Aristotle & Virtue Theory - Because: eudaimonia.

- But for Aristotle, this isn’t about God’s plan, it’s

just about nature.
- Imagine a person who always knows what to say. - Virtue theory reflects the ancient assumption that
- Who can diffuse a tense situation, deliver tough humans have a fixed nature – an essence – and - Aristotle argued that nature has built into us the
news gracefully, is confident without being that the way we flourish is by adhering to that desire to be virtuous, in the same way that acorns
arrogant, brave but not reckless, generous but nature. are built with the drive to become oak trees.
never extravagant.
- This is the type of person that everybody wants to - Aristotle described this in terms of what he called - But what exactly does it mean to be virtuous?
be around, and to be like. proper functioning.
- Someone who seems to have mastered the art of - Aristotle said that having virtue just means doing
being a person. - Everything has a function, and a thing is good to the right thing, at the right time, in the right way,
- This may sound like an impossible feat, but the extent that it fulfills its function, and bad to in the right amount, toward the right people.
Aristotle believed that, while rare, these people do the extent that it doesn’t.
exist. - - Which sort of sounds like Aristotle is saying
- This is easy to see in objects created by humans. exactly nothing.
- And they are what we all should aspire to be:
virtuous. - A function of a knife is to cut, so a dull knife is a - I mean, how vague can you be?
bad knife.
- And there's a whole moral theory based on this - And a function of a flower is to grow and - But according to Aristotle, there's no need to be
idea of virtue. reproduce, so a flower that doesn’t do that is just specific, because if you’re virtuous, you know
bad at being a flower. what to do.
- But unlike most of the moral theories we’ve
discussed, virtue theory doesn’t spend a lot of - And the same goes for humans – we’re animals – - All the time.
time telling you what to do. so all the stuff that would indicate proper
- functioning for an animal holds true for us as well - You know how to handle yourself and how to get
- There’s no categorical imperative or principle of – we need to grow and be healthy and fertile. along with others.
utility.
- But we’re also “the rational animal,” and a social - You have good judgment, you can read a room,
- Instead, virtue theory is all about character. animal, so our function also involves using reason and you know what's right and when.
and getting along with our pack.
- Rather than saying, “follow these rules so that - Aristotle understood virtue as a set of robust
you can be a good person,” Aristotle and other - Now you might notice that some of this sounds character traits that, once developed, will lead to
virtue theorists reasoned that, if we can just focus like parts of natural law theory – Aquinas' theory predictably good behavior.
on being good people, the right actions will that God made us with the tools we need to know
follow, effortlessly. what’s Good. - You can think of virtue as the midpoint between
two extremes, which Aristotle called vices.
- Become a good person, and you will do good - Well, Aristotle had a strong influence on Thomas
things. No rulebook needed. Aquinas, so part of Aristotle’s thoughts on virtue - Virtue is the just-right amount – the sweet spot
ended up in natural law theory. between the extreme of excess and the extreme of
- So, why should you be a virtuous person? deficiency.
 - And this sweet spot is known as the Golden - Cowardice is a deficiency of courage, while - The virtue of honesty means knowing what needs
Mean. recklessness is an excess of courage – and both to be put out there, and what you should keep
are bad. quiet about.
- So let’s take a look at some particular virtues, -
starting with courage. Aristotle said that you definitely can have too - And it also means knowing how to deliver hard
much of a good thing. truths gracefully.
- What is courage?
So, being courageous doesn’t mean rushing - How to break bad news gently, or to offer
- To take a closer look at this, let’s head to the headlong into danger. criticism in a way that’s constructive, rather than
Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy. soul-crushing.
A courageous person will assess the situation,
- Walking home from a movie, you see a person they’ll know their own abilities, and they’ll take - The virtue of generosity works the same way.
being mugged. action that is right in the particular situation.
- It avoids the obvious vice of stinginess, but also
- What is the courageous action for you to take? Part of having courage, he argued, is being able to doesn’t give too much.
recognize when, rather than stepping in, you need
- Your impulse might be to say that a courageous to find an authority who can handle a situation - It’s not generous to give drugs to an addict, or to
person would run over there and stop the that's too big for you to tackle alone. buy a round of drinks for everyone in the bar
mugging, because courage means putting yourself when you need that money for rent.
in harm's way for a good cause, right? - Basically, courage is finding the right way to act.
