By: Ms.

Josille Marquez
• An ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a
person.

• It focuses on the formation of one’s character brought about by

determining and doing virtuous acts.

• The two major thinkers of this theory are Ancient Greek Plato
and Aristotle.
• His book entitled “Nicomachean Ethics” was the first
comprehensive and programmatic study of virtue ethics.

• For him, the real is found within our everyday encounter with
objects in the world. What makes nature intelligible is its
character of having both form and matter. Therefore the truth
and the good cannot exist apart from the object and are not
independent of or experience. Meaning, according to him, the
truth and the good can be attained through experience.

• His theory of the good is engaging in our day-to-day living.

• Plato had a different appreciation of reality and nature with
compare to Aristotle. For Plato, the real is outside the realm of
any human sensory experience but can somehow be grasped by
one’s intellect. The truth and the good are in the sphere of forms
or ideas transcending daily human condition. Meaning the truth
and good can be obtained not through experience but through
human’s intellect.
• Aristotle discussed that every act that a person does is
directed toward a particular purpose, aim or what the Greeks
called telos. For Aristotle, there is always a purpose why one
does something and a person’s action manifests a good that she
wants.

• Every pursuit of a person hopes to achieve a good or

happiness. For example, one person pursues a chosen career
aiming for a good hzand that is to provide a better future for
his family. Meaning, a person would not do anything that is not
beneficial to him/her. For Aristotle, the good is considered to be
the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.
• With the condition that there is a hierarchy of “telos”, hierarchy
of “telos” means there is a different level of purpose and there
is the so-called highest purpose, which is the ultimate good of a
human being.

• According to Aristotle, there are general criteria in order for

one to recognize the highest good of a man. First, the highest
good of a person must be final. As a final end, it is no longer
utilized for the sake of arriving at a much higher end. Second,
the ultimate telos of a person must be self-sufficient. Satisfaction
in life arrives once this highest good is attained.
• Applying the general criteria of Aristotle, the purpose of
remembering the lessons in the course when one writes down is
not the final end. There must be a much a higher goal behind
doing it which is to pass the course. With regards to self-
sufficient, there is always satisfaction after achieving the highest
goal or after passing the course.

• According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the

highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or
for the Greeks, eudaimonia. Therefore, happiness seems to fit
the 1st criterion of being the final end of a human being.
• For example, having wealth, power and pleasures are chosen
for the sake of happiness. By having wealth, it would probably
lead to attaining honor and pleasures but all of these are
ultimately for the sake of the final end which is happiness. No
other superior end is still being desired for.

• For Aristotle, happiness is the only self-sufficient aim that one

can aspire for. No amount of wealth and power can be more
fulfilling than having achieved the condition of happiness.
How does a person arrive at her
highest good?
• According to Aristotle, if an individual’s action can achieve the
highest good, then one must investigate how she functions which
enables her to achieve her ultimate purpose . If she performs
her function well, then she is capable of arriving at happiness.

• In short, man must always performs his/her function to achieve

his/her ultimate end/telos or highest good which is happiness.
How does a human being function which sets
her apart from the rest?
• For Aristotle, what defines human beings is her function or
activity of reason. This function makes her different from the rest
of the beings. An action to be considered as truly human must
be an act that is always in accordance to reason. The function
of a human being is to act following the dictates of her reason.

• What distinguishes a good person from other human beings is

her rational activity that is performed well or excellently. The
local saying “Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao.”
can be an example application of Aristotle’s thought. Any
human being can perform the activity of reason; thus being
human is achievable.
• Achieving the highest purpose of a human person concerns the
ability to function according to reason and to perform an
activity well or excellently. This excellent way of doing things is
called virtue or arete by the Greeks.

• Being virtuous cannot be accomplished by a single act. One

does not become an excellent person overnight. Being an
excellent individual works on doing well in her day-to-day
existence.
What exactly makes a human being
excellent?
• Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human soul,
therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a
person’s soul which must be directed by her rational activity in
an excellent way.

