Moral philosophy Essay
Is virtue ethics a better approach to normative ethics than deontology or consequentialism?
Moral philosophy has three main areas: meta-, normative and applied ethics. Metaethics
(‘meta’ meaning ‘after/beyond’) is concerned with the nature of ethics, moral reasoning as
well as the origins and meanings of ethical concepts. It attempts to answer second-order
ethical questions such as ‘What do the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually mean?’ or ‘Are there
any moral facts?’ (Garvey and Stangroom 2012: 274). It is the highest level of abstraction,
which involves making claims about moral claims. Normative ethical theories, on the other
hand, attempt to guide human behaviour and to devise a system for moral decision-making
(Vardy and Grosch 1999:110). Unlike metaethics, normative ethics makes value judgements.
These theories are concerned with first-order ethical questions such as ‘What is the right thing
to do in a particular case?’ or ‘What sort of person should I be?’. Applied ethics is the branch
of moral philosophy which examines controversial, concrete moral issues such as abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment and animal rights. It is essentially the application of normative
ethical theories to moral dilemmas, real-life crisis. The present essay will focus on normative
ethics. Virtue ethics will be discussed in relation to consequentialism and deontology, with
the aim of helping to determine whether it could be said to be a better approach to normative
ethics or not.
There are three major approaches to normative ethics at present: consequentialism,
deontology and virtue ethics. For consequentialits, only the state of affairs an action brings
about is of importance, the intentions and motives underlying the act are completely ignored
in their analysis. Utilitarianism (‘utilis’ from the Latin meaning ‘useful’) is a prime example of
a consequentialist ethical theory. The famous phrase ‘’the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people’’ was first coined by the Scottish philosopher, Francis Hutcheson in his ‘An
inquiry into the original to our ideas of beauty and virtue’ (Vardy and Grosch 1999:64). That
is the key concept of classical utilitarianism known as ‘the greatest happiness principle’, which
can be subdivided into the consequentialist, hedonic and equity principles. Utilitarianism is
an a posteriori, consequentialist theory, since the moral worth of an act is determined solely
by its consequences. As Mill (1879:2-3) wrote: ‘’ All action is for the sake of some end and
rules of action take their whole character from the ends to which they are subservient’’.
1
,Classical utilitarianism is also hedonistic, since it sees happiness and pleasure as the ultimate
ends of moral decisions. An action is considered morally right if it increases either directly or
indirectly happiness, pleasure and/or decreases unhappiness and suffering. As Bentham
wrote: ‘’Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, …’’ (1780, in Jones,
Cardinal and Hayward 2006:59). The equity principle adds an altruistic dimension to the
theory, as it demands that the pains and pleasures of each individual affected are to be taken
equally. Essentially, it is this idea of equity that distinguishes utilitarianism from ethical
egoism; another consequentialist moral theory.
In contrast to consequentialists, deontologists only look at intentions and motives when
assessing the moral worth of an action and ignore consequences (Jones, Cardinal and
Hayward 2006: 27). Duty-based ethical theories are a priori, as the moral worth of an action
is derived from something intrinsic to the act itself. Kantianism, developed by the Prussian
philosopher Immanuel Kant, is a deontological ethical theory, which only recognizes one
particular motive: to act out of respect for the moral law. Kant’s theory is based on maxims,
so-called first order categorical imperatives such as ‘Do not murder!’, ‘Do not lie!’ and ‘Do not
steal!’ (Vardy and Grosch 1999:57). These ‘commands’ are identified and tested using the five
formulations of ‘The Categorical Imperative’ (Garvey and Stangroom 2012: 287, 290).
Although utilitarianism and Kantianism do differ on almost every account, as Annas (2004)
argued, both of these theories can be described as action-based or act-centred, hence
standing in contrast to the agent-centred approach of virtue ethics, which focuses on the
character, the personality of the agent instead of the action itself. As Louden (1984, in Vardy
and Grosch 1999:113) wrote: ‘’…the central question is not ‘What I ought to do?’ but rather
‘What sort of person ought I be?’’ Unlike utilitarianism and Kantianism, virtue ethics is not so
much a guide for how to make moral decisions, but a description of moral life.
Plato and Aristotle are regarded the founding fathers of virtue theory. It was Aquinas, who
later modified Aristotle’s theory and ‘’incorporated it into the Christian framework’’ (Jones,
Cardinal and Hayward 2006:21). Virtue ethics went into eclipse throughout the 18 th century,
however, it re-emerged in the late 1950’s. Its revival is mainly attributed to Anscombe’s
famous article entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ (1958), in which she launched a broad
attack on the deontological and consequentialist ethical theories prevailing at the time,
2
, claiming that they suffer from oversimplification and fail to address important moral issues.