- The just right amount of generosity means giving
- Well, no. - And a lot of the time – but not all of the time – when you have it, to those who need it.
that means doing a thing that you know you’re
- A virtuous person – in the Aristotelian sense – capable of, even if doing it scares the pants off of - It can mean having the disposition to give just for
would first take stock of the situation. you. the heck of it, but it also means realizing when
- Thanks, Thought Bubble! you can’t, or shouldn’t give.
- If you size up the mugger and have a good reason
to believe that you could safely intervene, then - Aristotle thought all virtue works like this. - So now you can see why Aristotle’s definition of
that's probably the courageous choice. virtue was totally vague – where that Golden
- - The right action is always a midpoint between Mean is depends on the situation.
- But if you assess the situation and recognize that extremes.
intervention is likely to mean that both you and - So, there’s no all-or-nothing in this theory – even - But, if you have to figure out what virtue is in
the victim will be in danger, the courageous honesty. every situation, how can you possibly ever learn
choice is not to intervene, but to call for help to be virtuous?
instead. - In this view, honesty is the perfect midpoint
between brutal honesty and failing to say things - Aristotle thought there was a lot that you could
- According to Aristotle, courage is the midpoint that need to be said. learn from books, but how to be a good person
between the extremes of cowardice and was not one of them.
recklessness. - Like, no one needs to be told that they have a big
zit on their face – they already know.
-
- He said virtue is a skill, a way of living, and - And eventually, it becomes that robust trait that
that’s something that can really only be learned Aristotle was talking about. - You’re constantly setting new goals, and working
through experience. to develop new muscles.
- It'll just manifest every time you need it.
- Virtue is a kind of knowledge that he called - Choosing to live life in this way also means you'll
practical wisdom. - That's when you know you have virtue, fully face disappointments, and failures.
realized. It becomes effortless.
- You might think of it as kind of like street smarts. - Eudaimonia doesn’t mean a life of cupcakes and
- OK but: Why? What's your motivation? rainbows.
And the thing about street smarts is that you gotta
learn ‘em on the street. - What if you have no desire to be the guy who - It means the sweet pleasure of sinking into bed at
always says the right thing, or the lady who the end of an absolutely exhausting day.
- But the good news is, you don’t have to do it always finds the courage when it's needed?
alone. - It’s the satisfaction of knowing you’ve
- Virtue theory says that you should become accomplished a lot, and that you’ve pushed
- Aristotle said your character is developed through virtuous because, if you are, then you can attain yourself to be the very best person you could be.
habituation. the pinnacle of humanity.
- This is morality, for Aristotle.
- If you do a virtuous thing over and over again, - It allows you to achieve what's known as - It’s being the best you can personally be, honing
eventually it will become part of your character. eudaimonia. your strengths while working on your
weaknesses.
- But the way you know what the right thing to do - This is a cool Greek word that doesn’t have a
is in the first place, is by finding someone who simple English translation. And, for Aristotle, the kind of person who lives
already knows, and emulating them. like this, is the kind of person who will do good
- You might say it means “a life well lived.” things.
These people who already possess virtue are Kant & Categorial Imperatives
moral exemplars, and according to this theory, we - It’s sometimes translated as “human flourishing.”
are built with the ability to recognize them, and - I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but all of
the desire to emulate them. - And a life of eudaimonia is a life of striving. our discussions about ethics so far have had one
thing in common: God.
- So you learn virtue by watching it, and then doing - It’s a life of pushing yourself to your limits, and
it. - Divine Command Theory, for example, argues
finding success.
that what’s good, and what’s not, are
- In the beginning, it'll be hard, and maybe it’ll feel determined by a deity, whether that’s the God of
- A eudaimonistic life will be full of the happiness Abraham, or a panoply of gods who come up
fake, because you’re just copying someone who's that comes from achieving something really with ethical rules by committee.
better than you at being a good person. difficult, rather than just having it handed to you.
