THEORY OF UTILITARIANISM

 Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that argues for the goodness of

pleasure and the determination of right behavior based on the usefulness
of the actions consequences. This means that pleasure is good and that
the goodness of action is determined by its usefulness.
 Utilitarianism is consequentialist. This means that the moral value of
actions and decisions is based solely or greatly on the usefulness of their
consequences; it is the usefulness of results that determines whether
the action or behavior is good or bad. While this is the case, not all
consequentialist theories are utilitarian.
 UTILITARIANISM
Happiness and Freedom
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
o Intellectual inheritor of David Hume
o Utilitarianism
o A moral theory based on experiences of pleasure and pain
o “The Principle of Utility”
o Actions should be evaluated according to their ability to produce
pleasure and pain
o Actions that lead to pleasure are right, ones that produce pain are
wrong
 
Law and Social Hedonism
o Government should not pass laws that protect tradition,
customs or rights
o Government should base all laws on the happiness principle
o The greatest happiness for the greatest number
o Bentham’s theory is both empirical (how much pain or pleasure
is caused by the act or policy) and democratic (each individual’s
happiness is as important as any other’s)
 
Bentham
Ethics as Greatest Happiness
Social Hedonism
o Moral worth judged by presumed effect
o Action guided by pleasure/pain Did have his skeleton put on
display!
 o His “auto-icon” still attends department meetings
o College students stole his mummi2ed head and partied with it
 
 
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873)
o Raised according to utilitarian ideals
o Studies poetry to restore his sanity
o Falls in love with Harriet Taylor
Utility and Quality
o Like Bentham, he was an empiricist
o Policy should be based on our experiences of pleasure and pain, not
tradition
o Mill worried that Bentham’s theory wasn’t complete
o Problem with Bentham’s Theory
o What would most people choose between reading poetry and getting
drunk while watching TV?
o What would most people vote for between money for education and tax
cuts? This life won’t make you happy in the long run!
o It lacks QUALITY
 
Benthamite
Democratic Utilitarianism
o No one pleasure is inherently better than any other
o If drunken parties make you happy, then go for it!
o Reading poetry isn’t better than watching The Bachelor, it’s
just different
 
Millsian
Elite Utilitarianism
Some pleasures are better than others
o If you party and get drunk every day, then you won’t be as
happy as you otherwise might be
o Enjoying poetry IS better than watching bad TV. And if you
disagree, it is because you don’t understand quality
Utilitarianism, 1863
o Mill’s great work on ethics
o We are made happy by “elevated” pleasures
o Pleasures can be higher or lower quality
 o Better to be Socrates dissatis2ed than a fool satis2ed
o We need to pay attention to quality, because our ability to
enjoy higher pleasure can be damaged by too much low pleasure
NATURAL LAW - Overview
All Sections
No unread replies.No replies.
Natural law (Links to an external site.) theory (Links to an external site.) is a
philosophical and legal belief that all humans are governed by basic innate laws, or
laws of nature, which are separate and distinct from laws which are legislated.
Legislated laws are sometimes referred to as “positive laws” in the framework of
natural law theory, to make a clear distinction between natural and social laws. This
theory has heavily influenced the laws and governments of many nations, including
England and the United States, and it is also reflected in publications like the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Links to an external site.).
The origins of natural law theory lie in Ancient Greece. Many Greek philosophers
discussed and codified the concept of natural law, and it played an important role
in Greek government. Later philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Thomas
Hobbes, and John Locke built on the work of the Greeks in natural law theory
treatises of their own. Many of these philosophers used natural law as a framework
for criticizing and reforming positive laws, arguing that positive laws which are
unjust under the principles of natural law are legally wanting.

NATURAL LAW
 Natural law is a system in which actions are seen as morally and
ethically correct if t accords with the end purpose of human nature and
human goals. Follows the fundamental maxim, ‘do good and avoid evil’.
 Natural law is a system in which actions are seen as morally and
ethically correct if t accords with the end purpose of human nature and
human goals. Follows the fundamental maxim, ‘do good and avoid evil’

St. Thomas Aquinas

Begins his natural law theory by differentiating human acts from acts of man.
HUMAN ACTS
Expressed proceeds from the will
ACTS OF MAN
Is an action that does not proceeds from the will.
MORAL OBJECT
 • The intention inherent in the action that one is actually performing, the
moral object specifies the human act and is the purpose that the act
accomplishes as a means to the ultimate goal of life.
• Although the moral object or finis operis is the fundamental element of the
morality of the human act, that is also the circumstance.

• CIRCUMSTANCE- Is the part of the human act that must be considered in

order to evaluate the total moral act. Can be considered in various moral
questions, thus, be might ask, ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘how much’ or ‘in what manner’.

INTENTION/MOTIVE
 Is a means towards attainment of true happiness both of a agent and
the common good.

 Aquinas designed a method known as ‘Principle of Double-Effect’. This

principle is used in order to judge the moral acceptability of the human
act that has two effects, one is good and other is evil.

Traditional Moral theology, presents four conditions for the double effect principle
to be applied:

1. The action is good in itself or at least in different.

2. The action is good in itself or at least in different.
3. The good effect must be intended.
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for the evil effect to happen

St. Thomas Aquinas

There have been various thinkers and system of thought immerging throughout
history that could be said to present a natural law. Among them, the one will be
focusing on is the medieval thinker Thomas Aquinas. It has to be recognized,
however, that this natural law theory is part of a larger project, which is Aquina’s
vision of the Christian faith. Before we turn to the natural theory.

The context of Aquinas’ ethics.

We might explore how our actions are related to certain dispositions in a dynamic way
since our actions both arise from our habits and at the same time reinforce a good
disposition and a bad disposition. the Christian life, therefore, is about developing
the capacities given us by God into a disposition of virtue inclined toward the good.
Aquinas also puts forward that there is within us a conscience that directs our moral
thinking. So, we are called to heed the voice of conscience and enjoined the develop
and maintain a life of virtue.

However, these both require content, so we need something more. Being told that the
one should heed one’s conscience or that one should try to be virtuous, does very
little to guide people as to what specifically should be done in a given situation. Thus,
there is a need for clearer basis of ethics, a ground that will more concretely direct
our sense of what is right and wrong. For Aquinas this would be the natural law.

SYNTHESIS

The idea of a transcendent good prior to all being resurfaces in Aquinas in the form o
the good and loving God, who is Himself the fullness of being good and of goodness;
as Aquinas puts it, God is that which essentially is and is essentially good.” So, we
recognized that all beings are only possible as participating in the first being, which is
God himself. God’s act, like an emanation of light, is the creation of beings.

However, while beings are good because they are created by God, the goodness
possessed by being remains imperfect. “For Aquinas, only God in the fullness of his
being and goodness is perfect; all other beings are participating in this goodness, and
are good to that extent, but are imperfect since they are limited in their
participation.

“But, once again, God did not create us to simply be imperfect and to stay that way
as He leaves us alone. Instead, God, in his infinite wisdom, direct how we are to
arrive at our perfection. The toward their proper end; this end, which is for them to
reach their highest good, is to return to the divine goodness itself.

THE ESSENCE AND VARIETIES OF LAW

As a rational beings, we have free will. Through our capacity for reason, we are able
to judge between possibilities and to choose to direct our actions in a way or the
other. Out actions are directed toward attaining ends or goods that we desire.

In thinking about what is good for us, it is also quite possible that we end up thinking
exclusively of our own good. Aquinas reminds us that this will not do; we cannot simply
act in pursuit of our own ends or good without any regard for other people’s ends or
good. We are not isolated beings, but beings belong to a community. Since we belong
to community, we have to consider what is good for the community as well as our own
good. This can be called the common good.

