Plato/Aristotle: What sort of person should I be?
Agent-centered theory: Being rather than Doing.
Virtues are simply ideal character traits
Virtuous people still have blind
spots, someone who never lies
might be snobbish for example
Virtue: Disposition well-entrenched in its
possesion-to have virtues is to possess a
certain complex mindset
e.g. An honest person is someone who doesn't
lie as they recognise that lying is wrong
because it is dishonest, not for fear of being
caught out
We make reasoned
decisions based on our
concepts of morality
Perfect/Continence Virtue
Fully virtuous people will do things without a
struggle against contary desires, whilst the
continent will face temptation
e.g.a poor person who picks up a purse
without temptation to keep it is more virtuous
than someone who struggles with temptation
Practical Wisdom
Helds by adults only, enables us to know what
to do in moral situations. Without PW, we might
make wrong decisions based on virtue e.g. lying
to prevent hurting s.ones feelings
Children may possess confusions dispositions such as
courage=fearlessness. Their ignorance is a lack of PW,
& they are not culpable for messing up
PW allows us to understand the real benefits of actions by
the doer, so with PW we tell the person the cold truth which
they will benefit from knowing in the LR
PW comes with experience of life, the virtuous
are aware of the consequences of certain
actions so do not make short-sighted decisions
The practically wise understand what is
truly worthwhile/advantageous. Nothing
competes with virtues such as honesty &
justice
They have an understanding of 'eudaimonia'
Eudaimonia=Happiness/Flourishing
Eudaimonia require living in accordance with virtues, a
human life devoted to wealth is not eudaimonic. Virtues
are what enable us to have eudaimonia
Difference from other theories
Utilitarianism/Kant focus on actions in
the moment, whilst VT looks at how we
should live as a whole life
Being good because it is good for you: unlike Kant's theory, honesty is
good as it's your best policy. Virtues are attractive qualities in a social
envrionment. Kant's categorical imperative does not make you more
good if you enjoy carrying it out-it prescribes doing what is right simply
because it is right. VT includes benefits of actions whilst Kant does not
Utilitarianism focuses on benefits of the majority, not of the
agent-whose happiness can be overidden by the majority
VF is holistic as it deals with the
whole life rather than the action
itself (atomistic)
Utilitarianism & Kant sideline people as they treat
them as a means to an end. Kant only respects
people out of reason. VT takes all aspects of
character into account, rather than just duty
Visiting a friend in hospital
Utilitarianism: Visit friend as means of greatest
happinessprinciples of utility would say a stranger who got
more happiness from visiting your friend should visit him
instead-your friend comes second in the quest for utility
Kant: Visit friend because its
rational & consistent with the
categorical imperative. You are
only visiting out of moral duty
Virtue: You are visiting
beause they are your friend,
and friendliness is a virtue
CRIT: VF does not give adequate
moral guidance
Nota:
If I do not know what virtues are or how to apply them to my situation, VF is confusing as all it prescribes is for us to be 'virtuous'. What if I don't know any virtuous people? I have no criterion for judging which actions are virtuous
RESP: Other theories can be crit. in
same way, it is an unrealistic criticism
Nota:
This crit. assumes the person is oblivious to virtues, virtues are learnt trough experience & anyone growing up in society has an understanding of virtues. No theory can deal with this kind of person. With a simple understanding of VT, the person can ask themselves what the most virtuous things to do are.In fact, VT prescribes practising virtues for virtue accquisition.
CRIT: Clashing Virtues
Nota:
What happens when we want to leak information but want also to remain loyal to our company? Loyalty & Honesty clash. To be virtuous, we must also be vicious.
CRIT: There is no single 'human 'nature
Nota:
Eudaimonia must come in different forms to adjust for all varities of culture. Aristotle is wrong is saying there is one telos.
RESP: On a DNA level, we all share one human nature
Nota:
There are shared constants in human nature e.g. no-one flourishes under torture or starvation. This provides a basis for human eudaimonia.
Also, many cutural differences are simply the same virtues applied to different situations, e.g. we put our old folks in care homes whilst the Inuit place them on ice floats to die. The underlying value is that society is trying to preserve its elderly without compromising the lives of others.
CRIT: Doing the right thing may lead to self-sacrifice
RESP: It is better to die heroically, true to yourself
Nota:
Virtues are likely to lead to a long & properous life, there is no guarantee. A situation requiring you to sacrifice yourself is simply unlucky.