Introduction

Virtue Ethics (or Virtue Theory) is an approach to Ethics that emphasizes an

individual's character as the key element of ethical thinking, rather than rules about the acts
themselves (Deontology) or their consequences (Consequentialism).

There are three main strands of Virtue Ethics:

 Eudaimonism is the classical formulation of Virtue Ethics. It holds that the proper goal of
human life is eudaimonia (which can be variously translated as "happiness", "well-
being" or the "good life"), and that this goal can be achieved by a lifetime of
practicing "arête" (the virtues) in one's everyday activities, subject to the exercise
of "phronesis" (practical wisdom) to resolve any conflicts or dilemmas which might arise.
Indeed, such a virtuous life would in itself constitute eudaimonia, which should be seen as
an objective, not a subjective, state, characterized by the well-lived life, irrespective of
the emotional state of the person experiencing it.
A virtue is a habit or quality that allows individuals to succeed at their purpose. Therefore,
Virtue Ethics is only intelligible if it is teleological (i.e. it includes an account of the purpose
or meaning of human life), a matter of some contention among philosophers since the
beginning of time. Aristotle, with whom Virtue Ethics is largely identified, categorized the
virtues as moral virtues(including prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance)
and intellectual virtues(including "sophia" or theoretical wisdom, and "phronesis" or
practical wisdom). Aristotle further argued that each of the moral virtues was a golden
mean, or desirable middle ground, between two undesirable extremes (e.g. the virtue of
courage is a mean between the two vices of cowardice and foolhardiness).
 Ethics of Care was developed mainly by Feminist writers (e.g. Annette Baier) in the second
half of the 20th Century, and was motivated by the idea that men think in masculine terms
such as justice and autonomy, whereas woman think in feminine terms such as caring. It
calls for a change in how we view morality and the virtues, shifting towards virtues
exemplified by women, such as taking care of others, patience, the ability to nurture, self-
sacrifice, etc, which have been marginalized because society has not adequately valued the
contributions of women. It emphasizes the importance
of solidarity, community and relationships rather than universal standards and
impartiality. It argues that instead of doing the right thing even if it requires personal
cost or sacrificing the interest of family or community members (as the
traditional Consequentialistand deontological approaches suggest), we can, and indeed
should, put the interests of those who are close to us above the interests of
complete strangers.
 Agent-Based Theories, as developed recently by Michael Slote (1941 - ), give an account of
virtue based on our common-sense intuitions about which character traits
are admirable (e.g. benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc), which we can identify by
looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. The evaluation of actions is
therefore dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform
those actions.

Virtue Ethics, essentially Eudaimonism, was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in
the Ancient and Medieval periods. It suffered something of an eclipseduring the Early
Modern period, although it is still one of the three dominant approaches to normative Ethics (the
others being Deontology and Consequentialism).
The term "virtue ethics" is a relatively recent one, essentially coined during the 20th Century
revival of the theory, and it originally defined itself by calling for a change from the then dominant
normative theories of Deontology and Consequentialism.

History of Virtue Ethics

Socrates, as represented in Plato's early dialogues, held that virtue is a sort of knowledge (the
knowledge of good and evil) that is required to reach the ultimate good, or eudaimonia, which is
what all human desires and actions aim to achieve. Discussion of what were known as the Four
Cardinal Virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance) can be found
in Plato's "Republic". He also claimed that the rational part of the soul or mind must govern
the spirited, emotional and appetitive parts in order to lead all desires and actions to eudaimonia,
the principal constituent of which is virtue.

The concept reached its apotheosis in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" in the 4th
Century B.C.. Aristotle held that eudaimonia is constituted, not by honor, wealth or power, but
by rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life, what might be described today
as productive self-actualization. This rational activity, he judged, should manifest
as honesty, pride, friendliness, wittiness, rationality in judgment; mutually
beneficial friendships and scientific knowledge.

Non-Western moral and religious philosophies, such as Confucianism in ancient China, also
incorporate ideas that may appear similar to those developed by the ancient Greeks and, like
ancient Greek Ethics, Chinese ethical thought makes an explicit connection between virtue
and statecraft or politics.