We have noted earlier how God, by his wisdom, is the Creator of all beings. By
saying this, we do not only recognize God as the source of these beings, but also
acknowledge the way they have been created and the way they could return it Him,
which is the work of His divine reason itself.

Aquinas writes: “He governs all the acts and movements that are to be found in each
single creature, so the type of Divine Wisdom, as moving all things to their due end,
bears the character of law.”

Eternal law refers to what God wills for creation. All things partake in eternal law,
all beings are already created by God in a certain way intended to return to Him.

IRRATIONAL CREATURES

Which is to say that they do not think of the law or chose to obey it, but are
simply, through instinctual following of their nature, complying with the law that
God has for them.

Human being’s participation is different. The human being, as rational, participates

more fully and perfectly in the law given the capacity for reason. The unique
imprint upon us, upon our human nature by God, is the capacity to think about what
is good and what is evil, and to choose and direct ourselves appropriately.

IN COMMON IN OTHER BEINGS

We have consider how we, human beings, are both unique and at the same
time participating in the community of the rest of creation. Our presence in
the rest of creation does not only mean that we interact with creatures that
are not human, but that there is also in our nature something that shares in
the nature of other beings.

IN COMMON WITH OTHER ANIMALS

Aquinas then goes on to say that there is our human nature, common with other
animals, a desire that has to do with sexual intercourse and the care of one’s
offspring. As the matter of fact, animals periodically engage in sexual intercourse
at a specific time of “heat”, and this could result an offspring. In human too, that
natural inclination to engage in the sexual act and to reproduce exists.

UNIQUELY HUMAN
After the first two inclinations, Aquinas presents a third reason which states that
we have an inclination to good according to the nature or our reason. With this, we
have an natural inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society. It is
interest that this is followed by matters of both an epistemic and a social concern.
SUMMARY LESSON
THE THEORY OF NATURAL LAW

In the history of Christian thought, the dominant theory of ethics is not the Divine
Command Theory. That honor goes to the Theory of Natural Law. This theory has
three main parts.

The Theory of Natural Law rests upon a certain view of what the world is like. On
this view, the world is a rational order with values and purposes built into its very
nature. This conception derives from the Greeks, whose way of understanding the
world dominated Western thinking for over 1,700 years. A central feature of this
conception was the idea that everything in nature has a purpose.

Aristotle incorporated this idea into his system of thought around 350 B.C. when
he said that, in order to understand anything, four questions must be asked: What
is it? What is it made of? How did it come to exist? And what is it for? (The
answers might be: This is a knife, it is made of metal, it was made by a craftsman,
and it is used for cutting.) Aristotle assumed that the last question - what is it
for? - could sensibly be asked of anything whatever. Nature, he said, belongs to
the class of causes which act for the sake of something.

It seems obvious that artifacts such as knives have purposes, because craftsmen
have a purpose in mind when they make them. But what about natural objects that
we do not make? Aristotle believed that they have purposes too. One of his
examples was that we have teeth so that we can chew. Such biological examples are
quite persuasive; each part of our bodies does seem, intuitively, to have a special
purpose - eyes are for seeing, the heart is for pumping blood, and so on. But
Aristotle’s claim was not limited to organic beings. According to him, everything
has a purpose. He thought, to take a different sort of example, that rain falls so
that plants can grow. As odd as it may seem to a modern reader, Aristotle was
perfectly serious about this. He considered other alternatives, such as that the
rain falls of necessity and that this helps the plants only by coincidence, and
rejected them.

The world, therefore, is an orderly, rational system, with each thing having its own
proper place and serving its own special purpose. There is a neat hierarchy: The
rain exists for the sake of the plants, the plants exist for the sake of the animals,
and the animals exist - of course - for the sake of people, whose well- being is the
point of the whole arrangement.

[W]e must believe, first that plants exist for the sake of animals, second that all
other animals exist for the sake of man, tame animals for the use he can make of
them as well as for the food they provide; and as for wild animals, most though not
all of these can be used for food or are useful in other ways; clothing and
instruments can be made out of them. If then we are right in believing that nature
makes nothing without some end in view, nothing to no purpose, it must be that
nature has made all things specifically for the sake of man.

This seems stunningly anthropocentric. Aristotle may be forgiven, however, when

we consider that virtually every important thinker in out history has entertained
some such thought. Humans are a remarkably vain species.

The Christian thinkers who came later found this view of the world to be perfectly
congenial. Only one thing was missing: God was needed to make the picture
complete. (Aristotle has denied that God was a necessary part of the picture. For
him, the worldview we have outlined was not religious; it was simply a description of
how things are.) Thus the Christian thinkers said that the rain falls to help the
plants because that is what the Creator intended, and the animals are for human
use because that is what God made them for. Values and purposes were, therefore,
conceived to be a fundamental part of the nature of things, because the world was
believed to have been created according to a divine plan.

A corollary of this way of thinking is that the laws of nature not only describe how
things are, they specify how things ought to be as well. Things are as they ought to
be when they are serving their natural purposes. When they do not, or cannot,
serve those purposes, things have gone wrong. Eyes that cannot see are defective,
and drought is a natural evil; the badness of both is explained by reference to
natural law. But there are also implications for human conduct. Moral rules are not
viewed as deriving from the laws of nature. Some ways of behaving are said to be
natural, while other are unnatural; and unnatural acts are said to be morally wrong.

Consider, for example, the duty of beneficence. We are morally required to be

concerned for our neighbor’s welfare as we are for our own. Why? According to
the Theory of Natural Law, beneficence is natural for us, considering the kind of
creatures we are. We are by our nature social creatures who want and need the
company of other people. It is also part of our natural makeup that we care about
others. Someone who does not care at all for others - who really does not care,
through and through - is seen as deranged, in the terms of modern psychology, a
sociopath. A malicious personality is defective, just as eyes are defective if they
cannot see. And, it may be added, this is true because we were created by God,
with a specific human nature, as part of his overall plan for the world.

The endorsement of beneficence is relatively uncontroversial. Natural law theory

has also been used, however, to support moral views that are more contentious.
Religious thinkers have traditionally condemned deviant sexual practices, and the
theoretical justification of their opposition has come more often than not from
theory of natural law. If everything has a purpose, what is the purpose of sex? The
obvious answer is procreation. Sexual activity that is not connected with making
babies can therefore be viewed as unnatural, and so such practices as masturbation
and oral sex - not to mention gay sex - can be condemned for this reason. This way
of thinking about sex dates back to at least to St. Augustine in the fourth century,
and it is explicit in the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas. The moral theology of the
Catholic Church is based on natural law theory. This line of thought lies behind its
whole sexual ethic.
Outside the Catholic Church, the Theory of Natural Law has few advocates today.
It is generally rejected for two reasons. First, it seems to involve a confusion of is
and ought. In the 18th century David Hume pointed out that what is the case and
what ought to be the case are logically different notions, and no conclusion about
one follows from the other. We can say that people are naturally disposed to be
beneficent, but it does not follow that they should be beneficent. Similarly, it may
be that sex does produce babies, but it does not follow that sex ought or ought not
to be engaged in only for that purpose. Facts are one thing; values are another. The
Theory of Natural Law seems to conflate them.

Second, the Theory of Natural Law has gone out of fashion (although that does
not, of course, prove it is false) because the view of the world on which it rests is
out of keeping with modern science. The world as described by Galileo, Newton, and
Darwin has no place for facts about right and wrong. Their explanations of natural
phenomena make no reference to values or purposes. What happens just happens,
fortuitously, in the consequence of the laws of cause and effect. If the rain
benefits the plants, it is only because the plants have evolved by the laws of
natural selection in a rainy climate.

