Aristotle's Virtue Ethics (AQA A-Level Religious Studies): Revision Notes
Aristotle's Virtue Ethics
Introduction
Virtue ethics focuses on character development rather than following rules or calculating consequences. Unlike act-based systems such as natural moral law or situational ethics, virtue ethics emphasises becoming a good person through habit and practice.
The approach was revived in modern times, particularly following Elizabeth Anscombe's influential 1958 essay. She advocated for a return to Aristotelian ethics that pays greater attention to human psychology. This revival has proven especially influential in medical ethics and professional conduct.
The Greek term for virtue is arete, which refers to a disposition or character trait that is valued. Examples include courage, truthfulness, self-control, generosity, friendliness and justice. Virtue is not demonstrated through isolated actions but must be developed over a complete lifetime.
Background: Aristotle (384-322 BCE)
Aristotle was born in Stagira, northern Greece, and joined Plato's Academy at age 18. He later established his own school, the Lyceum, where he taught across a vast range of subjects including science, politics and morality.
His key ethical work is the Nicomachean Ethics, likely compiled from lecture notes. The book examines how humans should live and what constitutes the best life. Thomas Aquinas later synthesised Aristotle's ethics with Christian teaching in the thirteenth century, an integration still influential in Roman Catholic moral theology today.
Aristotle originally wrote for the spoudaioi - serious citizens of Greek city-states (adult males who governed). Although this context was elitist, the ethical theory can be applied universally in modern contexts. If virtue can be cultivated through habit and training, then most people have the capacity to become virtuous.
Core concepts
Teleological foundation
Aristotle begins with a teleological claim: all human activities aim towards some good. Different activities have different ends. For example, ship-building aims at producing ships, medicine aims at health, and military strategy aims at victory. However, some ends are subordinate to others, suggesting a final end to which all activities are ultimately directed.
This final end is likely to be determined by politicians, who hold power in city-states and decide what sciences should exist, what citizens should learn, and to what level of proficiency.
Eudaimonia
Most people agree that the final end is happiness, or eudaimonia. However, there is disagreement about what eudaimonia actually means.
Some common but rejected views:
- Pleasure: Aristotle rejects this because even cattle experience pleasure, so it cannot be uniquely human
- Political honour: This is given by others and can be easily lost, so cannot be the final end
- Wealth: This is merely a means to an end and is also easily lost
Aristotle develops his own account of eudaimonia through the Function Argument. The term is often translated as 'happiness' but encompasses a broader sense of complete wellbeing or human flourishing.
The Function Argument
There is a relationship between goodness and function. The Greek term ergon means 'work' or 'accomplishment'. A good knife fulfils its purpose - it has a sharp blade, a well-designed handle, and cuts effectively. Similarly, humans have a characteristic function, and human goodness consists in fulfilling that function.
Function depends on the nature of the soul. For Aristotle, 'soul' does not refer to a non-physical aspect but rather the form or blueprint of the body.
He identifies a hierarchy of souls:
Plants (vegetative soul): Characterised by nutrition and growth
Animals (sensitive soul): Characterised by nutrition, growth, movement, sense perception, and basic thought
Humans (rational soul): Characterised by nutrition, growth, movement, sense perception, and reason
What is uniquely characteristic of humans? It cannot be nutrition and growth (plants have these) or sense-perception and movement (animals have these). Therefore, it must be the exercise of reason - the rational part of the soul.
Aristotle concludes that the human good is "an activity of the soul in accord with virtue, and if there are several virtues, then in accord with the best and most complete one." The good life involves exercising reason well, not merely eating, reproducing, sensing or moving well.
Moral virtue and reasoning
Reasoning well means exercising virtue or moral excellence. Aristotle provides a lengthy exposition of moral virtue, emphasising that it should be assessed over a complete lifetime, not through isolated situations or short periods.
The human soul has two aspects:
- Rational part: Contains intellectual virtues
- Non-rational part: Contains moral virtues (not irrational, but relating to emotions and appetites)
Intellectual virtues include:
- Theoretical virtues: mathematics, physics, philosophy
- Practical virtues: understanding, judgement, practical wisdom
Moral virtues (virtues of character) include:
- Courage, patience, temperance, friendliness, modesty, magnanimity
The intellectual virtues contribute most to the good life because they are controlled by reason. However, moral virtues are formed by habit and guided by practical wisdom (phronesis). Just as we become physically strong through nourishment and exercise, we become moderate by practising abstinence from excessive pleasures and courageous by habitually facing frightening situations.
