Lesson 13

This is one of my absolutely favorite subjects: virtue. I was actually surprised when we started this course and hadn’t done much on the classic greek ethical theories on morality. Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are clearly the fathers of current modern thought.

So, 2 down and 1 to go. Forgot to mention, I have a paper due tomorrow for Ethics on a law case and homework for Timber. Fun, eh? My third paper for ethics is also a 7-10 page paper. I am so going to need some luck in writing it.

And so:

“The Morality of Character”

When faced with a moral discussion, we find ourselves asking, “What would be the right thing to do?” Popular modern thought is to base our moral choice on what we feel is right and not in conjunction with the idea of our character. If we were to reword the question based on character, it would look like this: “What would be the most virtuous thing to do?”

Virtue ethics is based on this conjecture. What makes a good person? The general notion is that people of good characters will make good moral choices. Is this a valid ethical theory or a revolution of thought? Unfortunately, this is not some new and wild idea. It has simply been put into hiding in favor of more modern theories. So, what is virtue ethics? How did it come to be? Why isn’t it a leading ethical theory today?

The idea of Virtue or a virtuous character dates back to the Greek philosopher Aristotle. In reality, it does not even truly begin with him because Aristotle developed the concept of virtue based on the teachings of Plato and Socrates. According to him, the virtues are character traits that form from habitual actions. If you are constantly repeating something, then it is a part of your character and, thus, is a virtue of your character. Such as, praying before you go to bed every night versus every so often. You would be demonstrating the virtue of being pious. Vices are along the same concept, except they are abhorrently evil and considered bad character traits if constantly repeated. That is, if you enjoy torturing animals all the time versus only hurting them once or twice by accident, then you have a vice as a part of your character. Edmund L. Pincoffs suggests that in using the concept of virtue and vice together helps us to determine who is of good or bad character and, thus, who we choose to interact with or avoid.

So what makes a trait a virtue? A theory of Virtue must consist of at least five parts that qualify it as a virtue: What is the virtue? What character trait is the virtue? What are the features of this character trait? Why is it worth having? Who should have this sort of virtue? As an example, let us look at the concept of patience.

Patience is needed with teaching or even parenting. It is a virtue of taking one’s time and waiting for another to grasp something without rushing them. If you are a teacher, it is an important character trait because if you rushed your students and did not wait for them to catch onto the important meaning of a concept, you would be a poor teacher. Your students would not learn anything as a result. Both you and your pupils would then be frustrated.

By this simple explanation, one can see that virtue can cover a large list of things. Generosity, honesty, loyalty, courage, bravery, and compassion are just a few other possibilities that could define one of good character. Advocates of modern day Virtue Theory say that this is what has been missing in many of the ethical theories to date. Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and even the Social Contract fail to explain things beyond duty and requirements, making them incomplete. However, the same thing befalls Virtue Ethics.

Suppose we have a friend who comes to us with a deep dark secret. This secret involves theft, where our friend has pocketed an expensive iPod. What should you do? By Virtue Ethics, a very good trait is loyalty. That is loyalty to both friends and family, even if their actions are offensive. By this fact, the most you could do is chastise your friend for the theft, but you would not be required to turn them in for their crime. This is where Virtue Ethics begins to fall apart. Do we not have a moral obligation or duty? By the concept of “the right thing to do,” we would be morally obligated to turn our friend in for this theft or to drag them back to the store to return the merchandise. However, if we believed in being virtuous and that loyalty is valued in our character, we would have qualms about carrying out our civic duty for fear betraying that loyalty our friend has in us. After all, if they did not believe in our trustworthiness, they would not have told us of their theft.

Should we be required then to make ethical decisions based on our character habits versus our sense of duty and obligation? With each situation that we face, we would always run into a conflict that is similar to the previously mentioned. In many ways, people probably choose how they will solve it based either on holding true to their character traits or with their sense of duty depending on the situation. So, couldn’t both concepts work together?

This then would mean that Virtue Ethics could not stand alone as an ethical theory. It would have to work in conjunction with another theory. However, what theory would be best for it to accompany? On the other hand, perhaps, as the other theories need to evolve to involve the concepts of character, Virtue Ethics must also evolve to accompany the sense of duty and obligation.