Thus modern science gives us a picture of the world as a realm of facts, where the
only natural laws are the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, working blindly
and without purpose. Whatever values may be, they are not part of the natural
order. As for the idea that nature has made all things specifically for the sake of
man, that is only human vanity. To the extent that one accepts the worldview of
modern science, then, one will be skeptical of the Theory of Natural Law. It is no
accident that the theory was a product, not of modern thought, but of the Middle
Ages.

The third part of the theory addresses the question of moral knowledge. How are
we to go about determining what is right and what is wrong? The Divine Command
Theory says that we must consult God’s commandments. The Theory of Natural Law
gives a different answer. The natural laws that specify what we should do are laws
of reason, which we are able to grasp because God, the author of the natural
order, has made us rational beings with the power to understand that order.
Therefore, the Theory of Natural Law endorses the familiar idea that the right
thing to do is whatever course of conduct has the best reasons on its side. To use
the traditional terminology, moral judgments are dictates of reason. St. Thomas
Aquinas, the greatest of the natural-law theorists, wrote in his masterpiece the
Summa Theologica that To disparage the dictate of reason is equivalent to
condemning the command of God.
This means that the religious believer has no special access to moral truth. The
believer and the nonbeliever are in the same position. God has given both the same
powers of reasoning; and so believer and nonbeliever alike may listen to reason and
follow its directives. They function as moral agents in the same way, even though
the nonbelievers lack of faith prevents them from realizing that God is the author
of the rational order in which they participate and which their moral judgments
express.

In an important sense, this leaves morality independent of religion. Religious belief

does not affect the calculation of what is best, and the results of moral inquiry are
religiously neutral. In this way, even though they may disagree about religion,
believers and nonbelievers inhabit the same moral universe.

Natural Law

What is natural law? ‘Natural’ because the goals and the major values human beings
seek are innate, that is, they are from the nature and are not selected freely by
individual persons or communities. Since human nature does not change, the basic
goals are constant and basic morality does not change. It is considered ‘law’
because by reasoning about the innate goals and values we can determine actions,
which is oftentimes expressed in norms or laws that enables the person to achieve
their goals.

Natural Law is a system in which actions are seen as morally or ethically correct if
it accords with the end purpose of human nature and human goals. Natural Law
follows the fundamental maxim, ‘do good and avoid evil’. A follower of natural law
contends that God is the creator. They believed that God’s law is reflected in
nature and in His creation. So by following man’s heart therefore they can
recognized the law of God.
The natural law method of seeking moral norms and evaluating human acts has a
long history in the catholic community. On the other hand, it is closely associated
to St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas begins his natural law theory by differentiating
human acts from acts of man. Human acts as Aquinas expressed proceeds from the
will and the act of man is an action that does not proceeds from the will. It is only
the human act that is being determined as moral or immoral because its origin is
the exercise of the will. The morality of the human act depends primarily on the
‘object’ rationally chosen by the deliberate will (John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor,
1993). The moral object can be described as the intention inherent in the action
that one is actually performing, the moral object specifies the human act and is
the purpose that the act accomplishes as a means to the ultimate goal of life. For
example, ‘If I gave money to the poor, I am performing an act of charity, a human
act judged by its moral object or the intention inherent in the act. Although the
moral object or finis operis is the fundamental element of the morality of the
human act, there is also the circumstance. Circumstance is a part of the human act
that must be considered in order to evaluate the total moral act (Summa
Theologica, 1947, I-II, q. 18, a. 3). Circumstance can be considered in various
moral questions, thus, we might ask, ‘who’, ‘when’, ‘how much’ or ‘in what manner’.
Example, a physician who injects a debilitated patient with a fate dose drugs to
end his suffering. The moral object of the act (what actually the physician intends
to do) is to kill the patient and it is this intention that makes the physical act of
the injection a moral evil. The circumstance of the physician’s act, e.g., time, place,
and condition of the patient cannot make this act good. Finally, the ultimate reason
that determines the moral act is the intention. Intention/motive is a means
towards the attainment of true happiness both of the agent and the common good.
Thus, in the example, killing an innocent person to help relieve pain cannot be
justified. That is why as Ashley and O’Rouke said, ‘we may not do evil for good to
come out of it’ (Originally is taken from Rom. 3:8, Ashley, OP and O’Rouke OP,
2001).

The presentation at hand speaks about the norms of moral act, however, if given a
situation or alternative wherein there is the conflicting issues as to what course of
action will prevail, Aquinas designed a method known as ‘Principle of Double-Effect’.
This principle is used in order to judge the moral acceptability of the human act
that has two effects, one is good and the other is evil. Traditional Moral theology,
presents four conditions for the double effect principle to be applied:

The action is good in itself or at least indifferent.

The good effect must come first before the evil effect or a least simultaneously.
The good effect must be intended.
There must be a proportionately grave reason for the evil effect to happen.
The application of the principle of double effect emphasized that the good effect
is really and honestly the one that is intended, instead of the evil one. For
example, a nurse is treating pneumonia to a patient with terminal cancer. In
prescribing medication, one may possibly claim that his/her intention is to treat
the pneumonia but it is possible as well that in one’s mind it would also be good so
that death could be hastened and the patient would not be in pain and prolonged
suffering for a longer period of time. In this example, it is required that the
purity of ones internal action of consent or intention must be intended.

Situations by which the principle of double-effect can be seen and applied and is
not limited to it: pain, restlessness, delirious, uncontrolled seizures and depression
caused by illness. Some of the treatment may have an adverse and untoward effect
that it is not intended. Example, the use of marijuana to control a certain pain and
wasting; the euphoric effects are the primary intention even if the undesired
effects are permitted. Another one is applying sedition to a very restless and
delirious patient (as in rabies) it may require dangerous drugs or even anesthesia
even if these will shorten the life of the patient. It is to be remembered here,
that the primary purpose of the health care provider is to provide comfort and
ease suffering. Indeed, good intention demands impartiality and absence of
conflict of interest. Though, this is not always possible, still, decision-making at
the end must recognize the individual conscience that requires prudence of action.
Prudence, as Aquinas said, ‘is right reason in action’.

DEONTOLOGICAL THEORY - OVERVIEW

In contrast to consequentialist theories, deontological theories judge the morality
of choices by criteria different from the states of affairs those choices bring
about. The most familiar forms of deontology, and also the forms presenting the
greatest contrast to consequentialism, hold that some choices cannot be justified
by their effects—that no matter how morally good their consequences, some
choices are morally forbidden. On such familiar deontological accounts of morality,
agents cannot make certain wrongful choices even if by doing so the number of
those exact kinds of wrongful choices will be minimized (because other agents will
be prevented from engaging in similar wrongful choices). For such deontologists,
what makes a choice right is its conformity with a moral norm. Such norms are to
be simply obeyed by each moral agent; such norm-keepings are not to be maximized
by each agent. In this sense, for such deontologists, the Right is said to have
priority over the Good. If an act is not in accord with the Right, it may not be
undertaken, no matter the Good that it might produce (including even a Good
consisting of acts in accordance with the Right).

DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS

Introduction

The term deontology comes from the Greek word deon, meaning duty. The theory
of deontology states we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain
set of principles and rules regardless of outcome. In religious deontology, the
principles derive from divine commandment so that under religious laws, we are
morally obligated not to steal, lie, or cheat. Thus, deontological theories and duties
have existed for many centuries. Immanuel Kant, the theory’s celebrated
proponent, formulated the most influential form of a secular deontological moral
theory in 1788. Unlike religious deontological theories, the rules (or maxims) in
Kant’s deontological theory derive from human reason.