By nature, humans are neither good nor evil but have the capacity to become either through training. This training should begin early, as children acquire moral habits by following role models, typically their parents. We become virtuous not by learning rules but by imitating virtuous people.
For an action to be truly virtuous, a person must:
- Know what they are doing (not act through ignorance)
- Choose to act virtuously for its own sake
Worked Example: Virtuous Action
Rescuing a child from a burning building would only be virtuous if the person knew the danger and chose to act because they believed this is how a virtuous person should behave - not to impress others or without understanding the risk.
The doctrine of the mean
A central concept in Aristotle's ethics is that specific virtues lie between two extremes - excess and deficiency. Virtue is "a characteristic marked by choice, residing in the mean relative to us, a characteristic defined by reason and as the prudent person would define it."
Key aspects of the mean:
Choice: Rational deliberation about what to do, based on specific reasons rather than mere desire or emotion
The mean: The median position that is relative to each individual. Using the analogy of athletic training, if someone can consume between 2 and 10 pounds of food, the trainer will not prescribe 6 pounds for everyone. The amount depends on body size, metabolism, activity levels and appetite. The mean is what is appropriate for each individual.
The phronimos: A person of practical wisdom who is best qualified to determine virtuous behaviour in any situation. This practical wisdom is acquired through constant practice and habit. The phronimos rationally designs the mean for each individual rather than prescribing universal rules.
Between extremes: The mean lies between excess and deficiency. Moral virtue concerns emotions and actions, where one can feel or act too much, too little, or the right amount. For example, one can feel too much anger, not enough anger, or the right amount. Being virtuous means acting and feeling in the middle ground at the right time, towards the right objects, with proper regard to the people involved.
Aristotle emphasises the importance of emotions within rational character. Our emotional reactions help us assess situations and people. Emotions like grief are not morally useless - they shape our compassion, caring and empathy, thus developing virtue. People should enjoy acting virtuously; when virtuous behaviour is both enjoyable and rational, it becomes self-reinforcing.
The mean in context
Worked Example: Courage in Battle
The mean of courage does not mean showing moderate courage in all situations. When facing an enemy charge in battle, moderate courage would be useless. In such circumstances, courage would need to be extreme, so the mean becomes the excess. The mean is always appropriate to the specific situation and individual.
Table of moral virtues
Aristotle identifies specific virtues positioned between extremes:
Fear and confidence: Deficiency (cowardice) - Virtue (courage) - Excess (foolhardiness)
Pleasure and pain: Deficiency (insensibility) - Virtue (temperance/self-control) - Excess (licentiousness)
Getting and spending: Deficiency (meanness) - Virtue (generosity) - Excess (prodigality)
Honour: Deficiency (vanity) - Virtue (high-mindedness) - Excess (vanity)
Anger: Deficiency (spiritlessness) - Virtue (good temper) - Excess (irascibility)
Truth: Deficiency (self-deprecation) - Virtue (truthfulness) - Excess (boastfulness)
Pleasantness: Deficiency (boorishness) - Virtue (wittiness) - Excess (buffoonery)
Daily life: Deficiency (surliness) - Virtue (friendliness) - Excess (obsequiousness)
Shame: Deficiency (shamelessness) - Virtue (modesty) - Excess (bashfulness)
Fortune of others: Deficiency (spite) - Virtue (just resentment) - Excess (envy)
Justice is unique among the virtues as it has no excess or deficiency - it is simply an extreme in itself.
Key virtues examined
Courage
Courage operates in the area of fear and confidence. For Aristotle, this primarily concerns the threat of death in battle, reflecting the constant warfare in ancient Greece. A courageous person overcomes fear sufficiently not to show it, whilst also avoiding rash behaviour that leads to needless death.
True courage means not fearing death in battle for a noble cause. However, courage is not:
- Facing danger for fear of punishment or shame
- Acting bravely out of ignorance of potential consequences
- Performing dangerous acts driven by violent passions like anger or lust
These fail as courage because they lack the rational deliberation and proper motivation required for virtue.
