LESSON 7: VIRTUE ETHICS

Specific Learning Outcomes:

During the students’ learning engagements, they will be able to:

1. explain the meaning of virtue, its two types, and the basic principles of
virtue ethics;
2. distinguish virtuous acts from non-virtuous acts and describe a virtuous
person;
3. apply the insights of virtue ethics to the development of one’s personal
character; and
4. articulate some of virtue ethics’ strengths and weaknesses.

TEACHING LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Engaging Activity No. 1 : “ My IDOL”

1. Think of a virtuous person that you admire.

2. Why do you consider him/her a virtuous person? What virtues does she/he
possess?
3. Share your answer with your classmates.

Processing:
1. How do you find the activity?
2. Based on your example, who then is a virtuous person?
3. How did this virtuous person become one? Was s/he born already virtuous or
did s/he inherit his/her virtuous life?

Engaging Activity No. 2 : “ Class Discussion”

Learning Guide Mapping:
1. What is Virtue?
2. What is Virtue Ethics?
 3. What is the basis for virtue ethics?
4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of Virtue ethics?

LECTURETTE

Aristotle’s ethics believes that every act that a person does is directed toward a
particular purpose or aim. The Greeks called this telos. One does something for a
purpose and a person’s action reveals the “good” that s/he aspires for. It is to achieve
this “good” that a person pursues something. For example, a person pursues a chosen
career in order to provide a better future for his/her family. This “better future” is the
good toward which the person strives to work hard. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is
considered to be the telos or purpose for which all acts seek to achieve.

Now, for Aristotle, the “goods” for which a person strives are hierarchical. One
can strive in order to achieve a higher purpose. There is then the highest purpose, the
ultimate good of a human being. This ultimate good is final and self-sufficient. According
to Aristotle, the highest purpose and the ultimate good of a person are happiness or
eudaimonia.

How does a person arrive at his/her highest good? For Aristotle, humans are
social, rational animals that seek to “live well.” To that end, he proposed virtue ethics to
help us reach eudaimonia, a world that means living well or flourishing. Eudaimonia is
reached by living virtuously and building up your character traits until you don’t even
have to think about your choices before making the right one. This excellent way of
doing things is called virtue or arete. Therefore, to live well means to live in accordance
with virtue.

WHAT IS VIRTUE?
The dictionary defines virtue as “the quality of moral excellence, righteousness,
and responsibility... a specific type of moral excellence or other exemplary quality
considered meritorious; a worthy practice or ideal.” A virtue is thought to be a good
character trait. Aristotle thought that virtue was crucial for a well-lived life. He thought
virtue was skill at living. (https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/virtue)
Virtue is a habit (moral virtue) or trained faculty of choice (intellectual virtue), the
characteristic of which lies in moderation or observance of the mean relative to the
persons concerned, as determined by reason. Aristotle stressed that Virtue is a state of
character concerned with choice, lying in a mean (Nabor-Nery, 2003:24).
A person or an individual becomes good or moral not by doing a singular act of
goodness but by acting, or rather, by doing good repeatedly or regularly, so it will
become a habit. Thus, making it an integral and inseparable part of one’s daily life and
conduct. To become a virtuous person, therefore, is to make the virtues (the
good/positive and desirable character traits) the defining feature of one’s being
(Fernandez,2010).

BASIC TYPES OF VIRTUE

Aristotle identifies two types of virtues:

1. They make one more effective in the use of what he or she knows and, to that
extent, contribute to the practice of moral virtue.” (Hardon, 2001)
For Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the following are examples of intellectual virtues:
understanding, science, wisdom, art, and prudence. This is acquired by teaching and
requires foresight and sophisticated intelligence (Nabor-Nery, 2003:24).