To better understand deontology, compare it to some opposing theories, such as

utilitarianism, which says we have an obligation to take the course of action that
achieves the most positive outcome or consequence. According the theory of
utility, the best consequence is happiness/pleasure, because it is considered the
absolute good. Consequentialism tells us we need to take into account the final
consequence of our action, even if the act itself is not morally good.

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was born in 1724 in the Prussian city of Königsberg. He essentially
spent his whole adult life at the university and never truly travelled outside of the
city. He only stopped working at the university three years before his death. He
was a philosopher and scientist specializing in many areas, including mathematics,
astrophysics, geography and anthropology. He wrote several dense, difficult-to-
read but highly influential texts regarding metaphysics, metaethics and practical
morality, science, history and politics. He was the first recorded scholar to
suggest that some of the faint nebulae visible with a telescope are actually
separate universes in the sky.

As with many scholars of his time, Kant’s new ideas and published works about the
nature of reality and free will were widely condemned, but they have remained
prominently influential to this day. In terms of ethics, the most significant of his
works are Groundwork in the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Critique of Practical
Reason (1788), and Metaphysics of Morals (1798). These texts constitute the
foundation of Kant’s own moral philosophy.

Deontological theories differ from utilitarian theories in several key ways. The
most notable difference is utilitarianism aims at a goal of greatest happiness (or
the best consequence) and justifies any act that achieves that goal. Deontological
theories hold that some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an
admirable outcome. Actions in deontology are always judged independently of their
outcome. An act can be morally bad but may unintentionally lead to a favorable
outcome.

Kant is responsible for the most prominent and well-known form of deontological
ethics. Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the human being as having the
unique capacity for rationality. No other animal possesses such a propensity for
reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability that requires human
beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law or duty. Kant
believes human inclinations, emotions and consequences should play no role in moral
action; therefore, the motivation behind an action must be based on obligation and
well thought out before the action takes place. Morality should, in theory, provide
people with a framework of rational rules that guide and prevent certain actions
and are independent of personal intentions and desires.

According to Kant, the moral worth of an action is determined by the human will,
which is the only thing in the world that can be considered good without
qualification. Good will is exercised by acting according to moral duty/law. Moral
law consists of a set of maxims, which are categorical in nature – we are bound by
duty to act in accordance with categorical imperatives.

Categorical Imperatives

There are three formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative.

The First Formulation of the Imperative

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
should become a universal law without contradiction.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork
of Metaphysic of Morals

Kant states that a true moral proposition must not be tied to any particular
conditions, including the identity of the person making the decision. A moral maxim
must be disconnected from the particular physical details surrounding its
proposition and should be applicable to any rational being. According to Kant, we
first have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that result in logical contradictions.

Second, we have imperfect duties, which are still based on pure reason but allow
for interpretation regarding how they are performed. Because these duties depend
loosely on the subjective preferences of mankind, they are not as strong as
perfect duties but are still morally binding. Unlike perfect duties, people do not
attract blame if they do not complete an imperfect duty, but they receive praise if
they complete it, for they have gone beyond basic duty and taken responsibility
upon themselves. Imperfect duties are circumstantial, meaning that one can not
reasonably exist in a constant state of performing that duty. What differentiates
perfect and imperfect duties is that imperfect duties are never truly completed.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative appears similar to the Golden
Rule: “Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” Kant’s first
categorical imperative sounds like a paraphrase of the Golden Rule. However, the
Golden Rule is neither purely formal nor universally binding. It is empirical in the
sense that applying it requires context; for example, if you don’t want others to hit
you, then don’t hit them. Also, it is a hypothetical imperative in the sense that it
can be formulated, and its “if-then” relationship is open for dispute.

The Second Formulation of the Imperative

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the
person of any other, never merely as a means to an end but always at the same time
as an end.” – Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

This imperative states that every rational action must be considered not only a
principle, but also an end. Most ends are subjective in nature because they need
only be pursued if they are in line with a hypothetical imperative. (A hypothetical
imperative is a demand of reason that is conditional. It tells us how to act to
achieve a specific goal e.g. I must drink when I need to slake my thirst.)

For an end to be objective, it would need to be pursued categorically. The free will
is the source of all rational action. Because the autonomous will is the one and only
source of moral action, it contradicts the first formulation of the categorical
imperative to claim that a person is merely a means to some other end instead of
an end in him or herself.

Based on this, Kant derives the second formulation from the first. A person has a
perfect duty not to use themselves or others merely as a means to some other end.
For example, someone who owns slaves would be asserting a moral right to own a
slave by asserting their rights over another person. However, this reasoning
violates the categorical imperative because it denies the basis for free rational
action and disregards the person as an end in themselves. In Kantian ethics, one
cannot treat another person as a means to an end. Under the second formulation of
the categorical imperative, a person must maintain her moral duty to seek an end
that is equal for all people.

The Third Formulation of the Imperative

“Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim
always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” – Immanuel Kant,
Groundwork of Metaphysic of Morals

A truly autonomous will is not subjugated to any interest; it is subject to those

laws it makes for itself, but the will must also regard those laws as if others are
bound by the laws. If the laws are not universal, they are not laws of conduct at all.
Kant suggests that people treat themselves and others always as ends and never
merely as means. People ought to act only by maxims that harmonize with a possible
kingdom of ends. We have a perfect duty not to act by maxims that create
incoherent or impossible states of natural affairs when we attempt to universalize
them, and we have an imperfect duty not to act by maxims that lead to unstable or
greatly undesirable states of affairs for all parties involved.

Using reasoned judgment we can apply this formula to any maxim and discover
whether it is morally permissible under deontological ethics. Let’s take, for
example, the act of picking flowers from the local park. The flowers are very
pretty, and one may want to take some home. Essentially, this requires adopting a
maxim that supports doing whatever one wants to do. Using the formula of the
universal law (categorical imperative), there are a few irrationalities and
contradictions that arise from the adoption of such a maxim as law. If everyone
were to do this, there would be no flowers left in the park, and the act contradicts
the original motive for picking the flowers. The better option is to go to a shop and
order or plant one’s own flowers.
There are a few acts that are always forbidden, such as lying, which negatively
affects trust between people and the meaning of truth. This rule remains the case
even when lying has advantageous or even morally admirable consequences. Imagine
a psychotic criminal wants to kill your colleague, who fired the psychotic. If you lie
about the whereabouts of your colleague, then an innocent life will be saved. It
seems moral duty forbids you from lying. However, a higher moral duty trumps the
duty not to lie. That is, the obligation not to kill or help others in killing, is a higher
moral duty that we should follow.

Alternative Formulation of Categorical Imperative

Kant expressed the categorical imperative in a few different ways. The most
important of these is the formula of humanity: “Act in such a way that you treat
humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the
same time as an end and never simply as a means.”

This is a personal perspective on the same moral theory. To fail to do this would be
to treat others in a way that contradicts the moral law. For example, if I steal a
book from a friend, I am treating him as a means only (to obtain a book). If I ask
to have his book, I am respecting his right to say no and am thereby treating him
as an end in himself, not as a means to an end. If I only ask for the book in order
to appear nice and hope that my friend is likely to do more things for me in the
future, then I am still treating him as a means only. It is true that everyone uses
people as a means to an end. Bus/taxi-drivers get us where we want to go; factory
workers are the means to producing objects and ultimately profit for their
employer. But using people only to get what we want and consistently disrespecting
their human worth is against moral law. An example of this would be a factory
owner providing unsafe working conditions, such as Foxconn in China or factories in
countries that impose inhumane working conditions and pay less than minimum wage.

