8. Virtue Ethics/Ethics of Virtue

 

Virtue Ethics

Introduction

You find out that a close friend of yours has been saying that the reason you wear a hat is that your head is shaped like a potato. At first, you don't believe it. You have known this friend, let's call him Rakim Greg Taylor, for years. You guys used to play basketball and football together. He even performed the best Slum Village cover you have ever seen, and now he's saying your head is shaped like a potato? Anyway, you hear him talking to some of your cousins after church. He doesn't see you near him as he whispers, "His head is a potato. If you take off that hat, it's a full-on russet potato under there. He doesn't get hairs cuts. He has to go to the Goody's on Goodfellow and have the cook peal his head because his head is a potato." You have some options; you can

A.  confront him and ask him why he is spreading lies about you, using your skills for talking to people to get to why he said what he said and to resolve the issue by getting him to stop. Maybe he was hurt, and he needs to lash out. Maybe he's an idiot who actually believes this. That is why you would confront him to find out.

B.  You can ignore him. Maybe stop going to the places that he goes too

C.  Punch his face in until it looks like a hole. Punch his face until his face is two-dimensional.

Plato and Aristotle would have you pursue the first option, option A. This is virtue ethics. But virtues ethics doesn't always mean confronting your problem directly. Let's say that we hear domestic abuse occurring next door. The guy is the looks like 50 bodybuilders had a baby that grew into a bigger bodybuilder. He is attacking his partner. You hear it. You look through the window, and you see the bloody body of someone leaning against a wall. Do you

A.  Realize that you are a person who is 5'2 and barely one hundred pounds; therefore, you call a neighborhood watch or the police, and you get back up, basically.

B.  You hide until it's over.

C.  You go over there as a person who is 5’2 and barely one hundred pounds and start kicking butt.

Again Plato and Aristotle would go with the first option. You have to know your limits. If you rush in, you aren't being virtuous; you are being stupid.

Thesis

In this lecture, we will discuss Socrates’ definition of virtue from the dialogue of Laches to that of The Republic. We will clarify Laches arguments and Socrates's Refutation. From there, we will move on to Plato's Republic and the notion that virtue is a balance between reason, appetite, and desire. We will then talk about how Aristotle in Book 2 distinguishes between two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral, and how virtue should be a habit. We will then talk about Akan ethics and how this form of virtue ethics promotes social regulating behavior for the purpose of social harmony. We will conclude with a problem with Virtue ethics; it offers no guidance for resolving concrete ethical dilemmas.

 

Body

Socrates on virtue - definition of virtue from the dialogue of Laches to that of The Republic 

We see the development of Socrates’ definition of virtue from the dialogue of Laches to that of The Republic from virtue as knowledge of good and evil-

–      Knowing what to do and what not to do

–      What to seek and what to avoid

–      What to admire and what to deplore

 A balance of reason and the passions (e.i. emotions, physical drives, like hunger.)

 

Socrates vs. Laches

In the Laches dialogue, Socrates breaks down Laches argument that Courage is just one thing-standing firm in battle. For Socrates, Courage can't just be this one thing. Because we can think of examples to the contrary.

 

Laches arguments and Socrates's Refutation

Laches' first definition of Courage (190 e-192 b)

Courage = standing firm in battle

Socrates’ refutation:

1. Courage is a property that all instances of courage share. (premise)

2. Standing firm in battle is not a property that all instances of courage share. (premise)

(We can think of examples where fleeing a scene can be seen as an act of boldness, for instance, Mayweather avoiding a jab or a hook is not seen as cowardice. It's seen as intelligence.)

3. Courage does not = standing firm in battle. (conclusion from 1 and 2)

Courage is a virtue

This dialogue leaves us with the beginnings of a theory of virtue. Knowledge is necessary for virtue but not sufficient. Just because you know what is right doesn't mean you will behave that way.

 

Plato's Republic - Virtue is a balance between reason, appetite, and desire.

Virtue is a balance between reason, appetite, and desire. Below is a selection from the Republic chapter 4 dialogue. According to Plato -

"The same thing clearly cannot act or be acted upon in the same part or in relation to the same thing at the same time, in contrary ways; and therefore, whenever this contradiction occurs in things apparently the same, we know that they are really not the same, but different. For example, can the same thing be at rest and in motion at the same time in the same part?