The Greek idea of the virtues was later incorporated into Scholastic Christianmoral theology,
particularly by St. Thomas Aquinas in his "Summa Theologiae" of 1274 and his "Commentaries on
the Nicomachean Ethics". The Christian virtues were also based in large part on the Seven
Virtues from Aurelius Clemens Prudentius's epic poem (written c.
410 A.D.): chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, kindness, patience and humility. Practice of
these virtues was alleged to protect one against temptation from the Seven Deadly Sins (lust,
gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride).

Virtue Ethics has been a recurring theme of Political Philosophy, especially in the emergence of
classical Liberalism, the Scottish Enlightenment of the 18th Century, and the theoretical
underpinnings behind the American Revolution of 1775. However, although some Enlightenment
philosophers (e.g. David Hume) continuedto emphasize the virtues, with the ascendancy
of Utilitarianism and Deontology, Virtue Ethics moved to the margins of Western philosophy.

In the second half of the 20th Century, there was a minor revival of Virtue Ethics, principally due to
the efforts of Elizabeth Anscombe (1919 - 2001), Philippa Foot(1920 - 2010), Alasdair
MacIntyre (1929 - ), Paul Ricoeur (1913 - 2005) and Stanley Hauerwas (1940 - ).

https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_virtue_ethics.html
Aristotle is the grandfather of ethics and human flourishing; his book The Nicomachean Ethics has been
a classic read in philosophy and ethics courses at universities since about 340 B.C.E. He studied with
Plato and is largely credited with inventing logic and natural science. In this blog, I will share a brief
outline of Aristotle’s first section entitled “The Human Good”, including a few quotations about
humanity’s highest aspirations and virtues.

I. All human activities aim at some good; some goods subordinate to others
By some good, Aristotle is essentially describing a positive outcome. Money, fame, and contemplation
are these ends of which he writes. “[T]hat at which all things aim” is his wording. He is referring to the
few things which could be considered humanity’s highest aspirations – those things we seek for its own
sake. For example, money wouldn’t qualify because except maybe in the case of Charles Dickens’s
Ebeneezer Scrooge, humans can’t do anything with money per se; it is always used for some purpose
(vacations, cars, food, etc) which is meant to bring about some positive end (security, a feeling of self-
worth, happiness, etc.).

If there were one thing which was sought above all else (i.e., that state or product which is the highest
of humanity’s highest aspirations), it would be the chief good, according to Aristotle.

Aristotle thinks that the ends, or what is produced, is higher or better than the activity that does the
producing. “The end of medical art is health,” for example.

II. The science of the human good is politics

Aristotle believes that politics, or the way human beings organize themselves, govern one another, and
officially interact, should be the end of all the sciences. This is necessarily a social phenomenon. This is
what humankind is uniquely ready and suited for: to live amongst one another in a polis (a city-state, in
Ancient Greek thinking). I do not know if Aristotle believes that politics is a convention, or natural. I even
read a footnote in the Oxford World Classics edition and it’s a bit beyond me.

“And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who

has received an all-around [good, liberal] education is a good judge in general.”

“For to such persons, as to the incontinent [lacking in moderation and self-control], knowledge brings no

profit; but to choose those who desire and act in accordance with reason, knowledge about such matters

will be of great benefit.“

III. What is the human good?
Aristotle thinks that the pinnacle of humanity’s highest aspirations “is generally agreed to
be happiness.” He points out, though, that “there are various views as to what happiness is.” Fair
enough!
“Both the general run of men and people of superior refinement…identify living well with being happy;

but with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give the same account as the wise.

For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honor….”

Aristotle emphasizes a point that is known to modern psychologists and many parents: that a person
who aims to be ethical in conduct should have ideally been brought up in that way. Think of a “level
system” as made popular by Dungeons & Dragons: a first-level character will not be as hardy and as
capable as a 10th-level one. It is so with living a virtuous life; if your parents and teachers taught you by
word and by example, it will be second-nature as one becomes an adult.

