Virtue Ethics

This week we turn to Virtue Ethics, a line of thought that originates with Aristotle. While both the utilitarian and deontological approaches to ethics focus on how one should act, virtue ethics puts the focus on what kind of person one should be. Thus, rather than laying out rules governing action, the virtue ethicist attempts to work out the nature of the good character, and how that character is related to acting rightly.

For Aristotle, it is a combination of two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues (which are taught) allow one to understand the world better, including identifying the virtuous act in any given scenario. Moral virtues (which are learned by habit) instead make us want to do the virtuous thing in those cases. Thus, we need both type of virtue. Without moral virtue, we might rightly identify the virtuous act but will not be inclined to do it. Without intellectual virtue, we might try to do the right thing, but instead end up acting wrongly.

Some questions to think about for this upcoming week's discussion:

• Should we focus on how one should act, or on what kind of person one might be? What are the strengths and limitations of either approach?
  
• Is virtue taught or trained? How is Aristotle's answer different from Kant's?
  
• How can we decide how to act in specific cases using virtue ethics?
  
• What virtues are central to the virtuous character?
  
• Kant argued that if you do your duty because you are the type of person who takes pleasure in helping others, you are acting out of inclination and your action does not have true moral worth. How is this different from Aristotle? Who do you think is right and why?
  

Please feel free to use this post as a place to post weekly discussion comments (if you select this option). You may reply to any of the questions posted above, or to any other issue which you are interested in regarding virtue ethics.