Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Virtue Ethics- Moral Philosophy Unit 3 - Coggle Diagram
Virtue Ethics- Moral Philosophy Unit 3
Key terms
Virtue ethics is:
Agent-centred normative ethical theory
Focuses on an agent's character, whether it is expressing and habituating virtues in order to progress towards Eudaimonia
It is form an agent Eudaimon that moral conduct will "flow naturally" from
Eudaimonia acts as the teleological aspect of the theory
Arete (Virtue)- is a quality of something which is beneficial in its achievement of its overall ergon/function, that is each virtue is specialised to the object. For an agent their virtues are of character in order to aid them in their progress towards Eudaimonia
Virtues operate as dispositions of an agent to perform certain conduct/ have certain feelings
Virtues are detected via the
Doctrine of Mean
(lying between two Kakia)
Virtues are habituated and developed as per the
Skill Analogy
Kakia (Vice)- Is the characteristic of something which does not aid in its fulfillment of its ergon.
Vices are not habituated like Virtues they are merely achieved whereby an agent fails to exercise their virtue in the particular case, operating as an identifier that the agent concerned has not yet reached a state of Eudaimonia
Again the relationship between Kakia and Arete is outlined under
Doctrine of Mean
Ergon (function)- The Ergon of an object is its
characteristic state of functioning
not simply its purpose, therefore it operates as the best state of the object, when it is deemed to be acting well.
For instance the Ergon of a knife is to cut well, and thus it would have virtues which aid in the fulfillment of this
The function of humans is established and outlined via the
Function Argument
The Ergon of a human is to lead a life of Eudaimonia, that is human flourishing. This is inclusive of an agent's ability to reason well, for they are rational beings thus their function should be specialised to this, unlike any other being.
Eudaimonia continues to operate as a state thus one an agent must pursue and continue to pursue throughout their life, it is not a fixed end-point, once Eudaimon they must continue to work upon themselves
Eudaimonia is not something an agent can attribute onto themselves, only onto others upon inspection to their life and conduct
Eudaimonia operates as the final-ends (telos) for an agent's conduct, that is it is the highest good:
No thing is more good than Eudaimonia
All ends are means to end of securing Eudaimonia, that is they are good insofar that they aid in the achievement of it
No thing can be added to Eudaimonia to make it more good
Arguments/Methods
Function Argument
The function argument aims to establish that humans have an overall function, one which we hence should aim to fulfil
It operates via 3 parts
Part 1)- Aristotle considered that objects themselves have a function (e.g Knife)
Part 2a)- Aristotle noted agent's have functions in society, that is job roles with particular atributes which must be exercised to fulfil them
Part 2b) Agent's have functions in their body i.e the eye has a function to see well
Hence it holds that together humans have one overall function- this is Eudaimonia, and our virtues aid in the fulfillment of it. This hence provides the context as to the purpose of virtues alongside the teleological aspect of Virtue Ethics (which is so fundamentally vital to it)
Skill Analogy
The skill analogy operates as the method by which an agent will develop their virtues and progress towards Eudaimonia, once they possess understanding of the role of virtues alongside knowledge of how to identify them
Skill Analogy operates as a process alike the development of an agent's practical skills e.g Guitar:
First an agent would copy an expert's conduct (someone virtuous or Eudaimon)
Next they would begin to try to complete such conduct themselves, making mistakes, reflecting and learning upon them (this is where the role of Phronesis is introduced)
This will continue until they are themselves independent in the skill- an expert- and thus can continue to progress and develop them further
Note: Here an agent must also engage their emotions, habituating virtues of their feelings to ensure that their emotional responses are virtuous
Doctrine of Mean
The Doctrine of Mean is the method, for Aristotle, that an agent detects the virtue(s) they must perform in a particular case:
Outlined it proposes that at the extremes of a virtue lie two Kakia (of excess and deficiency)
E.g for the Virtue of Courage, Excess: Recklessness, Deficiency: Cowardice
An individual must, utilising their Phronesis, identify the position of this virtue with respect to potential conduct in a situation, knowing what the vice may be and avoiding them
An agent thus makes considerations to their own dispositions i.e more likely to be cowardice or reckless and account for these
An agent must also take into account the situation before them, so exact position cannot be known until then
The position hence occupies a range, alike an archer who shoots an arrow at the target, there are multiple orientations by which they can continue to hit it
Every agent's conduct to achieve the virtue may be different although they are all continuing to aim at and fulfil the same virtue
Accountability
Voluntary Actions
These actions carry a
complete moral culpability
(either blame or praise), an agent has deliberated to these actions using their Phronesis and understanding of virtues- they have chosen to perform them
Involuntary Actions
Here an agent acted under compulsion/force, that is they could not have chosen to act otherwise/deliberated e.g somebody who is forced to stamp on another's foot because of a bus knocking- there is
no culpability
Non-voluntary Actions
An agent has deliberated to their conduct however they have acted in ignorance to a particularly important fact of the case- e.g example of Oedipus. To assess culpability an agent must assess what course of conduct they would of taken had they not been in ignorance (expressed as remorse)
Mixed Actions
Actions with both a degree of compulsion and degree of deliberation. That is the agent's choices are limited by the situation. however they were still able to take another course of action. E.g Boat/Cargo example. In this way they remain to be morally culpable however another can forgive their actions, given the situation
Relationships between concepts
Action, Reason (particularly practical reasoning), Virtue
Action-Reason: Action is the application of Phronesis to deliberate as to the correct course of conduct. This relates to
virtue
as an agent must consider, using the doctrine of mean, their virtues within a particular situation (its position) and thus how these conduct would ensure the virtues are expresses
Reason-Virtue:
Alongside how reason enables the identification of virtues via the doctrine of mean
Reason also ensures the habitation of virtues, to ensure that an individual continues to develop and learn notwithstanding when they lose interest.
Virtues also enable an agent to reason more effectively, fulfilling the overall Ergon to reason well
Action-Virtue:
By habituating virtues, this predisposes an agent to perform moral conduct (again linking back to the agent-centred theory)
Actions also indicate that individual has habituated their own virtues- given that an agent looks to virtuous people to identify what is meant by virtuous actions
Role of Contemplation
Aristotle considered that holistically all parts of an agent's soul must be developed, this includes the
theoretical reasoning
aspect considering the concepts and ideas of society- such as Philosophy and Mathematics. Contemplation acts as the method by which to perform this, and do this well.
Life of a philosopher is best (considering an agent's overall function to reason well)
Criticisms (Arguments)
Criticism 1: Problems in the Function Argument
Criticism 2: Issues in the Skill Analogy
Criticism 3: Improper relationship between Virtues and Vices under Doctrine of Mean
Criticism 4: Issues in the Role of Contemplation
Response (my own): Misinterpretation of VE
Criticisms (General)
Criticism 5: Lack of moral guidance as to how to act
Comparisons to other normative ethical theories
Criticism 7: Circularity
Response 1: Escape route via Phronesis
Response 2: Escape route via Eudaimonia
Criticism 6: Clashing and Competing Virtues
Response 1: Clashing Virtues cannot occur for Aristotle as it is as a result of a misapplication/interpretation of the position of the mean.
Criticism 8: Virtues need not to contribute to Eudaimonia to be moral
Response 1: David Hume's emotivist virtue ethics (although not an Aristotle
Criticism 9: Good of the individual does not lead to the moral good
Response 1: Misinterpretation of Virtue Ethics