He definitely feels that character, excellence, virtue, and other of humanity’s highest aspirations are
essentially formed by habit more than a fact of birth. “Excellence is an art won by training and
habituation: we do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence but we rather have these
because we have acted rightly….” he wrote.

IV. The ideal life

“The Philosopher,” as Aquinas referred to him, teaches about a life of pleasure, of enjoyment, and does
not think very highly of it. There is also another way of living, according to Aristotle, and that is
the political life. Definitely a worthwhile and natural pursuit. The third, and the one Aristotle touts as the
noblest of humanity’s highest aspirations is a contemplative life.

Aristotle points out in this section that “people of superior refinement and active disposition identify
happiness with honor…. But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for….” The end of that
sentence should ideally read “when it comes to what the best kind of life is; what is worth living for” (my
words). He eschews honor, which was basically the “wealth” of Ancient Athens, because a) it is
bestowed upon one by others, and, therefore, it can be taken away. It is also rather extrinsic in nature.
Aristotle is looking for more solid ground on which to set the idea of the highest good.

“Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by

doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.” ~ Aristotle

He also points out that “wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking, for it is merely useful for the
sake of something else.“

V. Discussion of the philosophical view that there is a Form of good

Here, Aristotle suggests that we “consider the universal good and discuss roughly what is meant by it….”
He is referencing the Forms, as postulated by Plato, his long-time teacher at The Academy. His break
from Plato’s conception makes for a very interesting situation, and he basically says (paraphrased in
modern English): I love Plato, of course, but his idea of the Forms is unsubstantiated, and therefore, I
can’t honor him and sin against philosophy by claiming that I agree with him on this point.

He goes on for some time about this idea, and sort of ends with: “…with regard to the Idea, even if there
is some one good which is universally predictable of goods, or is capable of separate and independent
existence, clearly it could not be achieved or attained by man, and we are now seeking something
attainable.” Aristotle is basically dismissing Plato’s idea of the Forms as too transcendent to be a part of
this book, about ethics: human conduct.

VI. The good must be something final and self-sufficient. The definition of happiness is reached by
considering the characteristic function of man
The good is essentially “that for whose sake everything else is done. In medicine this is health, in
strategy it is victory, in architecture a house….”

Lesley Brown, Ph.D., the editor of this edition of The Nicomachean Ethics clarifies that this final end
Aristotle refers to is “endlike” (teleion), and “picks up on the idea of the good as what is aimed at for
itself. Happiness is ‘most final’ since [it is] never pursued for the sake of something else, while all other
things, even those pursued for their own sake, such as pleasure or virtue, may be pursued for the sake of
happiness.” This is the crux of Aristotle’s Book I, I believe – that happiness is the ultimate end of all we
humans do. It is, thus, the apex of humanity’s highest aspirations. All roads of human psychology end
here.

“Among all willing injustices, most occur out of greed and ambition.” ~ Aristotle

I will quote Aristotle at length on this topic of happiness (albeit a bit wordy of a paragraph): “…therefore
we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of
something else. Such a thing, happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself
and never for the sake of something else. However, honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose
indeed for themselves…we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that through them we
shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one would choose for the sake of these, nor in general
for anything other than itself.”

The point is made that happiness makes one self-sufficient; that is, if we were stranded on a desert
island, the main wish we would wish for would be to be happy. Such an end would trump other
considerations such as: rich, healthy, wise, socially-accepted, and successful. Who would wish, in
isolation, to be successful but not happy? “The self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated
makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be…the most desirable of all
things….”

As flute-players, artists, and doctors all have “a function or activity, the good and the ‘well’ are thought
of as the function, and so it is for man, if he has a function.” Aristotle continues by asking, “What then
can this be? Life seems to belong to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man.” What he is
getting at here is, essentially, what makes man unique? Is it life?, he asks. No, because even a plant has
life. Ask yourself what you believe is not perhaps humanity’s highest aspirations, but its highest function,
or capability. Eagles fly; fish breathe water; what are humans really about?