• For Aristotle, human soul is divided into two parts: the irrational
element and the rational faculty.
 IRRATIONAL ELEMENT RATIONAL FACULTY

• This part of man is not in the • It exercises excellence in

realm where virtue is human. One can rightly or
exercised because, it cannot wrongly apply the use of
be dictated by reason. reason.
 IRRATIONAL ELEMENT
• It consists of the vegetative and
the appetitive aspects. The
vegetative aspect functions as
giving nutrition and providing
the activity of physical growth
in a person. Appetitive aspect
works as a desiring faculty of
man. The act of desiring in itself
is an impulse that naturally runs
counter to reason and most of
the time refuses to go along
with reason
RATIONAL FACULTY
• It is divided into two aspects:
moral, which concerns the act
of doing, and intellectual,
which concerns the act of
knowing. These two aspects are
basically where the function of
reason is exercised.
• Intellectual excellence can be attained through teaching.
Through time, one learns from the vast experiences in life where
she gains knowledge on these things. One learns and gains
wisdom by being taught or by learning.

• There are two ways to attain intellectual excellence:

1. Philosophic wisdom- deals with attaining knowledge
about the fundamental principles and truths that govern
the universe. It helps to understand the meaning of life.

2. Practical wisdom- is an excellence in knowing the right

conduct in carrying out a particular act. It can provides us
the wisdom on how to behave in our daily lives.
 ARISTOTLE
• Having intellectual
excellence does not
necessarily mean that one
already has the capacity of
doing the good. Knowing the
good that is need to be done
is different from doing the
good that one needs to
accomplish.
SOCRATES
• Moral goodness is already
within the realm of
intellectual excellence.
Knowing the good implies the
ability to perform morally
virtuous acts.
• Rational faculty of a person tells us that she is capable of
achieving two kinds of virtue: moral and intellect.

• If we are going to follow Aristotle’s thought, moral virtue can

be attained by means of habit. A morally virtuous man for him
is someone who habitually determines the good and does the
right actions. The saying “Practice makes perfect.” is applicable
to Aristotle’s thought.
• According to Aristotle, knowledge is not inherent to a person.
Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a
choice is not easy. One needs to develop this knowledge by
exercising the faculty of practical reason in her daily life.

• Aristotle also maintained that the middle, intermediate or

mesotes for the Greeks is being aimed at by a morally virtuous
person. Determining the middle or mesotes becomes the proper
tool by which one can arrive at the proper way of doing things.
It simply means an appropriate action is neither excessive nor
deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or the intermediary
point in between extremes.
• The task of being moral involves seriously looking into an d
understanding a situation and assessing properly every
particular detail relevant to the determination of the mesotes or
middle. Mesotes determines whether the act applied is not
excessive or deficient.
• An example of this is the action of the government in terms of
protecting and assisting the young on their personal and
development. Since there is an issue wherein too much violence
being seen in the television may negatively affect to the
development of the children watching. The government could
have dismissed the issue or could have banned television in
portraying violence shows, but imposing ban could harm the
citizen’s freedom of expression and artistic independence. The
government, then acted on the side of the middle measure by
means of implementing rules and guidelines for viewing safety ,
dedicating 15 percent of TV airtime for child-friendly shows
and enforcing a television violence rating code that took into
account the sensibilities of children.
• Firstly, moral virtue is the condition arrived at by a person who
has a character identified out of her habitual exercise of
particular actions.

• Secondly, in moral virtue, the action done that normally

manifests feelings and passions is chosen because it is the
middle. This means that in choosing the middle/mesotes, one is
looking at the situation and not at oneself in identifying the
proper way that feelings and passions should be dispensed.
• Thirdly, the rational faculty that serves as a guide for the
proper identification of the middle is practical wisdom. The
virtuous person learns from her experiences and therefore
develops the capacity to know the proper way of carrying out
her feelings, passions and actions.
 EXCESS MIDDLE DEFICIENCY

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

Recklessness Courage Cowardice

Prodigality Liberality Meanness

• Aristotle identifies the virtue of courage as the middle, in
between the vices of being coward and reckless. Cowardice is a
deficiency in terms of feelings and passions. This means that one
lacks the capacity to muster enough bravery of carrying herself
appropriately. Recklessness, on the other hand, is an excess in
terms of one’s feelings and passions. In this sense, acts with an
excess of guts that she overdoes an act in such rashness and
without any deliberation is not good. The virtue of having
courage is being able to act daringly enough but able to weigh
up possible implications of such act that she proceeds with
caution. That is what Aristotle means when he said act should
always be determined by middle or mesotes measures.
Answer the following questions:

1. Based on your own experience, give an example of scenario

wherein you execute an act determined by mesotes or middle
measures. Discuss how did you come up with that action. (10
pts)

2. Identify at least three (3) Filipino traits and identify its virtue
(middle) and its vices (Deficiency and Excess). (10 pts)