Criticisms

One of the biggest criticisms of Kantian ethics is that it discounts outcome as a

valid factor in evaluating the morality of an action. While it is not necessarily wise
to rely solely on outcome (as in utilitarianism/consequentialism), it is not a good
idea to completely ignore the outcome altogether. Based on Kant’s formula of
humanity, human life is sacred and inviolable, meaning one cannot enslave a few
people even if it would enable more people to lead better lives. Killing one person to
save the lives of millions is impermissible in Kantian ethics.

At times Kantian moral duty seems to contradict our natural inclinations and
common sense. If we obey the moral law rather than our intuitions, we are acting
morally. Deontological ethics is weaker when it comes to informing us how to live
well or developing virtues of character.
Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is a philosophy developed by Aristotle and other ancient Greeks. It is

the quest to understand and live a life of moral character.

This character-based approach to morality assumes that we acquire virtue through

practice. By practicing being honest, brave, just, generous, and so on, a person
develops an honorable and moral character. According to Aristotle, by honing
virtuous habits, people will likely make the right choice when faced with ethical
challenges.

To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark
White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the
opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse
killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes.
Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s
wrong to kill. But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who
kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’
lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t.

So, virtue ethics helps us understand what it means to be a virtuous human being.
And, it gives us a guide for living life without giving us specific rules for resolving
ethical dilemmas.
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 Consequentialist and 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 eclipse
during 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.
Virtue ethics was derived from or is closely associated to Aristotle’s
Nichomachean Ethics. The term virtue comes from the latin word ‘virtus’ which
means manhood or perhaps ‘worth’. Thus, the worth of any action of man is based
from virtue instead from duty or consequence, it does not posit a question, ‘what
shall I do or perhaps what rule I ought to follow?’ Rather, how should I carry out
my life if I am to live well?’ The emphasis therefore is on what an individual can do
to produce the sort of character that instinctively does the right thing. Thus,
virtue ethics holds that it is not only important to do the right thing but equally
one must have the right disposition, motivation, and traits for being good and doing
right. Consider for example, a head nurse who meets her moral obligations simply
because it is her obligations, the head nurse detest her functions and hates having
to spend time with every patient and with her colleagues who come through the
door of her office. She cared not of being of service to the people that so demand
according to what she sworn before the public as a public servant. All she wants is
simply to follow the rules and duties that was given to her by virtue of having the
position, although the nurse does not violate the rules and does not act immorally
from the point of view of ‘duty’ however, something in her character is defective
morally. What is absent from the nurse is the ideal character of admirable
compassion and dedication guiding the lives of her colleagues and the many health
professionals, who simply merely end to rule-following behavior.

Perhaps virtue ethics is a supplement to duty-oriented theory and consequence-

oriented theory. It reminds specifically the health practitioners, like, the nurse to
emphasize the virtue that is found in each and that it is important as in the ability
to reason to a correct answer.

Advantage of virtue ethics

It creates to have a virtuous person who does not only follow rules or achieve good
consequences of actions.
It unifies reason and emotion because it attempts to establish a proper disposition
not only to act in certain ways but also to feel in certain ways.
Virtue ethics emphasizes ‘moderation’, that is, between excess and deficiency.

SUMMARY
 Aristotle virtue ethics starts with recognizing that is the ultimate purpose or
telos of a person. As the ultimate purpose, happiness is deemed as the final and
self-sufficient end of a person. It is by realizing the highest goal of a person that
she achieves happiness that is also considered as the greatest good. Attaining
happiness is arrived at when she performs her function, which is to act in
accordance to reason in an outstanding manner. It is in doing her function well that
virtue, excellence, or arete is realized.

To carry out the task of performing her function well, person has to
understand the structure of the soul where her reason will operate. Aristotle
shows that human soul is divided into the irrational and rational faculties. The
vegetative aspect of the irrational part of the soul cannot be directed by reason
because it does the natural processes of the soul that are responsible for the
physical growth. The appetitive aspect of the irrational part of the soul, on the
other hand, is driven by impulses which are, in general, contrary to reason but can
be acted out obeying the dictates of reason. Therefore, reason can manage the
appetitive aspect, and impulses can be handled well by reason.

The rational faculty of the soul is the part where excellence can be attained.
Part of the rational faculty of the soul is the intellectual aspect concerned with
the act of knowing. Excellence on this faculty is achieved through learning. One
learns well that is why she gains philosophical and practical wisdom. Philosophical
wisdom is the knowledge of the general principles that constitute reality, while
practical wisdom is the knowledge of determining the appropriates action in a given
situation. One can learn from experience and therefore can gain sufficient
understanding on what to do.

Aristotle points out that having intellectual excellence does not make one
into a morally good person. Knowing the good and being able to determine the
appropriate action in a given situation do not make her do the good automatically.
Practical wisdom, as such, is still in the realm of the intellectual aspect of the soul.
The moral aspect of the rational faculty concerns itself with the act of doing the
good. She becomes virtuous or excellent in doing the good by habitual performance.
To be a morally virtuous individual is a constant carrying out of the act of
goodness. The unethical person, on the other hand, is someone who habitually
performs bad deeds. This habitual action for Aristotle is what forms the character
of the person. Her identity is associated with accomplishing the good or bad action.
Virtue ethics is concerned primarily with the task of developing a good character.

Aristotle sees the development of one’s character as the constant

interaction between the faculties of the rational part of the soul. Practical wisdom
is deemed as a necessary ingredient in guiding the moral faculty in doing the
appropriate action. Practical wisdom identifies the right action and the moral
faculty aptly executes it. What practical wisdom identifies as the right action
according to Aristotle is the mesotes or the middle measure of an action, feeling,
or passion. The middle is always in between an action., feeling, or passion that is
deficient or excessive. Nothing is lacking or is too much from an act that is morally
good. For Aristotle, virtue is the good in between vices.

To sum up, moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a “state of character”

which 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
maturity of the character of the person. Building a good character is a task and
responsibility of every person.

 VIRTUE ETHICS
From Aristotle to the 21st century
 Virtue Ethics:
The goal of life is well-being (happiness) and the means to attain it is
by acquiring a virtuous character.
 It is the ethical framework that is concerned with understanding
the good as a matter of developing the virtuous character of a
person.
 Virtue ethics, on the other hand, focuses on the formation of
one’s character brought about by determining and doing virtuous
acts.
  Virtue ethics was derived from or is closely associated to
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. The term virtue comes from the
latin word ‘virtus’ which means manhood or perhaps ‘worth’. Thus,
the word of any action of man is based from virtue instead from
duty or consequence, it does not posit a question, ‘what shall I do
or perhaps what rule I ought to follow?’ Rather, how should I
carry out my life if I am to live well?’ The emphasis therefore is
on what an individual can do to produce the sort of character that
instinctively does the right thing. Thus, virtue ethics holds that
it is not only important to do the right thing but equally one must
have the right disposition, motivation, and traits for being good
and doing right.