Imagine the case of a man who is standing and also moving his hands and his head, and suppose a person to say that one and the same person is in motion and at rest at the same moment–to such a mode of speech, we should object, and should rather say that one part of him is in motion while another is at rest. No more than you can say that the hands of the archer push and pull the bow at the same time, but what you say is that one hand pushes and the other pulls.

And might a man be thirsty and yet unwilling to drink? Would you not say that there was something in the soul bidding a man to drink and something else forbidding him, which is other and stronger than the principle which bids him? And the forbidding principle is derived from reason, and that which bids and attracts proceeds from passion and disease?"

 

Virtue is a balance

In this dialogue, virtue is a balance of

–      Reason-the forces that deliberates, divides and restricts

–      Passion and desire – the attractive force

Example-

Well, I said, there is a story which I remember to have heard and in which I put faith. The story is that Leontius, the son of Aglaion, coming up one day from the Piraeus, under the north wall on the outside, observed some dead bodies lying on the ground at the place of execution. He felt a desire to see them and also dread and abhorrence of them; for a time, he struggled and covered his eyes, but at length, the desire got the better of him; and forcing them open, he ran up to the dead bodies, saying, Look, ye wretches, take your fill of the fair sight.

Prompt

Can you think of times in your life when you didn't think before doing something, or maybe you thought too much?

 

Aristotle Book 2 - two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral,

There are two kinds of virtue, intellectual and moral,

–      intellectual virtue- owes both its birth and its growth to teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time),

–      moral virtue- comes about as a result of habit, whence also its name (ethike) is one that is formed by a slight variation from the word ethos (habit).

From this, it is also plain that none of the moral virtues arises in us by nature, for nothing that exists by nature can form a habit contrary to its nature. Again, of all the things that come to us by nature, we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity. We are born with the senses of vision, touch, etc., and we are able to use them without practicing; however, the virtues we only get exercising them,

–      men become builders by building, and we become just by doing just acts,

–      temperate by doing temperate acts,

–      brave by doing brave acts.

The same is true of appetites and feelings of anger;

- some men become temperate and good-tempered,

-others are self-indulgent and irascible by behaving in one way or the other in the appropriate circumstances.

Thus, in a word, states of character arise out of like activities.

 

Virtue is a habit

A virtue is a mean between two vices.

–      Reckless----------------------------Courageous-------------------------------------Cowardly

For example- let's say you witness a mugging. What action do you take?

–      Do you rush in?

–      Do you turn around and run away even though you feel a need to act?

What the virtuous person would do.

The virtuous person will size up the situation.

–      If the Mugger is too big, the virtuous person will call for backup.

–      If the Mugger is small enough to be taken down, the virtuous person will take the Mugger down.

Akan ethics and Virtue ethics - social regulating behavior for the purpose of social harmony

Because Akan ethics is essentially social regulating behavior for the purpose of social harmony is important. For the Akan, an individual's character is based on their deeds. Intent may not be as important. But deeds are. Someone who acts in accordance with society's rules can be said to be

–      'owo suban papa.'

          or

–      ‘of good character.'

In fact, deeds and character are so intertwined that they are often used interchangeably.

–      A person has a bad character

–      A person does bad things

Someone with a good character will perform good deeds that will intern imitate other good deeds. For the Akan, you can't look into someone's soul; in fact, we are born a blank slate, morally neutral, not good or bad, so we learn to do bad things, and we learn to do good things.

Upside of Virtue ethics- Moral behavior is internalized and therefore does not depend on external rules.

Problem with Virtue ethics- Offers no guidance for resolving concrete ethical dilemmas.

Judging people by their character. A political candidate with a genuine interest in serving the people deserves more recognition than someone who searches for personal gratification or social status.

 

Conclusion

Socrates defined virtue as a balance of reason and passion. Plato and Aristotle defined virtue similarly. A virtuous act can be thought of as the mean between two vices. Thus the best action is the one that takes as much of the context of a particular event into account. In Akan ethics, there is no distinction between the person and their actions. Likewise, in Platonic-Aristotelian virtue ethics, one can assume that a person who is constantly bad is a bad person. However, if one consistently acts virtuously, then they have a good character. I don't think change or becoming better is out of the question.