Transcript Three types of modern virtue ethics

MODERN VIRTUE ETHICS
Three types
Theoretical (or cool) Virtue Ethics
Aristotle saw virtue as based in Natural
Law.
Modern Virtue ethicists differ from
Aristotle’s view in the following ways:
a. They reject the idea of a priori moral laws;
b. They reject the idea of an ‘is’ becoming
an ‘ought’;
c. They base their morality on the moral
agent.
• Some modern Virtue ethicists see the
moral action as important because it
makes you virtuous.
• Others regard the action as of no specific
importance. What counts is the moral
agent’s nature, how virtuous they are.
• ROSALIND HURSTHOUSE is a leading
figure in this second group.
• Hursthouse looks at the virtues that go
with Aristotle’s Golden Mean, e.g. courage
rather than foolhardiness or cowardice.
• It is these moral virtues (that she calls the
X-factor) that she is interested in.
• If you, by nature, are virtuous then what
you do will be virtuous. If you are bad,
your actions can never be virtuous.
• She argues that people should get into a
state of virtuous living and then what they
do will always be virtuous.
Criticisms of Hursthouse
1. Your action might seem virtuous but what
about your motivation? Hursthouse
doesn’t consider this.
E.g. I may invade Iraq because I am a
virtuous person and wish to get rid of a
tyrant, but deep down inside I might be
counting the oil revenue!
2. What happens when my state of virtue
conflicts with another person’s?
Every moral decision impacts on more
than one person, and if his/her moral state
is as virtuous as mine, how can we both
be acting virtuously?
3. How can a virtuous state be judged
objectively?
I might appear virtuous; I might convince
myself that I am virtuous but how can my
virtue be truly determined?
Hursthouse’s idea of Virtue Ethics is
purely theoretical.
It does not have any rules to follow.
Hursthouse does not show how a
particular character trait could be applied
to a specific moral issue.
This seems impractical and unhelpful to
many.
Practical Virtue Ethics
• This was a way of answering the problem
of Hursthouse’s theoretical Virtue Ethics.
• It was put forward by MARTHA
NUSSBAUM, an academic at the
University of Chicago.
• She uses the principle of phronesis to
examine particular issues.
• The concept of phronesis is taken from
Aristotle, who believed that morality is
inbuilt into rational humans.
• It means “practical wisdom”.
• It involves rational reflection, and deciding
how to put reflection into practice.
• He argued that humans use phronesis to
discover the best way of applying moral
concepts to the real world.
• Nussbaum’s first major book looked at the
issue of justice, which Virtue Ethicists find
difficult.
• This is because the virtue of an individual
may clash with the virtue of the whole in
cases of justice.
• People who campaign for justice are often
destroyed and end up being sacrificed for
their pursuit of it, e.g. Socrates, Jesus,
Thomas More.
• In 2009 Nussbaum published ‘From
Disgust to Humanity’, which looks at
issues of sexual orientation.
• She defends the rights of homosexuals.
• She claimed that a vitruous life is one
which tolerates those who are different as
long they do not abuse others.
• She supports a multicultural society.
• Yet, unlike relativists, she cannot condone
such cultural practices as female
circumcision.
Motive (or warm) Virtue Ethics
• A theory put forward by Roman Catholic
philosopher ELIZABETH ANSCOMBE
(1919-2001) and her friend PHILIPPA
FOOT.
• Anscombe rejects the is/ought dichotomy.
• She explains this by referring to a house
plant.
• Imagine that one day you return home and
find that one of your houseplants is limp
through lack of water.
What do you do?
You give it the water that it lacks and
hopefully the plant recovers.
This is a common sense understanding of
is/ought. Just because the plant is limp
does not mean that it ought to be so. The
plant is limp because it lacks water. You
know what to do; you provide it with what it
lacks.
• Anscombe develops this idea using the
analogy of a man shopping in a
supermarket. He has a shopping list of
ingredients for a meal. He walks around
the supermarket placing ingredients into
his basket.
Suppose he acts impulsively, ignores his
list and buys what he wants. He leaves the
supermarket and returns home. He has
bought the wrong ingredients. He cannot
blame his list, whether he or his partner
wrote it. It is his fault.
• This analogy can be applied to ethics.
• The shopping list = a list of virtues.
• In life, the moral agent walks around the
ethical supermarket. What counts is not
who created the list of virtues (although
Anscombe says it is God), but the
intention of the moral agent.
• The moral agent knows what ingredients
(virtues) are required for an ethical life but
will he/she take them or not?
• Virtue Ethics is therefore concerned with
ensuring that the moral agent makes the
right choices.
• It is concerned with intentions, with
convincing individuals that they should
choose the right ingredients needed for a
good life and not to live impulsively.
• This view leads Anscombe to assert the
importance of the law of double effect,
since it is based on the intentions of the
moral agent.
• Anscombe’s shopping list of moral virtues
and moral evils are real. Humans should
be led to buy the right things in the
supermarket of life. Buying the right goods
will develop the natural goodness of
humans.
• This is achieved by using phronesis.
• Anscombe and Foot assume that all
humans want a moral life and to live a
good life for its own sake.
• Alasdair MacIntyre disagrees with this
assumption. He argues that virtues may
be desirable but humans need a reason to
be moral. You can’t rely on a concept of
natural goodness.
• E.g. people give presents in order to
receive something in return. If they did not,
they would stop giving.
• So, MacIntyre argues, consequences
matter.
• A degree of consequentialism should be
added to Virtue Ethics.
• People need to know why they should be
virtuous.
• They should work this out by using reason.
• The contemporary American philosopher,
MICHAEL SLOTE, develops this idea of
motives as the basis of Virtue Ethics.
• Slote calls this warm Virtue Ethics since it
is based on human sentiments and
feelings rather than obedience to certain
theoretical virtues.
• The moral agent must base moral
judgements on virtues such as care and
empathy.
• Therefore a moral agent may sacrifice
his/her life for a sick or elderly relative.
This would be the moral thing to do.
• Slote regard being sentimental as morally
good rather than, as Kant and Mill, a sign
of ethical weakness.
• He regards traditional approaches to
Virtue Ethics as too cold and clinical.
• He agrees that the motivation of the moral
agent is supremely important.