As Anscombe (1958:15) argued: ‘’…philosophically there is a huge gap,…, which needs to be
filled by an account of human nature,… , the type of characteristic a virtue is, and above all
…human ‘flourishing’.’’ Besides Anscombe, the need for the revival of virtue ethics has been
advocated by such philosophers as MacIntyre and Slote.
Contemporary virtue ethical theories have been inspired by Aristotle’s moral philosophy.
He adapted a teleological (from the Greek ‘telos’ meaning ‘purpose’, ‘goal’) approach to
ethics claiming that all things in nature have a function. According to Aristotle (1906: 16), ‘’The
function of man, …, is exercise of his… (soul) on one side in obedience to reason, and on the
other side with reason’’. Essentially, he argued that reason, the ability to be rational is unique
to human beings and something that is so distinctively human must play a vital part in fulfilling
our purpose- ‘ergon’- in life, that is to achieve eudaimonia. Eudaimonia, which Aristotle
referred to as ‘’the best, noblest and most pleasant thing in the world’’, is usually translated
as happiness, flourishing or sometimes well-being (Blackburn 2008:122). Aristotle proposed
that the soul has two major divisions; the rational and the irrational. The irrational part is
thought to comprise of two parts; the vegetative, which is about basic instincts and drives
such as eating, drinking, sleeping that are to ensure human survival, and the appetitive, which
holds desires and wants that can be controlled and moulded. The rational part of the soul can
be divided into the scientific, which essentially stores knowledge of facts, and the calculative,
which is concerned with knowing how to make decisions, weighing up pros and cons (Vardy
and Grosch 1999: 25-27). Aristotle also distinguished between moral and intellectual virtues.
Moral virtues such as courage, temperance, patience are qualities of the character, which are
thought to belong to the irrational, more specifically to the appetitive, part of the soul,
whereas intellectual virtues such as wisdom belong to the rational part of the soul. These
dianoetic virtues are not defined in terms of mean like the moral virtues but of attainable
optimum (Delius, Gatzemeier, Sertan and Wunscher 2013:16). They can be cultivated via
instruction. Aristotle argued that a moral virtue such as courage is the mean between excess
(rashness) and deficiency (cowardice). As he wrote: ‘’…to fall short and to exceed are alike
fatal…Too much or too little exercise alike destroy strength, … but the fitting amount …
preserves… Just so, then, it is with virtues (1906: 37). However, the doctrine of the mean does
not state that the mean will fall right in the middle between the two extremes. The mean can
3
Is virtue ethics a better approach to normative ethics than deontology or consequentialism?
Moral philosophy has three main areas: meta-, normative and applied ethics. Metaethics
(‘meta’ meaning ‘after/beyond’) is concerned with the nature of ethics, moral reasoning as
well as the origins and meanings of ethical concepts. It attempts to answer second-order
ethical questions such as ‘What do the words ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actually mean?’ or ‘Are there
any moral facts?’ (Garvey and Stangroom 2012: 274). It is the highest level of abstraction,
which involves making claims about moral claims. Normative ethical theories, on the other
hand, attempt to guide human behaviour and to devise a system for moral decision-making
(Vardy and Grosch 1999:110). Unlike metaethics, normative ethics makes value judgements.
These theories are concerned with first-order ethical questions such as ‘What is the right thing
to do in a particular case?’ or ‘What sort of person should I be?’. Applied ethics is the branch
of moral philosophy which examines controversial, concrete moral issues such as abortion,
euthanasia, capital punishment and animal rights. It is essentially the application of normative
ethical theories to moral dilemmas, real-life crisis. The present essay will focus on normative
ethics. Virtue ethics will be discussed in relation to consequentialism and deontology, with
the aim of helping to determine whether it could be said to be a better approach to normative
ethics or not.
There are three major approaches to normative ethics at present: consequentialism,
deontology and virtue ethics. For consequentialits, only the state of affairs an action brings
about is of importance, the intentions and motives underlying the act are completely ignored
in their analysis. Utilitarianism (‘utilis’ from the Latin meaning ‘useful’) is a prime example of
a consequentialist ethical theory. The famous phrase ‘’the greatest happiness for the greatest
number of people’’ was first coined by the Scottish philosopher, Francis Hutcheson in his ‘An
inquiry into the original to our ideas of beauty and virtue’ (Vardy and Grosch 1999:64). That
is the key concept of classical utilitarianism known as ‘the greatest happiness principle’, which
can be subdivided into the consequentialist, hedonic and equity principles. Utilitarianism is
an a posteriori, consequentialist theory, since the moral worth of an act is determined solely
by its consequences. As Mill (1879:2-3) wrote: ‘’ All action is for the sake of some end and
rules of action take their whole character from the ends to which they are subservient’’.