“…the function of man is an activity of the soul which follows or implies reason” ~ Aristotle

Dr. Brown points out here that “connecting the human good with the human function is a key element,
albeit controversial, in Aristotle’s inquiry into happiness or the best life.” He goes on to criticize this
angle, showing that “Aristotle does not locate the human function in the role a person plays in their
polis, or in any larger whole.” Yet, Aristotle uses analogies of parts of the body to the whole body.
Aristotle’s concept of function is essentially “what X ought to do or how they ought to be“, akin to the
way “oak trees out to be sturdy and bear acorns and leaves in the summer” (Brown).

His significant quote in this section is that “human good turns out to be an activity of the soul exhibiting
virtue….” Dr. Brown puts a very fine point on it when he notes that “it may seem that Aristotle has
imported the idea that to be happy one must be virtuous [that is, the traditional ‘moral virtues’].”
By moral virtues is meant goodness and uprightness and characteristics such as honesty, selflessness,
care – surely humanity’s highest aspirations. It seems as though Aristotle does believe that to be true,
yet he does not justify that claim at this time in the book. Instead, Brown is pointing out that “Aristotle
takes it as a truism that the best human life involves human activities exhibiting virtue…”, by which is
meant excellence, not moral propriety. Thus, dogs have virtue, even though they are not moral per se;
some dogs are more perfect examples of dogs than others.

VII. Our definition is confirmed by current beliefs about happiness

“We have practically defined happiness as a sort of living well and faring well,” Aristotle shows in section
8.

Brown astutely points out here that Aristotle is saying something very unique here: “since virtues are
states [of being, of mind], and it is activities manifesting good states, rather than the states themselves,
that are best.” Aristotle reflects on it by claiming the following: “…just acts are pleasant to the lover of
justice, and in general, virtuous acts are pleasant to the lover of virtue.” I like that wording! It’s also a
fascinating idea he brings up, very relevant to virtue ethics. It is reminiscent of a subdued kind of
pleasure; more like reading than jumping on a trampoline.

To sum that point up: Do virtuous activities [comprising both excellence and nobility and natural
(andintrinsically fulfilling)] and that – more than money, fame, titles, or pleasures of the senses – is
what will make you happy. It is very pleasant to see that a man who was so influential and distinguished
that he was known for centuries simply as “The Philosopher” believes in humanity’s highest aspirations,
too.
“A carpenter and a geometer investigate the right angle in different ways; the former does so in so far as

the right angle is useful for his work, while the latter inquires what it is or what sort of thing it is, for he is

a spectator of the truth.” ~ Aristotle

Aristotle does strike a practical note, indicating that the ugly, poor, childless, and solitary person is not
likely to be happy. This following paragraph is long, but it certainly gets at the idea of humanity’s highest
aspirations, so I shall include it:

“Some identify happiness with virtue, some with practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophical
wisdom [he adds here that pleasure is a separate matter, and may or may not coincide with these
states], while others include prosperity. Some of these views have been held by many men and men of
old, others by a few eminent persons. It is not probable that either of these should be entirely mistaken,
but rather they should be right in at least some respect, or even in most respects.”

“In the Olympic Games, it is not the most beautiful or the strongest that are crowned, but those who

compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act, win (and rightly win) the noble

and good things in life.”

VIII. Is happiness acquired by learning, habituation, sent by god, or by chance?

I am not sure why the translator, W. D. Ross, uses the term “god” rather than “God” or “gods”. I know
that Socrates often talked of “god” and it doesn’t get capitalized. Are we to assume that neither
Socrates, Plato, nor Aristotle believed in the gods of the ancient Greeks – Athena, Apollo, Dionysus, and
the rest of them? That would be iconoclastic.

Aristotle claims “If there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness should be god-
given…. For that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the world, and
something godlike and blessed.” He also considers if it came about naturally (by evolution, I might
surmise), not exactly given by a supernatural being. His words are: “To entrust to chance what is
greatest and most noble would be a very defective arrangement.” I agree that it is improbable that
morality and other of humanity’s highest aspirations came about by chance, but that is how humans
evolved; we are on a rock kept in place by gravity, spinning through space at 1,000 miles per hour, and
we evolved from single-celled organisms from the prehistoric era. In other words, our very existence is
extremely improbable, and emotions like happiness (the modern use of the word) and actions like
generosity are all part and parcel of why we homo sapiens grew extremely advanced in just a million
years.