2. Moral virtues refer to a person’s disposition to act well. Moral virtue, or excellence of
character, is the disposition to act excellently, which a person develops partly as a result
of his upbringing, and partly as a result of his habit of action. These virtues include
courage, temperance, liberality, magnificence, magnanimity, patience, truthfulness, etc.
For Aristotle, one becomes good by doing good. Repeated acts of justice and self-
control result in a just, self-controlled person who performs just and self-controlled
actions.
VIRTUE ETHICS

Virtue ethics is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding the
good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a person (Bulaong, et.al.2018).
Virtue ethics focuses more on a person’s approach to living than on particular
choices and actions and so has less to say about specific courses of action or public
policies. Virtue ethicists think that the main question in ethical reasoning should be not
“How should I now act?” but “What kind of person do I want to be?” Developing
virtues that we admire in others and avoiding actions that we recognize as vicious
develops our moral sensitivity: our awareness of how our actions affect others. Virtuous
persons are able to empathize, imagine themselves in another person’s shoes, and look
at an issue from other people’s perspectives (Lumen, 2020
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-epcc-introethics-1/chapter/virtue-ethics/).

Virtue ethics, “is an ethics whose goal is to determine what is essential to being a
well-functioning or flourishing human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans
or persons. As ethics of ideals or excellences, it is an optimistic and positive type of
ethics.”

In other words, it is the development of the good or virtuous person that is

important in this moral theory, not abstract rules or consequences of acts or rules
except as they derive from a good or virtuous person or cause that person to be good or
virtuous.
Virtue ethics is concerned primarily with the task of developing a good character.
Moral character is formed by one’s actions. The habits, actions, and emotional
responses of a person of good character are all united and directed toward the moral
and the good. To be of good character, one must know the good, act in morally good
ways, and be disposed and inclined toward the good through the development of
virtues. Virtues play an important role in character formation. Growing in the virtues
forms good character. Therefore, morality’s central theme, based on virtue ethics, is
“[mainly about] producing excellent persons who act well out of spontaneous goodness
and serve as examples to inspire others” (Pojman & Fieser, 2017).
A person can then be said to be good or moral if s/he is a person of character. A
person of character embodies positive qualities such as wisdom, courage, temperance,
justice, and magnanimity, among others. One’s personal character then is the result or
by-product of acts or deeds of repeated goodness. One is a good person or a person of
virtue not really because of what one does but of what one is. Being precedes doing.
Goodness is simply a logical consequence of one’s character or identity
(Fernandez,2010).

Moreover, a moral person habitually chooses the good and consistently does
good deeds. It is in this constant act of choosing and doing good that a person is able
to form her character. It is through one’s character that others know a person. The
character then becomes the identification mark of the person. For instance, when one
habitually opts to be courteous to others and regularly shows politeness in the way she
relates to others, others would start recognizing her as a well-mannered person. On the
other hand, when one habitually chooses to be rude to others and repeatedly
demonstrates vulgar and foul acts, she develops an image of an ill-mannered person.
The Filipino term pag-uugali precisely reflects the meaning of the moral character. One
can have mabuting pag-uugali (good character) or masamang pag-uugali (bad
character) ( Bulaong, et.al, 2018).
To sum up, moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a “state of character” that
habitually acts according to the middle measure that practical wisdom identifies as the
moral choice that should be acted upon, given the concrete situation that presents to
the person. The goal of virtue ethics is to promote the character of the person. Building
a good character is a task and responsibility of every person (Bulaong, et.al,2018).

VIRTUE AS THE GOLDEN MEAN

Aristotle stressed that virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, lying
in a mean. A morally virtuous person is concerned with achieving her appropriate action
in a manner that is neither excessive nor deficient. He illustrates then, that moderation
comes in the middle or mean between two vices, one on the side of excess, the other
on the side of defect.
For Aristotle, virtue is the Golden Mean between two extremes both of which are
vices.

Moral virtue, then, is defined by Aristotle as being “a disposition to choose by a

rule... which a practically wise man would determine” to be the mean between the two
extremes of excess or deficiency…according to Aristotle, practical wisdom is the ability
to see what is the right thing to do in any circumstance. Therefore, a person must
determine what a “practically wise, virtuous man” would choose in any circumstance
calling for moral choice and then do the right thing.