1
,Classical utilitarianism is also hedonistic, since it sees happiness and pleasure as the ultimate
ends of moral decisions. An action is considered morally right if it increases either directly or
indirectly happiness, pleasure and/or decreases unhappiness and suffering. As Bentham
wrote: ‘’Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, …’’ (1780, in Jones,
Cardinal and Hayward 2006:59). The equity principle adds an altruistic dimension to the
theory, as it demands that the pains and pleasures of each individual affected are to be taken
equally. Essentially, it is this idea of equity that distinguishes utilitarianism from ethical
egoism; another consequentialist moral theory.
In contrast to consequentialists, deontologists only look at intentions and motives when
assessing the moral worth of an action and ignore consequences (Jones, Cardinal and
Hayward 2006: 27). Duty-based ethical theories are a priori, as the moral worth of an action
is derived from something intrinsic to the act itself. Kantianism, developed by the Prussian
philosopher Immanuel Kant, is a deontological ethical theory, which only recognizes one
particular motive: to act out of respect for the moral law. Kant’s theory is based on maxims,
so-called first order categorical imperatives such as ‘Do not murder!’, ‘Do not lie!’ and ‘Do not
steal!’ (Vardy and Grosch 1999:57). These ‘commands’ are identified and tested using the five
formulations of ‘The Categorical Imperative’ (Garvey and Stangroom 2012: 287, 290).
Although utilitarianism and Kantianism do differ on almost every account, as Annas (2004)
argued, both of these theories can be described as action-based or act-centred, hence
standing in contrast to the agent-centred approach of virtue ethics, which focuses on the
character, the personality of the agent instead of the action itself. As Louden (1984, in Vardy
and Grosch 1999:113) wrote: ‘’…the central question is not ‘What I ought to do?’ but rather
‘What sort of person ought I be?’’ Unlike utilitarianism and Kantianism, virtue ethics is not so
much a guide for how to make moral decisions, but a description of moral life.
Plato and Aristotle are regarded the founding fathers of virtue theory. It was Aquinas, who
later modified Aristotle’s theory and ‘’incorporated it into the Christian framework’’ (Jones,
Cardinal and Hayward 2006:21). Virtue ethics went into eclipse throughout the 18 th century,
however, it re-emerged in the late 1950’s. Its revival is mainly attributed to Anscombe’s
famous article entitled ‘Modern Moral Philosophy’ (1958), in which she launched a broad
attack on the deontological and consequentialist ethical theories prevailing at the time,
2
, claiming that they suffer from oversimplification and fail to address important moral issues.
As Anscombe (1958:15) argued: ‘’…philosophically there is a huge gap,…, which needs to be
filled by an account of human nature,… , the type of characteristic a virtue is, and above all
…human ‘flourishing’.’’ Besides Anscombe, the need for the revival of virtue ethics has been
advocated by such philosophers as MacIntyre and Slote.
Contemporary virtue ethical theories have been inspired by Aristotle’s moral philosophy.
He adapted a teleological (from the Greek ‘telos’ meaning ‘purpose’, ‘goal’) approach to
ethics claiming that all things in nature have a function. According to Aristotle (1906: 16), ‘’The
function of man, …, is exercise of his… (soul) on one side in obedience to reason, and on the
other side with reason’’. Essentially, he argued that reason, the ability to be rational is unique
to human beings and something that is so distinctively human must play a vital part in fulfilling
our purpose- ‘ergon’- in life, that is to achieve eudaimonia. Eudaimonia, which Aristotle
referred to as ‘’the best, noblest and most pleasant thing in the world’’, is usually translated
as happiness, flourishing or sometimes well-being (Blackburn 2008:122). Aristotle proposed
that the soul has two major divisions; the rational and the irrational. The irrational part is
thought to comprise of two parts; the vegetative, which is about basic instincts and drives
such as eating, drinking, sleeping that are to ensure human survival, and the appetitive, which
holds desires and wants that can be controlled and moulded. The rational part of the soul can
be divided into the scientific, which essentially stores knowledge of facts, and the calculative,
which is concerned with knowing how to make decisions, weighing up pros and cons (Vardy
and Grosch 1999: 25-27). Aristotle also distinguished between moral and intellectual virtues.
Moral virtues such as courage, temperance, patience are qualities of the character, which are
thought to belong to the irrational, more specifically to the appetitive, part of the soul,
whereas intellectual virtues such as wisdom belong to the rational part of the soul. These
dianoetic virtues are not defined in terms of mean like the moral virtues but of attainable
optimum (Delius, Gatzemeier, Sertan and Wunscher 2013:16). They can be cultivated via
instruction. Aristotle argued that a moral virtue such as courage is the mean between excess
(rashness) and deficiency (cowardice). As he wrote: ‘’…to fall short and to exceed are alike
fatal…Too much or too little exercise alike destroy strength, … but the fitting amount …
preserves… Just so, then, it is with virtues (1906: 37). However, the doctrine of the mean does
not state that the mean will fall right in the middle between the two extremes. The mean can
3