- And the Theory of Natural Law, as advanced by
- But over time, these actions will become an - But choosing to live a eudaimonistic life means Thomas Aquinas, says that morality comes from
ingrained part of your character. that you’re never done improving, you’re never to us but only because we were made by God, who
a point where you can just coast. preloaded us with moral sensibilities.
- But many other thinkers have argued that - Basically, different ways of phrasing or looking
humanity’s moral code doesn’t come from some - Kant called these if-then statements hypothetical at the same essential idea.
supernatural force. imperatives.
- And he came up with four formulations of the
- 18th century German philosopher Immanuel - They’re commands that you should follow if categorical imperative.
Kant, for one, thought religion and morality you want something.
were a terrible pairing, and if anything, the two - Let me tell you about the two most popular
should be kept apart. - But hypothetical imperatives are about ones.
prudence, rather than morality.
- Instead, Kant argued, in order to determine - The first formulation of the categorical
what’s right, you have to use reason. - So, if you don’t want money, you can always imperative is often known as the
choose not to work. universalizability principle.
- And a sense of consideration for other people.
- And if you don’t care about getting a good - And Kant phrased it this way:
- Kant took morality pretty seriously, and he grade, studying becomes totally optional!
thought we should, too – all of us – regardless - “Act only according to that maxim which you
of our religious beliefs, or lack thereof. - It’d be a terrible option, in my opinion as an can at the same time will that it should become
educator, but still: optional. a universal law without contradiction.”
- Because, he knew that if we look to religion for
our morality, we’re not all going to get the same - But Kant viewed morality not in terms of OK, Kant. Pretty wordy guy. So let’s unpack
answer. hypothetical imperatives, but through what he what he was saying.
called categorical imperatives.
- But he thought morality was a constant, in an - A maxim is just a rule or principle of action.
almost mathematical sense. - These are commands you must follow,
regardless of your desires. - And a universal law is something that must
- Two plus two equals four, whether you’re a always be done in similar situations.
Christian, Buddhist, or atheist. - Categorical imperatives are our moral - So, as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask
obligations, and Kant believed that they’re myself, what’s the maxim of my action?
- And for Kant, the same went for moral truths. derived from pure reason.
- In other words, what’s the general rule that
- But he made a distinction between the things we - He said it didn’t matter whether you want to be stands behind the particular action I’m
ought to do morally, and the things we ought to moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of considering?
do for other, non-moral reasons. us.
Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm
- He pointed out that, most of the time, whether - And he said you don’t need religion to this morning.
or not we ought to do something isn’t really a determine what that law is, because what’s right
moral choice – instead, it’s just contingent on and wrong is totally knowable just by using - You don’t have time to go get it between
our desires. your intellect. classes, and you’re really hungry.

- Like, if your desire is to get money, then you - OK, so how do you figure out what’s moral? You notice that the student working the snack
ought to get a job. kiosk in the union is engrossed in a
- Kant said the categorical imperative can be conversation, and you could easily snag a
- If your desire is get an A in class, then you understood in terms of various formulations. banana and be on your way.
ought to study.
 Sorry. Chom-chom. I mean: chom-chom. - You don’t really think stealing is ok, and by - Based on her lie, the stranger leaves, and runs
imagining what it would be like to universalize into Tony as he rounds the corner heading away
You could easily swipe that chom-chom and be it, that becomes clear. from the house, and kills him.
on your way.
- Now, Kant’s view that moral rules apply to - Had she told the truth, the stranger might have
Is it ok, morally, for you to do this? everyone equally sounds nice and fair. headed into the kitchen looking for Tony, which
- But it can sometimes lead to some pretty would have given Tony time to escape.
- Well, the particular action you’re considering – counterintuitive results.
taking a chom-chom from a merchant without - But she didn’t.
paying for it – is stealing. - To see how this formulation can go awry, let’s
visit the Thought Bubble for some Flash - Now, by Kant’s reasoning, Elvira is responsible
- And if you approve the maxim of stealing – Philosophy. for Tony’s death, because her lie caused it.
which you’re doing, whether you admit it or not
– then what you’re actually doing is - Let’s say, one morning, Elvira and Tony are - Had she told the truth, only the murderer would
universalizing that action. having breakfast. have been responsible for any deaths that might
have occurred.