Engaging Activity No. 3 : “ Our Own Filipino Character”

1. List down five specific examples of particular virtues that are commonly found
among Filipinos. Identify their corresponding excesses and deficiencies. Do this in
tabular form. (Similar to the table above.)
2. Compare and contrast these Filipino virtues with virtues commonly found among
other nationalities (focus only on one nationality).
STRENGTHS OF VIRTUE ETHICS

1. The holistic view of human nature. Reason is applied through phronesis or

practical wisdom, but unlike Kant, the emotions are not ignored, as virtue ethics is
holistic (includes emotion in the building of character). To Aristotle, personal and social
flourishing (eudaimonia) is the final rational goal, and reason tames and moralizes the
desires and appetites of the irrational part of our soul.
2. Character-based. Habits of character are central, and developed through
training…we need heroes who are moral role models as well as “virtuous = skillful”
footballers. The present age is “instrumental” in the sense of things being a means to
an end, and pragmatic, in that we tend to “bend the rules”. Behind action lies character:
it may be legal for an MP to claim expenses for a duck house, but is it honest?
3. Morality as a social construct. Virtue Ethics sees morality as grounded in a view
a. of human nature (to Aristotle the rational and irrational sides in conflict) and b. the
social concept of the “good life” (the life fulfilled) which differs from society to society
(see relativism weakness). Modern Philosophers have placed too much emphasis on
action and reason without emphasizing socially agreed virtues, and also too much
stress on the language of morals: what do we mean by saying “stealing is wrong”?
4. Partiality. Both Kant and Mill require impartiality for their ethical viewpoints, for
example, Mill says “utilitarianism requires the moral agent to be strictly impartial, as a
disinterested and benevolent spectator”. James Rachels comments: “It may be doubted
whether impartiality is really such an important feature of the moral life…some virtues
are partial and some are not. Love and friendship involve partiality towards loved ones
and friends; beneficence towards people, in general, is also a virtue…what is needed is
not some general requirement of impartiality, but an understanding of how the different
virtues relate to each other” (2007:173-4).

WEAKNESSES OF VIRTUE ETHICS

1. Relativistic. We cannot agree on what the key virtues are, which differ from
culture-to-culture e.g. Al Qaeda thinks it is virtuous to be a suicide bomber. One
person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter and hero…so goodness must
depend on something else. Perhaps we can escape this problem by defining what, for
me or my society, are the virtues that will make me (or us) flourish. “Aristotle saw pride
as a special virtue, Christians see it as a master vice”. Rachels (2007:166)
2. Bourgeois. Bertrand Russell argued that Aristotle’s virtues were bourgeois
virtues. Victorian suspicion of extreme passion and emotion (doctrine of the mean = be
sensible, child) and “there is a complete absence of benevolence and philanthropy” i.e.
desire to sacrifice yourself for others.
3. Decisions are difficult. “It is not obvious how we should go about deciding what to
do” Rachels (2007:176) Anscombe argues we should get rid of the idea of “right action”
altogether and just use virtuous words e.g. “unjust”, and “dishonest”. William Frankena
has argued, “Virtues without principles are blind“. Rachels argues that virtue ethics is
incomplete because it can’t account for the fact that “being honest” implies a rule, so
“it’s hard to see what honesty consists in if it is not the disposition to follow such rules”,
Rachels (2007:177).
4. Conflicting virtues. What happens when virtues conflict, for example, when
honesty and kindness conflict, or honesty and loyalty to one’s friends? “It only leaves
you wondering which virtue takes precedence”, concludes Rachels. Pojman comments
“virtue ethics has the problem of application: it doesn’t tell us what to do in particular
instances in which we most need direction” (2006:166).

(Excerpted from https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/table-strengths-and-

weaknesses-of-virtue-ethics/)