{"id":57,"date":"2011-09-04T12:29:05","date_gmt":"2011-09-04T16:29:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/?page_id=57"},"modified":"2011-09-04T12:42:19","modified_gmt":"2011-09-04T16:42:19","slug":"virtue","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/virtue\/","title":{"rendered":"Virtue"},"content":{"rendered":"<h1>Notes on Virtue Ethics<\/h1>\n<hr align=\"center\" size=\"3\" \/>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify\">The ethical theories of both Mill and Kant establish principles for the evaluation of actions:<span>&nbsp; <\/span>actions are determined to be morally right depending on the consequences which result from the action (Mill) or depending on the form or motivation of the action (Kant).<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Both approaches, however, appear to leave out a significant portion of what we normally think of as ethics or morality. The<span> ethical theories of Mill and Kant assess the morality of actions, but it might be said that morality is not only&mdash;or even chiefly&mdash;about how to <i>do<\/i> good things.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>In general we also aspire to <i>be <\/i>good persons. <\/span><span>&nbsp;<\/span>We are not only concerned about what we do, but also about what we are.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>In other words, a complete moral theory should be capable not only of judging actions, but of judging <strong>character<\/strong>.<span> Rather than focus our attention on the morality of actions, the ethics of virtue examines the morality of agents<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Positive traits of character are generally known as <strong>virtues<\/strong> (and their opposites called <strong>vices<\/strong>).<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/span>In Western philosophy, ethical theories of virtue date back as far as <strong>Plato<\/strong> and <strong>Aristotle<\/strong> in the third and fourth centuries B.C., and remained dominant through the Middle Ages and Renaissance. Beginning in the 18<sup>th<\/sup> and 19<sup>th<\/sup> centuries, virtue approaches were gradually superseded by more narrowly rational or &ldquo;scientific&rdquo; approaches like those of Kant and Mill, but in the late 20<sup>th<\/sup> century virtue ethics began to reemerge as an important philosophical theory.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>(In Asia and Africa, virtue ethics has always been the dominant tradition.)<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify\"><span>For the Greeks, a virtue (<i>arete<\/i>) is an excellence, or more precisely an excellence <i>at<\/i> something.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Excellence for a knife is based in the ability to cut; excellence for a pen in the ability to make clear marks; excellence for a glue is in the ability to bind materials together.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Each has an excellence or virtue in achieving its goal (<strong><i>telos<\/i><\/strong>) or what it is for.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Similarly for people: excellence, or virtue, is in our ability to achieve what we are for, in fully actualizing our human potential.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Aristotle described this goal as <strong><i>eudaimonia<\/i><\/strong>.<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt\"><span>Unlike simple things like knives and pens, however, humans have many tasks to perform.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Virtue ethics does not set up a single rule of morality, but identifies many possible goals.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>This approach is <\/span>therefore classified as a<strong> <i>pluralism<\/i><\/strong>.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Typically, such a theory will set up a number of virtues (honesty, loyalty, courage, generosity, etc.) to be fostered&mdash;and vices to be avoided&mdash;by any individual of good character.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Different lists of virtues have been put forward by writers over the centuries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify\">We are generally familiar with virtues such as Courage, Generosity, or Humility, and with vices like Gluttony, Envy and Greed.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>But how are such categories defined, and how many virtues&mdash;and vices&mdash;are there?<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify\">Aristotle located each virtue in a <strong>mean between two extremes<\/strong>: the vice of excess and the vice of deficiency.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>An individual manifests Courage, for example, by exhibiting <i>the right amount<\/i> of a particular kind of behavior in between the deficiency (Cowardice) and the excess (Foolhardiness).<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Determining the right amount has to take into consideration the abilities and disposition of the individual as well as and the nature of the situation.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Knowing what to do in a situation is a matter of <strong>practical wisdom<\/strong> (<strong><i>phronesis<\/i><\/strong>) learned through experience and taught by example.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>But ultimately, possessing a virtue is not merely a matter of doing the right thing, but of possessing such a character that virtuous behavior arises spontaneously.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>It should be more a matter of habit than rational calculation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify\">Adherents of the more rational and principle-based approaches to ethics find much to criticize in Virtue Ethics.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/span>Its concepts are vaguely defined, and the list of virtues is always open-ended and subject to revision.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>The Christian virtue of Humility, for example, was not a virtue for the ancient Greeks, and social virtues (like good humor) need to be distinguished from moral virtues.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; <\/span>Moreover, virtues may conflict&mdash;as is often the case with Justice and Mercy.<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Is there a hierarchy among the virtues?<span>&nbsp; <\/span>If so, how would that be determined?<span>&nbsp; <\/span>Finally, does Virtue Ethics rely so much on tradition and context that it falls into a kind of relativism?<\/p>\n<p class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align:justify;line-height:12.0pt\">Another pluralistic approach to ethics is the <strong>principlism<\/strong> of Beauchamp and Childress (<strong>autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice<\/strong>).<span>&nbsp; <\/span>While similar in many regards, their theory differs because the principles they set forward are not all personal virtues.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Notes on Virtue Ethics The ethical theories of both Mill and Kant establish principles for the evaluation of actions:&nbsp; actions are determined to be morally right depending on the consequences which result from the action (Mill) or depending on the form or motivation of the action (Kant).&nbsp; Both approaches, however, appear to leave out a [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":61,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/57"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/61"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/57\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wofford.edu\/kaycd\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=57"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}