You’re saying that everyone should always - Then a stranger comes to the door and asks
steal. where Tony is, so he can kill him - Now, she could have refused to answer the
stranger altogether, or tried to talk him out of it.
- If you should be able to do it, then – everyone - Obviously, Elvira’s impulse is to lie, and say
should be able to do it. that Tony isn’t around right now in order to - But the one thing she is never permitted to do is
protect him from this would-be murderer. violate the moral law, even if others are doing
The thing is, this leads to a contradiction – and so, even for a really good cause.
remember: - But Kant says that she can’t lie – not ever, not
even to save Tony’s life. - Poor Tony. Very sad. But thanks, Thought
Kant’s wording specifically says that moral Bubble!
actions cannot bring about contradictions. - Here’s his reasoning:
- Suppose she’s at the front door, talking to the - So, the first formulation of the categorical
- The contradiction here is: no one would say that stranger. imperative is about the universality of our
everyone should steal all the time. actions.
- Because, if everyone should always steal, then - At the time, she thinks Tony’s in the kitchen,
you should steal the chom-chom. where she left him. - But the second formulation focuses on how we
should treat other people.
And then I should steal it back from you, and - But it turns out he was curious about the caller, - And it goes this way:
then you should steal it back from me, and it “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
so he followed her into the living room, and -
would never end and no one would ever get to
heard the stranger make his threats. own person or in that of another, always as an
eat any chom choms.
- Fearing for his life, Tony slipped out the back end, and never as a mere means.”
door.
Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable.
- Meanwhile Elvira, in her desire to save him, - Again, we have to define some terms here to
tells the stranger that Tony isn’t there, even figure out what this is all about.
So what Kant’s really saying is that it’s not fair
though she thinks he is. - To use something as a “mere means” is to use it
to make exceptions for yourself.
- only for your own benefit, with no thought to
the interests or benefit of the thing you’re using.
- Now, we use things as mere means all the time. - I am using Nick and Nicole to help me get that
information to you. - So! Kant argued that proper, rational application
- I use this mug to hold my coffee, and if it would of the categorical imperative will lead us to
stop benefiting me – like if it got a crack in it - Kant said that you and I, and Nick and Nicole – moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all
and started leaking, I wouldn’t use it anymore. we all we deserve to not be used as mere means, moral agents.
because of our autonomy.
- It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means – - Unlike other things in the world, we’re self- - No God required.
but not humans. governed.
- Of course, not everyone agreed with him.
- This is because we are what Kant called ends- - We’re able to set our own ends, to make our
in-ourselves own free decisions based on our rational wills. Aristotle Ethical Theory
- We can set goals for ourselves, and take steps to
- We are not mere objects that exist to be used by realize those goals. now virtue ethics is very unique as its own ethical
others theory
- This imbues us with an absolute moral worth, where consequentialist ethics focuses on outcome of
- We’re our own ends. We’re rational and Kant said, which means that we shouldn’t be any situation and judges right and wrong based on
autonomous. manipulated, or manipulate other autonomous
this
agents for our own benefit.
- We have the ability to set our own goals, and - and the ontological ethics focuses on duty and
work toward them. - And this means that things like lying and adhering to strict moral laws
deception are never OK.
- Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers. virtue ethics does not focus on how we should
- Humans exist for themselves. - Because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an behave it does not provide rules and laws but rather it
autonomous decision about how to act, because focuses on the character of the person it is about
- So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means my decision is based on false information. developing into a virtuous person and living a moral
to recognize the humanity of the person you’re - life it is not about what should I do but rather what
encountering, to realize that she has goals, - For instance, I might agree to loan you money sort of person should I be
values, and interests of her own, and you must, so you can buy books for school, but I wouldn’t
morally, keep that in mind in your encounters agree to loan you money so that you can get a first we need to understand a bit more about
with her. new Xbox. Aristotle's theory of causation. Aristotle believed
everything in reality was working towards a Telos
- Now, Kant pointed out that we do use people, - I’m sorry, but no. this was an end or a purpose everything had a
all the time, and that’s ok. TELOS and something was judged as good or bad
- So when you lie to me about what you’re gonna based on how well it fulfilled its purpose
- Because, most of time time, we use other people be doing with the money you’re asking for, you
as a means for something, but not as a mere rob me of my ability to autonomously decide to so let's take a seed that TELOS of a seed is to grow
means. help you. into a beautiful flower once it has grown into a
flower it has reached its Telos this is also the case
- We still recognize their humanity when we use - You’ve treated me as a mere means to with inanimate objects if we take a knife that their
them, and they agree to being used. accomplish your goals, with no thought to my loss of a knife is to cut if a knife is able to cut when a
own goals and interests. human wants it to then it has reached its dead loss
- So, for example, you are using me right now to and it's fulfilling its purpose
get information about Kantian ethics. - And that’s a violation of Kant’s second
categorical imperative.
if it cannot cut then it's not fulfilling its purpose and becoming better people and to develop a virtuous modesty or courage but it is knowing how to act
it is a bad knife character upon this understanding and implement these
character traits when necessary
I understand now human beings are exactly the same this is where virtue ethics came from an ethical
we also have a Telos we have a purpose and this is theory that is about the character of the individual I central to practical wisdom was understanding and
the same purpose for each and every human acting upon what Aristotle referred to as the doctrine
virtue ethics is centered around how should I be how
of mean was that the doctrine of mean also known as
Aristotle referred to the concept of eudaimonia this should I live and how can I improve
the golden mean is an understanding that a virtue lies
is a type of happiness pure happiness or bliss the
do we not need an understanding of what it means to between two vices
ultimate goal for being alive full satisfaction
be virtuous in order to live a virtuous life
once we have the knowledge of this we are in a better
our fulfillment right everything we do is to strive
how can I live a virtuous life if I don't know what it position to act in a virtuous way
towards eudaimonia
means or how to act
Aristotle claimed that any extreme is a vice the virtue
everything we desire is because we believe it will
Aristotle did give an account on how we can will lie in between these two extremes so let's take
make us happy and bring us closer to eudaimonia
recognize virtuous behavior and how we can work the moral virtue of courage this is a virtue that sits in
even if we don't know it
towards becoming virtuous people the middle of two extremes
if you ask someone why are you going to work they
firstly Aristotle noticed eleven moral virtues that all on one extreme is the vice we can say it is the
may say to earn money
humans recognize and value as character traits they deficiency of the virtue so a deficiency of courage
if you ask them but why do you want to earn money were: would be cowardice, so cowardice is the vice
they may say to pay their rent or to buy clothes or to
courage , temperance, liberality, magnificence, on the other extreme is the other vice we can say this
buy food but then if you ask them
magnanimity, proper ambition, truthfulness, is the excess of virtue
why do you want this they will say ultimately it is wittiness, friendliness, modesty, and righteous
so the excess of courage would be recklessness or
the have a better quality of life and be happy you can indignation
full hardness
ask someone why are you going on a date
these were eleven character traits that word my in
so the virtue of courage lies in the middle of the two
they may say to find love you can ask but why do people and something we should all practice,
vices
you want to find love they may say to get married or however as we know life is complicated we are
to start a family and why do you want this because always in situations where the moral thing to do is so using our practical wisdom we can assess the
ultimately it will make you happy not clear-cut and so building on the eleven moral situation and with the golden mean we can determine
virtues the virtuous action so let's focus on courage imagine
in order for us to fulfill our purpose of eudaimonia
you are an ancient Greek soldier defending the city
Aristotle believed we must live a virtuous life this is Aristotle developed the concept known as phronesis
walls from the enemy you were guarding alone and
vital to the dead loss of a human being this can be translated to practical wisdom
