropriate to do so
Voluntary action and moral responsibility
Aristotle (like Kant) values freedom of choice
As with other moral theories there is a system for practical action and a place for moral responsibility
Key part of Aristotles system is choice - the choice to self-assess out vices and virtues and the choice to act upon them
good guide on whether to place moral blame or not
Aristotle's key three areas that motivate certain actions
Voluntary action - deliberately set out a course of action in full awareness of what your doing
Force - you can be forced into a course of action by other moral agents
Ignorance- setting out a course of action because you arent aware of all of the facts
Voluntary action
if you have all the facts when you do a 'bad' deed, then you are wholly morally responsible
Force
if you are forced by some other moral agent then you are acting under compulsion and moral responsibility is mixed
Ignorance
you may proceed in actions without full possession of the facts
oedipus - orphaned and ended up killing his father and marrying his mother unknowingly
responsibility is mixed
Strengths of Aristotlean Virtue Ethics
Applicable to many situations, dilemmas and circumstances
able to appreciate a broad range of moral considerations, (ie not just intentions and consequences)
its intuitive and operates in a way usual moral reasoning operates
Doesnt instruct counter-intuitive recommendations like the colosseum (consequentialism) or axe-murderer example (kantian ethics)
encourages self improvement and personal growth
Issues with Aristotlean Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics may not provide clear enough guidance
Clashing/ competing virtues
circularity in defining virtuous acts and people
difference between moral good and individual good
elitism
Virtue ethics may not provide clear enough guidance
Aristotle describes virtues as two extremes and that this varies depending on the situation
ex Aristotle would say its correct to act angrily sometimes but doesn't specify and there's no guide of how angry you can get before a virtue becomes a vice
Kant and Bentham have their own calculus' but Aristotle has no criteria to judge whether one course of action is better than another
doctrine of mean gives no actual quantities
Virtue ethics may not provide enough guidance: possible response
Could argue that virtue theory was never meant to provide a set of rules how to act
life is complex and the reason to develop practical wisdom is so one can act virtuously in varied situations
reflection is important in deciding how to act and just because there isn't a specific course of action does not mean it provides no guidance
2. Circularity
Aristotle defines virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other which doesn't say much
does nothing to say what a virtuous person or act actually is