Origins of Virtue Ethics:

 The theory of virtue ethics originates in Ancient Greece, though
some connections can be drawn as far back as Ancient China.
 In Greek, virtue (arête) means ‘excellence’.
 Socrates once claimed: “it’s the greatest good for a man to discuss
virtue all day … on the grounds that the unexamined life is not
worth living” (The Apology).
Virtue and happiness
 For Greeks (and all subsequent virtue theories), the goal of action
is the ultimate human good: happiness (eudaimonia).
 Human happiness is to be understood as the highest achievement
of what it means to be human, of the human essence. It is a kind
of flourishing, health, or well-being of the soul or mind.
 While happiness seems to be subjective, the idea of human
flourishing implies an objective notion of happiness. (Think of it on
analogy with health.)
 Virtue makes a person good, or excellent, and so it is the means by
which we acquire happiness.
Socrates/Plato’s theory of virtue
 Virtue is supposed to be a kind of knowledge;
 It is identified with wisdom (sophia);
 Wisdom is both necessary and sufficient for virtue;
 Knowledge about virtue is somehow analogous to mathematical
knowledge;
 Both kinds of knowledge are the result of a self-reflective process
called ‘recollection’.
A Problem of Knowledge:
 Since virtue concerns action, it is possible to act well without
knowing how to act well;
 As long as someone has the right belief about which actions are
good, he or she will act virtuously;
 But belief without knowledge is unstable and fleeting;
 This is why it is necessary to have, not just true belief, but
knowledge, which is justified true belief.
Practical Wisdom or Prudence
 With Aristotle, we distinguish the kind of wisdom necessary for
ethical action from wisdom in the sciences.
 The wisdom necessary for action is “practical wisdom” (phronêsis)
or good moral judgment. Aquinas calls this “prudence” (prudentia).
 Judgment applies to a range of different situations, which is why
it requires experience to acquire.
 Good judgment enables a person to make the right sort of decision
in the right kind of circumstances at the right time.
Intellectual and Moral Virtues
 Aristotle and Aquinas distinguish between intellectual and moral
virtues:
◦ Intellectual virtues can be taught formally. They involve
knowledge and understanding of causes and ends (the why and
how).
 Examples: theoretical wisdom, scientific knowledge, insight
or understanding, technical skill or art, and practical wisdom.
 ◦ Moral virtues can only be acquired through practice and
experience. They involve acquiring habits of character and have
to do with the appropriate management of emotions.
 Examples: temperance or moderation, justice, courage or
fortitude, generosity, friendliness, wittiness, truthfulness,
etc.

Virtue and Character

 To be virtuous is to have a virtuous character.
 Character is an engrained habit or disposition to act in certain
ways.
 Virtuous action must come from a virtuous character (as opposed
to some external force).
 The virtuous person wants to act virtuously and does so for that
reason.
Character continued:
 Dispositions or character traits are to be understood broadly, so
that a virtuous person is virtuous in many different situations.
 For example, an honest person not only tells the truth, but doesn’t
cheat, respects contracts, obeys the laws, and doesn’t
misrepresent him/herself.
 And the honest person does this because he or she prefers to be
honest, not because he/she wants to avoid some bad consequence.
 For this reason, it is unwise to attribute a virtue to someone on
the basis of one or a few actions.
Habit: how to acquire virtue
 With respect to the moral virtues, Aristotle thinks we “learn by
doing”.
 Virtue requires discipline and practice.
 Repeated virtuous actions help to engrain the character traits or
dispositions that make a person virtuous.
 Making virtuous decisions requires good moral judgment (reason),
so there is an essential, rational component as well.
An analogy:
 One of the easiest ways to think of how to acquire moral
character is by comparing it to skills like the ability to play a sport
or a musical instrument.
 A person who practices hard and trains her body acquires the
skills to be able to do that skill well.
 The skilled athlete or musician is also the one who is better able to
practice, reinforcing her skill.
 The skilled athlete or musician actually physically changes his or
her body through repetitious actions.
 In the same way, the virtuous person finds it easier to act
virtuously; she actually changes her physical and emotional
characteristics.
Character and the Will
 Aquinas emphasizes the importance of will in his account of the
moral virtues.
 For Aquinas, even if a person has the right characteristics and is
inclined by nature to do the right thing, that person still has a
choice either to follow commands of reason or not.
 The individual, human will is right when it conforms to divine will.
 Divine will is the ultimate lawgiver: God ordained right and wrong,
good and bad, when God created the world. So, failure to conform
to God’s will is to violate the natural law.
Supernatural Grace and Beatific Vision
 Aquinas recognizes Aristotle’s idea that virtue leads to happiness,
but he sees this as an imperfect, natural, or human form of
happiness.
 Complete and perfect happiness is not to be found in this life, for
Aquinas. It is the beatific vision: complete intellectual union with
the divine (seeing God in God’s essence).
 This sort of blessed happiness is impossible as long as our intellect
is embodied and operates through the senses (since God’s true
essence is not perceivable by the senses.)
  Additionally, human beings are unable to obtain this perfection
without the grace of God. So, this ultimate end or purpose of
humanity is supernatural, it requires divine intervention.
Review:
 Virtue ethics is the theory that moral goods involve acquiring a
virtuous character.
 Virtues are either moral or intellectual.
 Moral virtues involve acquiring a character through practice, by
engraining habits or dispositions to act well.
 Making good choices, practicing good habits, and acting well all
involve good moral judgment (the application of reason to changing,
practical situations).
 Good moral judgment, good actions, and a good character
ultimately make a person happy. They lead to the well-being of the
soul.

Why Should I Be Moral?

Because of My Character!

Aristotle’s Ethics 384-322 B.C.

Aristotle was born in Macedonia and studied philosophy under Plato in
Athens. He was considered to be the brightest among Plato’s students
in the former’s school, the Academy. He later founded his own school,
Lyceum, where he became a very productive intellectual, having
written numerous works on different topics. Such as the theoretical
and practical sciences, and logic. He was also known to be the tutor of
Alexander the Great who tried to conquer the world. Aristotle’s
Nicomachean Ethics is his major work in moral philosophy.
For Plato, the real is outside the realm for any human sensory
experience but can somehow be grasped by one’s intellect. The truth
and, ultimately, the good are in the sphere of forms or ideas
transcending daily human condition. On the other hand, for Aristotle
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
form the object and are not independent of our experience.
When one speaks of the truth, for example, how beautiful Juan
Luna’s Spoliarium is, she cannot discuss its beauty separately from the
particular painting itself. Same is true with understanding the good:
the particular act of goodness that one does in the world is more
important that any conception of the good that is outside and beyond
the realm of experience. One sees the ethical theory of Aristotle as
engaging the good in our day-to-day living.
 The Nicomachean Ethics
Two Kinds of Persons
◦ Continent:
 Do what is right, but not necessarily because they want to
◦ Temperate:
 Do what is right because they want to; the more holistic
person
According to Aristotle, older individuals would agree that the
highest purpose and the ultimate good of man is happiness, or
for the Greeks, Eudaimonia.
The Goal of Human Existence
Eudaimonia
Flourishing, Happiness
A Lifelong Pursuit, accomplished
◦ Rationally, through theoretical wisdom and contemplation
◦ Functionally, through practical wisdom and politics

The Goal of Human Existence & Eudaimonia

 Aimed at the “perfect happiness” which is the perfect activity
 An excellence in any activity in accordance with the nature of that
activity
 Thus, “Human happiness is the activity of the soul in accordance
with perfect virtue (excellence)”. (I.8; Pojman, 394).
 According to Aristotle, if an individual’s action can achieved the
highest good , then one must investigate how she functions which
enables her to achieved her ultimate purpose. If she performs her
function well, then she is capable of arriving at happiness.

Now, 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, but
honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for
themselves (for if nothing resulted form them we should still choose
each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the
other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor in general, for
anything other than itself.
Happiness for Aristotle is the only self-sufficient aim that one can
aspire for. No amount of wealth or power can be more fulfilling than
having achieved the condition of happiness. One can imagine a life of
being wealthy, powerful, and experiencing pleasurable feelings and
yet, such life is still not satisfying without happiness. Once happiness
is achieved, things such as wealth, power, and pleasurable feelings just
give value-added benefits in life. The true measure of well-being for
Aristotle is not by means of richness of fame but by the condition of
having attained a happy life.

What defines human beings is her function or activity of reason?

Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is
peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life nutrition and
growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but is also seems to
be common even to the horse, the ox, and other animals. There
remains, then an activie life of the element that has a rational
principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being
obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and
exercising thought.
What defines a person therefore is her function or activity of reason.
A person’s action to be considered as truly human must be an act that
is always in accordance to reason. The function of human being is to
act following the dictates of her reason. Any person for that matter
utilizes her reason but Aristotle further says that a person cannot
only perform her function but she can also perform it well.
The local says “Madaling maging tao, mahirap magpakatao”
It can be understood in the light of Aristotle’s thought on the
function of a good person. Any human being can perform the activityof
reason; thus, being human is achievable. However, a good human being
strives hard in doing an activity in an excellent way. Therefore, the
task of being human becomes more difficult because doing such
activity well takes more effort on the part of the person.
VItue as excellence
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 arête
by the Greeks. Aristotle is quick to add that is virtue is something
that one strives for in time. One does not become an excellent person
overnight.
“For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so
too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy”
Aristotle says that excellence is an activity of the human soul and
therefore, one needs to understand the very structure of a person’s
soul which must be directed be her rational activity in an excellent
way. For Aristotle, the human soul is divided into two parts; the
Irrational element and the rational faculty.
Irrational Element
(this part of man is not in the realm where virtue is exercised
because, as the term suggests, it cannot be dictated by reason)
Vegetative soul
-the vegetative aspect functions as giving nutrition and providing the
activity of physical growth in a person
-the vegetative aspect of the soul follows the natural processes
involved in the physical activities and growth of a person.
Appetitive soul
-it works as a desiring faculty of man.
-the act of desiring in itself is an impulse that naturally runs counter
to reasons and most of the time refuses to go along with reason.
Rational Faculty
Knows what is right and wrong
Moral
-concern the act of doing
Intellectual
- Concern the act of knowing

One rational aspect where a person can attain excellence is in the

intellectual faculty of the soul. As stated by Aristotle, this excellence
is attained through teaching. Through time, one learns form 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 by which one can attain intellectual excellence:
Philosophic wisdom Practical wisdom
It deals with attaining knowledge It is an excellence in knowing the
about the fundamental principles right conduct in carrying out a
and truths that govern the particular act.
universe.It helps one understand One can attain a wisdom that can
in general the meaning of life. provide us with a guide on how to
behave in our daily lives.

Although the condition of being excellent can be attained by a person

through the intellectual aspect of the soul, this situation does not
make her into a morally good individual. However, Aristotle suggest
that although the rational functions of a person (moral and
intellectual) are distinct from each other, it is necessary for human to
attain the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom in order to
accomplish a morally virtuous act.

In carrying out a morally virtuous life, one needs the intellectual guide
of practical wisdom in steering the self toward the right choices and
actions. Aristotle is careful in making a sharp distinction between
moral and intellectual virtue.
In itself, having practical wisdom or the excellence in knowing
what to act upon does not make someone already morally virtuous.
Knowing the good is different from determining and acting in what is
good. But a morally good person has to achieve the intellectual virtue
of practical wisdom to perform the task of being moral.
This distinction draws a sharp contrast between Aristotle’s
understanding of the dynamics of knowledge and action from that of
Socrates’s view that knowledge already contains the ability of choice
or action
This is why some say that all the virtues are forms of practical
wisdom and why Socrates, in one aspect, was on the right track while
in another, he went astray; in thinking that all the virtues were forms
of practical wisdom, he was wrong, but in saying they implied practical
wisdom, he was right. This is confirmed by the fact that even now, all
men, when they define virtue, after naming the state of character and
its object, add “that (state) which is in accordance with the right
rule”; now the right is that which is in accordance with practical
wisdom. All men, seem somehow to divine that this kind of state is
virtue, viz, that which is in accordance with practical wisdom.
It seems that for Socrates, moral goodness is already within the
realm of intellectual excellence. Knowing the good implies the ability
to perform morally virtuous acts. For Aristotle, however, having
intellectual excellence does not necessarily mean that one already has
the capacity of doing the good. Knowing the good that needs to be
done is different from doing the good that one needs to accomplish.
 Therefore, rational faculty of a person tells us that she is
capable of achieving two kinds of virtue moral and intellectual. In
discussing moral virtue, Aristotle says that it is attained by means of
habit. A morally virtuous man for Aristotle is someone who habitually
determines the good and does the right actions. Moral virtue is
acquired through habit. Being morally good is a process of getting
used to doing the proper act. The saying “practice makes perfect” can
be applied to this aspect of a person. Therefore, for Aristotle, a
person is not initially good by nature.
Moral Virtue and Mesotes
Developing a practical wisdom involves learning from experiences.
Knowing the right thing to do when one is confronted by a choice is not
easy.
Knowledge is not inherent to a person
One needs to develop this knowledge by exercising the faculty of
practical reason in her daily life. In attaining practical wisdom, she may
initially make mistakes on how reason is applied to a particular moral
choice or action. But through these mistakes, she will be able to sustain
practical wisdom to help steer another’s ability to know morally right
choices and action. In other words, she is able to mature and grow in
her capacity on knowing what to do and living a morally upright life.
This is why when it comes to life choices, one can seek the advice of
elders in the community, those who gained rich life experiences and
practical wisdom, because they would be able to assist someone’s moral
deliberation. Parents can advice their children how to behave in front
of family members and relatives. Senior members of the community
like priests, counsellors, and leaders may also guide the young members
on how relationships with others are fostered.
Based on Aristotle, a morally virtuous person is person is
concerned with achieving her appropriate action in a manner that is
neither excessive nor deficient. In other words, virtue is the middle or
the intermediary point in between extremes. One has to function in a
state that her personality manifest the right amount of feelings,
passions, and ability for a particular act. Generally, feelings and
passions are neutral which means that, in themselves, they are neither
morally right nor wrong. When one shows a feeling of anger, we cannot
immediately construe it as morally wrong act. But the rightness or
wrongness of feelings, passions, and abilities lies in the degree of their
application in a given situation. It is right to get angry at an offensive
remark but it is not right to get angry at everyone just because you
were offended by someone. One can be excessive in the manner by
which she manifest these feelings, passions, and abilities. But can also
be deficient in the way she express these
A morally virtuous person targets the mesotes. For Aristotle, the
task of targeting the mean is always difficult because every situation
is different from one another. Thus, the mesotes is constantly moving
depending on the circumstance where she is in. The mean is not the
same for all individuals. As pointed out by Aristotle , the mean is simply
an arithmetical proportion. Therefore, the task of being moral involves
seriously looking into and understanding a situation and assessing
properly every particular detail relevant to the determination of the
mean. One can be angry with someone, but the degree and state of
anger depends accordingly with the nature of the person she is angry
with. The aid of reason dictates how humans should show different
anger toward a child and a mature individual. Mesotes determines
whether the act applied is not excessive or deficient. Likewise, an
individual cannot be good at doing something haphazardly but reason
demands a continuous habituation of a skill to perfect an act. Targeting
the middle entails being immersed in a moral circumstance,
understanding the experience, and eventually, developing the knowledge
of identifying the proper way or the mean to address a particular
situation.
Moral virtue is firstly the condition arrived at by a person who
has a character identified out of her habitual exercise of particular
actions. One’s character is seen as a growth in terms of the continuous
preference of the good. Secondly, in moral virtue, the action done that
normally manifest feelings and passions is chosen because it is the
middle. The middle does not fail short or is exercise of the proper
proportion by which these feelings or passion should be expressed.
Aristotle adds that the middle is relative to us. This does not imply
that mesotes totally depends in what the person identifies as the
middle. Such case would signify that Aristotle adheres to relativism.
But Aristotle’s middle is not relative to the person but to the situation
and the circumstance that once is in. This means that in choosing the
middle o
Excess Middle Deficiency

Impulsiveness Self-control Indecisiveness

“they act on instinct, without “the ability to control “not settling an issue.”
thinking decisions through” oneself, in particular
one's emotions and
desires or the expression
of them in one's
behavior, especially in
difficult situations.”
Recklessness Courage Cowardice
“lack of regard for the danger “the ability to do “lack of bravery”
or consequences of one's something that frightens
actions; rashness.” one.”

