Aristotelian virtue ethics

• Instead of answering “what should I do?” (action centred) he addresses a question more like “what sort of person should I be?” (agent centred). It’s basically the other way round: Instead of defining a good person as someone who does good actions, Aristotle would define good actions as those done by good people.
• Aristotle's ethical inquiry delves into the concept of eudaimonia, often translated as 'human flourishing'. This encompasses more than just following moral laws or seeking happiness or success individually. Eudaimonia entails a life that is desirable, enjoyable, and morally good in its entirety. It is a state not easily defined by singular actions but rather by the overall quality of one's existence. Aristotle emphasizes that eudaimonia is not pursued as a means to an end but is inherently valuable for its own sake.
• While fleshing out this concept of eudaimonia, Aristotle uses the words arête and ergon. These roughly translate as:

  Ergon: function of a thing

  Arête: property that enables a thing to achieve its ergon

  For example, a knife’s ergon is to cut things. And a good knife has the arête of sharpness because this enables it to cut things well.
• Aristotle argues that eudaimonia must consist of something unique to humans. The ergon of humans, says Aristotle, is to use reason. Reason is what makes us unique from everything else in the world. However, this does not mean that we achieve eudaimonia by doing nothing but thinking and reasoning. Instead, Aristotle’s claim is that humans always choose their actions for some reason good or bad. So, what Aristotle actually says is that the good life for a human being (eudaimonia) is one full of actions chosen according to good reason.
• Virtues are character traits that enable us to choose our actions according to good reason. So, just as the arête of sharpness helps a knife fulfil its ergon to cut things, the arête of virtues help humans fulfil their ergon, which is to choose actions according to reason.
• A bit like eudaimonia, virtues are not something you have one day but not the next. If someone has a virtuous character but slips up one day and does something unvirtuous, this doesn’t make them a bad person. Likewise, a bad person whose character is prone to vice doesn’t suddenly develop virtuous character through committing one virtuous act. So, again, virtues are character traits – they are part of what we are.
• Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean (also called the golden mean) provides more detail about what virtuous character traits actually are. The doctrine of the mean says that virtues are the intermediate or average (the mean) between two extremes. For example, if you never stand up for yourself then you are cowardly (vice of deficiency). But if you go too far the other way and start fights with anyone for the slightest reason then you are reckless (vice of excess). The correct and virtuous way to act is somewhere in between these two extremes.
• There are times when anger is the appropriate (and virtuous) response. The virtuous person is not someone who never feels angry or other extremes of emotions. Instead, the virtuous person is someone whose character disposes them to feel these extreme emotions when it is appropriate to do so.
• Acquiring virtues is like learning a skill like playing the piano. Just as nobody is born knowing how to play the piano but can learn, nobody is born virtuous but can develop virtue. You don't learn to play the piano just by reading books; you have to practice. Similarly, studying virtue isn't enough; you have to put it into action until it is a habit. At first, you follow rules without fully understanding, like playing the piano without grasping the music theory. With practice in playing and in acting virtuously, you can improvise, and understand why certain actions are right or wrong.
• Aristotle introduced the concept of "phronesis," (practical wisdom) in his virtue ethics. Unlike Kant's strict rules, Aristotle believed that what's good or right depends on the specifics of each situation. Practical wisdom involves:

  Understanding what's good for people in general (eudaimonia).

  Applying this understanding to the specific details of a situation.

  Deciding on what virtuous action is needed based on these details.

  Acting virtuously to achieve the virtuous outcome.

  Practical wisdom isn't learned from books; it's a skill developed through practice.
• Aristotle says we should only praise or condemn actions if they are done voluntarily. You can’t criticise someone for acting unvirtuously if their actions weren’t freely chosen.

  Compulsion (i.e. involuntary): being forced to do something you don’t want to do – e.g. sailors throwing goods overboard to save the boat during a storm

  Ignorance (i.e. non-voluntary): doing something you don’t want to do by accident – e.g. slipping on a banana skin and spilling a drink on someone

  Aristotle says a person is only morally responsible for their voluntary actions.
• Aristotle's virtue ethics proposes that virtues lie between two extremes, known as the doctrine of the mean. But this approach lacks practical guidance as it doesn't specify when to act and to what extent. For instance, while Aristotle acknowledges the occasional need for anger, he doesn't clarify when it's appropriate before becoming excessive. Kant's categorical imperative and utilitarianism's felicific calculus offer clear criteria to evaluate moral actions. Aristotle's doctrine of the mean lack concrete guidelines for decision making when uncertain about the right course of action.
• Aristotle could reply that virtue theory was never intended to provide a set of rules for how to act. Life is complicated -that’s the reason why you need to develop practical wisdom in the first place, so you can act virtuously in the many complicated situations that arise. Plus, we can still reflect whether an action is, for example, courageous or stupid. Just because virtue theory doesn’t provide a specific course of action, that does not mean it provides no guidance whatsoever.
• Aristotle can be interpreted as defining virtuous acts and virtuous people in terms of each other, which doesn’t really say anything. He’s basically saying something like:

  A virtuous act is something a virtuous person would do

  And a virtuous person is a person who does virtuous acts

  These descriptions are circular and so say nothing meaningful about what a virtuous person or a virtuous act actually is.
• We can imagine scenarios where applying two different virtues (e.g. justice and mercy) would suggest two different courses of action.

  For example, if you’re a judge and someone has stolen something, you have to choose between the virtue of justice (i.e. punishing the criminal) and the virtue of mercy (i.e. letting the criminal go). You can’t choose to do both things, so whichever choice you make will be unvirtuous in some way.
• Aristotle would reply that such conflicts between virtues are impossible. As mentioned in the no clear guidance objection, virtues are not rigid and unbreakable rules and the correct virtue and in what amount depends on the circumstances. Aristotle would say that practical wisdom would mean knowing what each virtue tells you to do and in what amount. So, for example, you could sentence a person according to justice, but show appropriate mercy if there are extenuating circumstances.
• Aristotle defines the good life for humans as eudaimonia, which encompasses more than just moral goodness, including aspects like happiness. But there's often a distinction made between personal well being (eudaimonia) and moral goodness. A nurse who sacrifices her own happiness for the sake of saving others. While her actions may be morally good, her life does not align with eudaimonia as she lacks happiness. This example suggests a difference between moral goodness and eudaimonia, challenging the effectiveness of Aristotle's virtue ethics in defining morality.
• replying to the eudemonia and morality difference, Aristotle was never trying to answer the question of what a morally good life is. Aristotle’s inquiry and eudaimonia is concerned with the good life in general – human flourishing in a broad sense. Aristotle would likely argue that achieving eudaimonia does involve some level of commitment to others. Being morally good is necessary, but not sufficient, for eudaimonia.