1.3.13: Summary

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 89097

\( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \) \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)\(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \(\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\) \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\) \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)\(\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

Aristotelian Virtue Ethics is very different in nature to the other act-centred normative moral theories considered in this book. Whether this, in itself, is a virtue or a vice is an issue for your own judgment. The lack of a codified and fixed moral rule book is something many view as a flaw, while others perceive it as the key strength of the theory. Some, meanwhile, will feel uncomfortable with Aristotle’s teleological claims, differing from those who are happy to accept that there is an objectively good life that is possible for human beings. Regardless, there is little doubt that Aristotelian Virtue Ethics offers a distinct normative moral picture and that it is a theory worthy of your reflections.

COMMON STUDENT MISTAKES

Understanding virtues as feelings.
Misunderstanding the function of a human being (eudaimonia).
Thinking that the Golden Mean always suggests “neutral” or “middling” actions.
Incorrect differentiation between voluntary, involuntary and non-voluntary actions.
Claiming that Virtue Ethics offers no guidance whatsoever in moral situations.
Claiming that Virtue Ethics is uninterested in actions.

ISSUES TO CONSIDER

Who has the better life — the happy hedonist or the virtuous individual?
Are the virtues fixed and absolute? Or can virtues be relative to culture and time?
Is becoming moral a skill? Is morality based on “knowing that” or “knowing how”?
Can Virtue Ethics offer useful guidance?
Is the Golden Mean a useful way of working out virtuous characteristics?
Are some virtues more important than others? Why?
Can you think of a virtue that does not contribute to eudaimonia?
Can you think of something that contributes to eudaimonia that is not a virtue?
If there is no purpose to life, is there any point in subscribing to Aristotelian Virtue Ethics?
What should you do if virtues seem to clash when faced with different possible actions?
Who might count as virtuous role models and why?
Do human beings have a telos or proper function?

KEY TERMINOLOGY

Act-centred

Agent-centred

Dispositions

Eudaimonia

Phronesis

Virtue

Telos

Golden mean

References

Annas, Julia, Intelligent Virtue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, translated by William David Ross (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), freely available at http://sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/index.htm

Hursthouse, Rosalind, ‘Normative Virtue Ethics’, in Ethical Theory, ed. by Russ Shafer-Landau (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 701–09.

Panin, Ivan, Thoughts (Grafton: Ivan Panin, 1887), freely available at https://ia6 01405.us.archive.org/8/items/thoughts00panigoog/thoughts00panigoog.pdf