Temperance
Temperance (self-control) concerns the pleasures of the body, specifically eating, drinking and sex. Its deficiency is insensibility and its excess is licentiousness or self-indulgence.
When people err regarding natural desires, they typically err towards excess. The temperate person trains themselves to enjoy moderate natural appetites and is disgusted by excessive indulgence. Reason dictates that people should lead a life of habitual self-control.
Justice
Justice is distinctive because it can benefit both the self and others. Some virtues primarily benefit the individual, but justice considers the good of others as an end in itself, making it an altruistic virtue.
Aristotle discusses justice in two senses:
Broad sense: Justice encompasses the whole system of law, rule and custom. It is a virtue with no mean - simply an extreme. The law unites all other virtues by requiring people to be brave, temperate, courageous and so on, for both themselves and the good of the community. In justice, "every virtue is summed up."
Narrow sense: Justice concerns fairness in two ways:
- Distributional justice: Ensuring goods in the community are distributed so each person receives what is proportional to their merit
- Rectifying justice: Restoring the distribution of gain and loss between people where loss has occurred through trading, theft or assault
Moral agents are responsible for unjust acts done voluntarily. They are not responsible for acts done through ignorance, unless the ignorance is wilful (such as deliberately turning a blind eye to consequences).
Friendship
Friendship (philia) is another altruistic virtue that considers the good of others as an end in itself. The Greek term is broader than our 'friendship', encompassing everyone dear to a person, including family.
Aristotle views friendship as similar in function to justice but possibly more important. He argues that friendship holds cities together and that lawmakers are more concerned with it than justice. When people are friends, they have no need of justice, but when they are just, they still need friendship. Friendship is both necessary and noble.
Aristotle identifies three kinds of friendship:
Based on usefulness: Affection comes from the good each receives from the other
Based on pleasure: For example, enjoying witty and humorous people
Based on goodness: The perfect friendship between good people who are alike in virtue. They wish each other's good because they are good, loving the friend as another version of themselves. This is the longest-lasting friendship.
Love of self and love of another are fully rational in this perfect friendship. Acting for the good of a friend is a rational extension of acting for one's own good, so altruism and egoism rationally coincide.
Voluntary action
To be virtuous, actions must be voluntary - brought about by the will. We can only be praised or blamed for what we do by choice, as choices reveal character.
Aristotle distinguishes between different types of action through examples:
Worked Examples: Types of Action
Non-voluntary: A ship's master put in chains by pirates cannot be blamed for failing to protect cargo - he has no power to act
Partially voluntary (praiseworthy): A captain who jettisons cargo in a storm to save the ship and crew should not be blamed if he feels pain about the decision, as this pain shows his virtuous intention
Partially voluntary (blameworthy): A captain who jettisons cargo purely from fear for his own life can be blamed for not showing appropriate courage based on his experience
Caused by ignorance: Oedipus unknowingly killed his father and married his mother. When he discovered the truth, his pain and repentance (blinding himself) showed he would have acted differently if he knew the facts. He cannot be blamed for actions caused by ignorance.
For proper intention necessary for virtue:
- Must involve deliberation and choice based on reason
- Does not include mere desire, wish or opinion
- Can only intend something within one's power to do
Nobody can be virtuous by accident. Whenever we desire to act with courage, temperance, generosity or other virtues, we can only do so through proper intention.
Theoria: the highest good
After discussing moral virtues, Aristotle returns to the question of the good life for humans. Having rejected pleasure, honour and wealth, he ultimately decides in favour of the intellectual virtue of theoria (contemplation).
His argument:
- Happiness is an activity conforming to the highest virtue
- The highest thing in humans is reason - our intelligence and intellect
- We use intelligence to do science and discover what the world is really like
- Scientific discoveries are the highest objects of knowledge
- Contemplating them gives greatest happiness
- Contemplation is done for its own sake, so has intrinsic value
- Contemplation, being pure reasoning, is contemplation of the divine
- Therefore, theoretical reasoning is the greatest human activity
This conclusion raises questions. Does intellectual contemplation necessarily bring more happiness than practical activity? Aristotle was a scientist with many scientific works, so he may simply be supporting his own preferences. His preference for contemplation perhaps overvalues one aspect of human nature, since both theoretical and practical wisdom seem equally important parts of being human.