This endnote by Lesley Brown is of use to me, and perhaps to you: “Since happiness is virtuous
activity…then it is acquired by whatever means the capacity for virtuous activity is acquired. As Book II.1
will argue, moral virtues are acquired by habituation, and intellectual ones by learning….”
“Political science spends most of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character – namely,

good and capable of noble acts.”

Philosopher Daniel N. Robinson says this on this topic: “[According to Aristotle] moral virtue is learned.
Rather than being intuitive or residing in the soul of superior individuals, it is acquired by lifelong
practice – the habit of virtue. It is the result of a lifetime of learning and practice and discipline toward
the goal of doing right.”

IX. Should no man be called happy while he lives?

The extremely influential Athenian leader Solon said, “Let no man be called happy before his death. Till
then, he is not happy, only lucky.” As well, Aristotle points out that in some way, a dead person can be
considered happy and unhappy because his or her good name can be honored or denigrated even in
death. Further, if one considers one’s ancestors’ happiness and condition as part of one’s life, then that
might matter too. Aristotle puts it as “…though a man has lived blessedly until old age and has had a
death worthy of his life, many reverses may befall his descendants....”

There is a bit about this passage I don’t understand, but I don’t think it is of great importance. I tend to
feel that whether happiness be a state or an activity, it is legitimate to gauge it in a shorter period than
“a lifetime.” Why cannot one be happy at this very moment?

One sentence I like is: “For no function of man has so much permanence as virtuous activities (these are
thought to be more durable even than knowledge of the sciences….”

“If activities are what determines the character of life, no blessed man can become miserable, for he will

never do the acts that are hateful and mean.” ~ Aristotle

X. Do the fortunes of the living affect the dead?

I’m afraid this passage just doesn’t interest me, so I only skimmed it. I suppose I feel, like Socrates and
Epicurus, that the living are living, the dead are dead, and there is no ability for one to affect or be
affected by the other.

XI. Virtue is praiseworthy, but happiness is above praise

“What we do to the gods and the most godlike of men is to call them blessed and happy. And so too with
good things; no one praises happiness as he does justice, but rather calls it blessed, as being something
more divine and better.”
“Praise is appropriate to virtue, for as a result of virtue men tend to do noble deeds; but encomia are
bestowed on acts, whether of the body or the soul.”

My how I wish that in these decaying times we cared more about nobility! It seems like today it is just
money (Jeff Bezos), narcissism (Trump), power (Dianne Feinstein), fame (Kim Kardashian), and other of
the “deadly sins.”

XII. Kinds of virtue: division of the soul and resultant division into intellectual and moral

“All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.” ~ Aristotle

Intellectual virtue (philosophical wisdom and practical wisdom) and moral virtue (liberality and
temperance) are two big aspects of Aristotle’s paradigm. Again, Daniel N. Robinson: “The end of the
intellectual virtues is knowledge of one sort or another, whereas the and of the moral virtues is the
formation of character, or self-perfection. The intellectual virtues are the result of teaching and learning.
The moral virtues arise from habit.”

“The true student of politics is thought to have studied virtue above all things, for he wishes to make his
fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws.”

Coming from Aristotle, this is significant, but considering the fact that he saw Socrates pretty much
willingly drink poison as the commission of his death sentence so as to avoid breaking the law, this is
deep indeed.

“By human virtue we mean not that of the body but that of the soul, and happiness also we call an
activity of the soul.”

“In the soul too there is something besides reason, resisting and opposing it.”

I’m really not terribly sure if this “irrational” aspect he writes of means passion, or something akin
to foolishness.

a life of philosophy a life of value ancient philosophy Aristotle character ethics excellence human
flourishing philosophical wisdom philosophy practical wisdom quotations about humanity's highest
virtues the habit of virtue the ideal life virtue

https://www.valuesofthewise.com/aristotles-view-of-humanitys-highest-aspirations/