Prodigality Liberality Meanness

“Extravagant spending” “the quality of giving or “unkindness, spitefulness, or unf
spending freely.”

HAPPINESS AND ULTIMATE PURPOSE

Aristotle begins his discussion of ethics by showing that every act
that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose, aim, of
what the Greeks called telos. There is a purpose why one does
 something, and for Aristotle, a person’s action manifest a good
that she aspires for. Every pursuit of a person of a hopes to
achieve a good. One eats for the purpose of the good, that it gives
sustenance to the body. A person pursues a chosen career, aiming
for a good, that is, to provide a better future for her family. A
person will not do anything which is not beneficial to her.
Even a drug user “thinks” that substance abuse will cause her good.
This does not necessarily mean that using drugs is good but a “drug
addict” would want to believe that such act is good. Therefore, for
Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for
which all acts seek to achieve.
One must understand that an individual does actions and pursuits
in life and correspondingly each of these activities has different
aims. Aristotle is aware that one does an act not only to achieve a
particular purpose but also believes such purpose can be utilized
for a higher goal or activity, which then can be used to achieve an
even higher purpose and so on. In other words, the different goods
that one pursues form a hierarchy of telos (plural form of telos)
But a certain difference is found among ends; some are activities,
others are products apart from the activities that produces them.
Where there are ends from the actions, it is the nature of the
products to be better than the activities.
The Virtues
Intellectual Virtues
◦ Wisdom, Understanding, Prudence
◦ Taught through instruction
Moral Virtues
◦ Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance
◦ The result of habit
◦ Not natural or inborn but acquired through practice
◦ Habit or disposition of the soul (our fundamental character)
which involves both feeling and action
  “Those strengths of character that enable us to flourish”
(Hinman)
The Virtues
 Defined / understood in terms of spheres of human experience
 Fear of important damages  Courage

 Bodily appetites and their pleasures  Moderation

 Distribution of limited resources  Justice

 Attitude to slights and damages  Mildness of

Temper

The Doctrine of the Mean

 Proper position between two extremes
◦ Vice of excess
◦ Vice of deficiency
 Not an arithmetic median
◦ Relative to us and not the thing
◦ Not the same for all of us, or
◦ Any of us, at various occasions
◦ “In this way, then, every knowledgeable person avoids excess
and deficiency, but looks for the mean and chooses it” (II.6)

The Mean
 Virtues and the Mean
Vice of Deficiency Virtue Vice of Excess

Cowardice Courage Foolhardiness

Stinginess Generosity Prodigality

Shamelessness Modesty Bashfulness

Maliciousness Righteous Enviousness

Indignation

Defined through Reason

◦ Education, contemplation, reflection
 Balanced with Other Virtues and applied using phronesis:
◦ To have any single strength of character in full measure, a
person must have the other ones as well.*
 Courage without good judgement is blind
 Courage without perseverance is short-lived
 Courage without a clear sense of your own abilities is
foolhardy
“The virtuous person has practical wisdom, the ability to know
when and how best to apply these various moral perspectives.”
(*Hinman)
Virtues and Community
 Virtues are defined and lived in community
 Sharing a common identity and story
 Modelling the Virtues
◦ Importance of Moral Exemplars (Saints and Heroes)
 Practicing the Virtues – Habit is Crucial!
“In a word, then, like activities produce like dispositions.
Hence we must give our activities a certain quality, because it
is their characteristics that determine the resulting
dispositions. So it is a matter of no little importance what sort
of habits we form from the earliest age ̶ it makes a vast
 difference, or rather all the difference in the world.” (II.i.)
(Pojman, 396)
 Reinforcing the Virtues

Other Virtue Ethicists

 G.E.M. (Elizabeth) Anscombe

In 1958 she published an article

called Modern Moral Philosophy arguing
that we should return to the virtues,
as the idea of a law without a lawgiver
was incoherent.

 Alasdair MacIntyre
 After Virtue (1981)
Modern moral philosophy is bankrupt; it must recover the
tradition of virtue.
Importance of Narrative as a
“live tradition” – you need to know where ethics has come from.
Virtues change over time.
 Philippa Foot
Tries to modernise Aristotle.

Ethics should not be about dry

theorising, but about making the
world a better place (she was one of the founders of Oxfam)
Virtue contributes to the good life.

 Rosalind Hursthouse
A neo-Aristotelian – Aristotle was wrong on women and slaves, and
there is no need to be limited to his list of virtues.

We acquire virtues individually, and

so flourish, but we do so together
and not at each other’s expense.
 Carol Gilligan
 In a Different Voice (1982)
Developmental theories have been built on observations and
assumptions about men’s lives and thereby distort views of
female personality.
The kinds of virtues one honors depend on the power brokers
of one’s society.
The Ethics of Care
 Michael Slote
Develops the feminist ‘ethics of care,’
and links it to a virtue ethics inspired
more by Hume and Hutcheson’s moral
sentimentalism than by Aristotle.
Slote’s version of virtue ethics is agent-based (as opposed
to more Aristotelian forms which are said to be agent
focused) i.e. the moral rightness of acts is based on the
virtuous motives or characters of the agent. The motives are all
important.
Martha Nussbaum
She interprets Aristotle’s views as
absolutes… justice, temperance,
generosity etc. are essential to human flourishing
in all societies and in all times.

Nussbaum sees a relativist approach as being incompatible with

Aristotle’s virtue theory.
Are the virtues the same for everyone?
 People are very different.
 But we face the same basic problems and have the same basic
needs.
 Everyone needs courage as danger can always arise.
  Some people are less well off, so we will need generosity.
 Everyone needs friends so we need loyalty.

Strengths of Virtue Ethics

 Importance of the Person, Motive, Heart, Conscience
 Connection to Community
 Realization that morality is not defined by moments but by a long-
term process
 Allowance for gray areas, varying contexts, different levels of
moral maturity and life contexts

Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics

 Dependence on strong communities
 Not easily applied to ethical issues or to give us practical solutions
 Demands time
 Can be turned into a really poor duty-based ethics
 Might be taken as situational ethics

How do we acquire virtue?

• Practical wisdom
– Comes from observing human affairs carefully
– Comes from remembering how our actions & the actions of
others have played out
• The more we develop a virtuous character & acquire practical
wisdom
– The greater chance we will act well in life
• Good actions from from good character
• Good character is essential to human happiness

Virtue &Habit
 For Aristotle, virtue is something that is practiced and thereby
learned—it is habit (hexis).
 This has clear implications for moral education, for Aristotle
obviously thinks that you can teach people to be virtuous.
 Role models become very important

Virtue As the Golden Mean

 Aristotle says virtue involves finding the proper balance between
two extremes.
◦ Excess: having too much of something.
◦ Deficiency: having too little of something.
 Not mediocrity, but harmony and balance.
 The Mean varies from person to person
 There are many ways of behaving & thus many ways to be happy

A Virtuous Life Means Balance

Take one of the cardinal virtues away, then one happens?

At school?
 Competence
 Teamwork
 Social justice
 Mellowness of heart