Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and
virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing ones duty or acting in order to
bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral
advice: Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a
virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from
natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they
will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many
situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to
maximize
utility
or
gain
favors
or
simply
do
her
duty.
Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not
aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation.
And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questionsHow should I live? and What is
the good life? and What are proper family and social values?
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative
ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the
virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes
duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences
of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need
should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences
of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in
doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as
Do unto others as you would be done by and a virtue ethicist to the fact
that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.

Virtue ethics (or aretaic ethics[1] /rtek/ from the Greek arete) emphasizes the role of one's
character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical
behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches tonormative ethics, often contrasted
to deontology, which emphasizes duty to rules, and consequentialism, which derives rightness or
wrongness from the outcome of the act itself.[2]
The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the ways in which
moral dilemmas are approached, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a
consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by
lyingthough a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make some

lying ("white lies") acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of
any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying
in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about
one's character and moral behavior. As such, the morality of lying would be determined on a case-bycase basis, which would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions
(as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent).[citation needed]

Distinctions[edit]
Virtue ethics can be contrasted to deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics by an examination
of the other two (the three being together the most predominant contemporary normative ethical
theories).
Deontological ethics, sometimes referred to as duty ethics, places the emphasis on adhering to
ethical principles or duties. How these duties are defined, however, is often a point of contention and
debate in deontological ethics. One of the predominant rule schemes utilized by deontologists is
the Divine Command Theory. Deontology also depends upon meta-ethical realism, in that it
postulates the existence of moral absolutes that make an action moral, regardless of circumstances.
For more information on deontological ethics refer to the work of Immanuel Kant.
The next predominant school of thought in normative ethics is consequentialism. While deontology
places the emphasis on doing one's duty, which is established by some kind of moral imperative (in
other words, the emphasis is on obedience to some higher moral absolute), consequentialism bases
the morality of an action upon the consequences of the outcome. Instead of saying that one has a
moral duty to abstain from murder, a consequentialist would say that we should abstain from murder
because it causes undesirable effects. The main contention here is what outcomes should/can be
identified as objectively desirable. The Greatest Happiness Principle of John Stuart Mill is one of the
most commonly adopted criteria. Mill asserts that our determinant of the desirability of an action is
the net amount of happiness it brings, the number of people it brings it to, and the duration of the
happiness. He also tries to delineate classes of happiness, some being preferable to others, but
there is a great deal of difficulty in classifying such concepts. For a more complete outline of the
niceties of Mill's classification system see the page on utilitarianism or read Mill's
works Utilitarianism, Defense of Utilitarianism, and On Liberty. Examining the meta-ethical theories
of naturalism, upon which many consequentialist theories rely, may provide further clarification.
Having looked at the other two normative ethical theories we come at last to virtue ethics.
As stated before, deontology focuses on adhering to ethical duties, while consequentialism focuses
on the outcomes (consequences) of actions. Here virtue ethics differs in that the focus is instead
upon being rather than doing. A virtue ethics philosopher will identify virtues, desirable
characteristics, that the moral or virtuous person embodies. Possessing these virtues, in virtue
ethics, is what makes one moral, and one's actions are a mere reflection of one's inner morality. To

the virtue philosopher, action cannot be used as a demarcation of morality, because a virtue
encompasses more than just a simple selection of action. Instead, it is about a way of being that
would cause the person exhibiting the virtue to make a certain "virtuous" choice consistently in each
situation. There is a great deal of disagreement within virtue ethics over what are virtues and what
are not. There are also difficulties in identifying what is the "virtuous" action to take in all
circumstances, and how to define a virtue.
Consequentialist and deontological theories often still employ the term 'virtue', but in a restricted
sense, namely as a tendency or disposition to adhere to the system's principles or rules. These very
different senses of what constitutes virtue, hidden behind the same word, are a potential source of
confusion. This disagreement over the meaning of virtue points to a larger conflict between virtue
theory and its philosophical rivals. A system of virtue theory is only intelligible if it is teleological: that
is, if it includes an account of the purpose (telos) of human life, or in popular language, the meaning
of life.[citation needed] Obviously, strong claims about the purpose of human life, or of what the good life for
human beings is, will be highly controversial. Virtue theory's necessary commitment to a teleological
account of human life thus puts the tradition in sharp tension with other dominant approaches to
normative ethics, which, because they focus on actions, do not bear this burden. [citation needed]