you see 20 enemy soldiers approaching the gates
so what is a virtue? ultimately it is a character trait Aristotle believed that virtuous people should have now what do you do if you run out and face the
that makes us better people the ability to make informed rational decisions on enemy alone this would be reckless and this would
what the best way to act is Aristotle claimed that be a vice you are outnumbered and you will certainly
just like the ability to cuts makes a knife a good be defeated however grabbing your things and
practical wisdom is a true and reason state of
knife or comfort makes a bed a good bed running away quietly would be cowardice another
capacity to act with regard to the things that are good
virtue makes a human a good human it is a moral or bad for man so it is not just having an vice
trait we need to be happy we must always work to understanding of virtuous character traits such as
courage would be to inform the other gods and if we will become better people and will be closer to so we cannot for example say some stealing is a
enough men heed your call you stand them fight and reaching eudaimonia virtue or some cheating is a virtue these things are
defend your city walls always a vice no matter what
Theory definitely a wise approach to ethics as it is all
agreed all we can take ambition another of Aristotle's about developing one's character it is almost like a but still the golden mean is definitely not easy to
moral virtues to work 20 hours a day and never see spiritual approach to morality implement it is not always evident what the middle
your friends or family and neglect everything for between the two vices is and this can get very
but I can't help but notice certain issues with this
your career is seen as a vice complicated when trying to decide how to act
theory really like what firstly virtue ethics as a theory
determining this middle ground can then become
but to never work to be completely lazy is also a vice doesn't really tell us what to do it doesn't give us
quite subjective
ambition who lies in the middle the golden mean specific rules to follow like the ontological ethics or
right or how about generosity giving all of your specific outcomes to strive for like consequentialist is it courageous to drive very fast to be on time for a
money and possessions to charity and leaving you ethics it leaves it too vague for an ethical theory and meeting
homeless would be foolish but sting genus whereby it doesn't really give us much of a framework for
is it courageous to fight off to home intruders
you never give to charity or by anyone a gift is also how to act
not a desirable trait answers to these questions will most likely change
but this is because virtue ethics is not intended to tell
from person
we must use our practical wisdom to know when to you how to act in a specific situation or how to make
be generous and when not to be to decisions it does not intend to give you rules and to person hmm I think the biggest problem however,
regulations and desired outcomes it is a way to live is the meta ethical issue
understand what we can afford and to who we can be
across your whole life it is about developing as a
generous to yes that makes sense and finally Aristotle names the eleven moral virtues we should
virtuous person and as a virtuous person you will
Aristotle claimed that in addition to following our have his character traits but why are things like
make virtuous choices and strive for the best
practical wisdom and the golden mean we must learn courage generosity and truthfulness
outcomes
from other virtuous people
but it is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mean or the why are they virtues
we must study them and try to emulate them we
golden mean now is the golden mean really the best why should these character traits be considered as
must also practice being virtuous
method for decision making by and large I would part of the virtuous character?
it is not something you instantly pick up you need to agree that a virtue does lie between two vices but
work at it every day and eventually it will become what if we look at let us suppose we are speaking to a moral skeptic
part of your nature how can we explain why Aristotle's 11 moral virtues
let's say adultery should we say completes
so there we have Aristotelian ethics it's a core focus faithfulness is a vice but a lot of adultery is also a are in fact moral virtues
on virtue ethics developing our character traits to vice so some adultery a moderate amount becomes a
and why they would help create a happy life
becoming virtuous people by using our practical virtue
wisdom the golden mean learning from other what if the moral skeptic does not see any value in
virtuous people and practicing courage
how can virtue ethics demonstrate?
this seems a bit strange, well no Aristotle would not
why courage should be considered a virtue
have agreed with this
we ourselves will become virtuous
and in fact, he argued that there were certain things
that were always vices in any amount
Aristotle does not really provide any solid grounding
as to why these are virtues he does not really go into
any detail on what exactly a virtue is and how it
would lead one to eudaimonia
finally I would like to ask if we could in fact a view
virtue ethics as a type of consequentialist theory as
there is a desired outcome to strive for and that is for
one to reach eudaimonia
however, the theory is solely concerned with you as
an individual becoming a virtuous person and
reaching eudaimonia this then becomes quite a
selfish approach to ethics
it is not about doing your duty like Kantian ethics or
for the sake of love life situation ethics or to
maximize pleasure like utilitarianism
this is only for the good of you reaching your
happiness and reaching your eudaimonia to be a
virtuous person really means to be a selfish person