Strengths of Aristotle's virtue ethics
Holistic approach: The theory considers the whole personality - excellence of character, development of theoretical reasoning, and practical skills like judgement and wisdom.
Human-centred: It values strength of moral character above blindly following rules. This allows for flexibility and recognises that rigid rule-following can cause problems.
Avoids problems of other theories: Unlike deontological ethics, it allows for moral judgement when rules conflict. Unlike consequentialist ethics, it does not require predicting the future or doing bad actions to achieve good results.
Realistic about problems: It does not claim perfect solutions exist for every moral problem but instead equips people to deal with problems as they arise.
Teleological focus: The goal of eudaimonia (complete wellbeing) benefits society as a whole.
Accessible: People do not need to master complex doctrines. They follow examples of virtuous people, and mistakes are opportunities for learning. Virtue develops over a lifetime, allowing continuous improvement.
Flexible: The doctrine of the mean means virtue ethics adapts to situations and persons. For example, soldiers need different courage from medical workers combating disease.
Values emotions: It recognises human emotions as important components of moral decision-making rather than obstacles to be overcome.
Weaknesses of Aristotle's virtue ethics
Cultural relativism: Although the mean is relative to individuals, the theory ignores that different societies value different virtues. Victorian England prized modesty, patience and piety; modern secular Europe values tolerance, individualism and self-expression; modern China emphasises propriety, wisdom and obedience. When national ideologies conflict, whose virtues should be the model?
Circular reasoning: How should we behave? Act virtuously. What is virtuous behaviour? What a virtuous person does. How does someone become virtuous? By acting virtuously. This circularity, combined with cultural relativism, means Aristotle may simply be recommending the virtues of his own time and social class.
Limited political application: Whilst useful for individual morality, virtue ethics is less effective in national and international politics. Governments cannot make ethical decisions based on individual character. Political morality tends to run on consequentialist principles (greatest happiness for greatest number).
Questionable Function Argument: Aristotle claims that since body parts have specific functions, humans as a whole must have a specific function. This reasoning appears flawed. Human sexuality, for example, has many functions beyond reproduction - forming relationships, finding pleasure, developing empathy. The argument also seems to commit the fallacy of composition (assuming what is true of parts must be true of the whole).
Teleological assumptions: Many modern scientists reject the view that humans have a specific purpose or goal, arguing that evolution works through random mutations rather than goal-directed development.
Anthropocentric focus: The system focuses on the good for humans. Aristotle's claim that humans are unique in having rationality is demonstrably wrong - the least intelligent humans are less intelligent than the most intelligent animals. By excluding the animal kingdom, the system likely ignores environmental concerns. This view has contributed to over 2,000 years of undervaluing animals.
Difficult for urgent dilemmas: It is challenging to apply virtue ethics to issues like embryo research and cloning. Virtue develops over a lifetime, whereas many moral issues require immediate answers and radically different thinking.
Need for laws: Many people would refuse to act virtuously throughout their lives. Such individuals need clear moral rules and knowledge of consequences for breaking them.
Questions about virtue's value: Virtuous people can appear dull, whereas popular culture celebrates non-conformist characters. Films and series often feature fascinating villains rather than virtuous heroes. This raises questions about whether virtue should be the basis for an ethical system.
Key Points to Remember:
- Virtue is a character trait (disposition) developed through habit and practice over a complete lifetime, not demonstrated through isolated actions
- Eudaimonia is the ultimate human good - complete wellbeing achieved through exercising reason in accordance with virtue
- The Function Argument claims that human goodness consists in fulfilling the characteristic human function: exercising reason
- The doctrine of the mean states that virtues lie between excess and deficiency, with the mean relative to each individual and determined by the phronimos (person of practical wisdom)
- True virtue requires voluntary action with proper intention - knowing what you are doing and choosing to act virtuously for its own sake
- Key strengths include being holistic, human-centred, flexible and valuing emotions as part of moral reasoning
- Main weaknesses include cultural relativism, circular reasoning, limited political application and anthropocentric focus