Is Virtue Ethics Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that virtue ethics is a convincing ethical theory because of three key
reasons. Firstly eudaimonia is convincing as a final end to strive by as we genuinely want a flourishing life.
Secondly, the fact that Virtue Ethics is agent - based means it avoids a lot of problems that act-based
theories face. Lastly and most crucially is that virtue ethics has no absolute obligations.
RICE 1:
R: We genuinely want a flourishing life regardless of whether we are religious etc what our views are and
so it is something we realistically want to achieve. By contrast, other normative ethical theories fail to give
an account of why we should follow their theory - Kantian Ethics just says because it is your duty -
categorial. And with Utilitarianism they say because happiness is the only good - however with Nozick’s
experience machine we can tell that the only thing we desire is not just happiness but we also desire
contact with reality etc which eudaimonia encompasses as well. In general it is a more feasible and better
goal more suited towards what we want by the time we die.
I: Is eudaimonia morally relevant though? Eudaimonia seems quite self-centred and it seems to suggest
that if a morally good life requires self-sacrifice then eudaimonia and a morally good life are distinct. This
is because a life that is self sacrificing is not one that is flourishing. However we want to value the tired ill
aid-worker who dies prematurely and the despairing environmental campaigner despite them not
flourishing. Under virtue ethics because they are not flourishing then they are not becoming closer to
achieving eudaimonia and so aren’t being moral because to be moral is to do virtuous acts to move
towards eudaimonia. If eudaimonia is no longer morally relevant then you lose a key aspect of virtue
ethics in terms of why we even should be virtuous - there is no goal. Eudaimonia is no longer the only final
end - there are other values such as the good of others, environment which our virtues should contribute
to - not just eudaimonia. Virtue Ethics makes ethics self-centred and makes it concerned about whatever
actions is the best life for them
C: You are misunderstanding the concept of eudaimonia - it shouldn’t be understood in terms of narrow
self-interest. We don’t know what eudaimonia is until we have identified the virtues. To live a flourishing
life is to live according to the virtues not a self-centeredness. If someone claims that eudaimonia is
ensuring the best life for yourself eg by generating alot of money and power then they have completely
misunderstood what eudaimonia is. Living in accordance to these virtues means being committed to other
peoples well-being, to values beyond one’s own interest and this commitment is part of flourishing. To say
that each person aims at their own flourishing is just to say that each person leads their own life and each
person can only live their own life not anyone else's, but in pursuing my own life doesn't entail prioritising
my own interests above others. plus being overly virtous is bad
E: Therefore the issue is resolved because it shows that eudaimonia isn’t self-centred as people suggest
so and it is perfectly morally good to lead their own life but part of flourishing is caring for others et. So
eudaimonia is kewl.
RICE 2:
R: A key success of virtue ethics is that it is agent based rather then act-based. Act-centred normative
ethical theories claims that we have obligations without explaining the basis of things. Act is relative to the
agent - which is much more realistic whereas other normative ethical theories would expect you to do
things you are not able to do and out of character and could justify the unjustifiable (eg utilitarianism might
consider executing an innocent person). Whereas with virtue ethics you have the doctrine of the mean
and most crucially the mean is different for each person which means the virtuous act is different
depending on the person. For example if there was an act of harassment and there was a policeman off
duty. For him because he is more courageous then the virtuous act would be to intervene and help the
Is Virtue Ethics Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be showing that virtue ethics is a convincing ethical theory because of three key
reasons. Firstly eudaimonia is convincing as a final end to strive by as we genuinely want a flourishing life.
Secondly, the fact that Virtue Ethics is agent - based means it avoids a lot of problems that act-based
theories face. Lastly and most crucially is that virtue ethics has no absolute obligations.
RICE 1:
R: We genuinely want a flourishing life regardless of whether we are religious etc what our views are and
so it is something we realistically want to achieve. By contrast, other normative ethical theories fail to give
an account of why we should follow their theory - Kantian Ethics just says because it is your duty -
categorial. And with Utilitarianism they say because happiness is the only good - however with Nozick’s
experience machine we can tell that the only thing we desire is not just happiness but we also desire
contact with reality etc which eudaimonia encompasses as well. In general it is a more feasible and better
goal more suited towards what we want by the time we die.
I: Is eudaimonia morally relevant though? Eudaimonia seems quite self-centred and it seems to suggest
that if a morally good life requires self-sacrifice then eudaimonia and a morally good life are distinct. This
is because a life that is self sacrificing is not one that is flourishing. However we want to value the tired ill
aid-worker who dies prematurely and the despairing environmental campaigner despite them not
flourishing. Under virtue ethics because they are not flourishing then they are not becoming closer to
achieving eudaimonia and so aren’t being moral because to be moral is to do virtuous acts to move
towards eudaimonia. If eudaimonia is no longer morally relevant then you lose a key aspect of virtue
ethics in terms of why we even should be virtuous - there is no goal. Eudaimonia is no longer the only final
end - there are other values such as the good of others, environment which our virtues should contribute
to - not just eudaimonia. Virtue Ethics makes ethics self-centred and makes it concerned about whatever
actions is the best life for them
C: You are misunderstanding the concept of eudaimonia - it shouldn’t be understood in terms of narrow
self-interest. We don’t know what eudaimonia is until we have identified the virtues. To live a flourishing
life is to live according to the virtues not a self-centeredness. If someone claims that eudaimonia is
ensuring the best life for yourself eg by generating alot of money and power then they have completely
misunderstood what eudaimonia is. Living in accordance to these virtues means being committed to other
peoples well-being, to values beyond one’s own interest and this commitment is part of flourishing. To say
that each person aims at their own flourishing is just to say that each person leads their own life and each
person can only live their own life not anyone else's, but in pursuing my own life doesn't entail prioritising
my own interests above others. plus being overly virtous is bad
E: Therefore the issue is resolved because it shows that eudaimonia isn’t self-centred as people suggest
so and it is perfectly morally good to lead their own life but part of flourishing is caring for others et. So
eudaimonia is kewl.
RICE 2:
R: A key success of virtue ethics is that it is agent based rather then act-based. Act-centred normative
ethical theories claims that we have obligations without explaining the basis of things. Act is relative to the
agent - which is much more realistic whereas other normative ethical theories would expect you to do
things you are not able to do and out of character and could justify the unjustifiable (eg utilitarianism might
consider executing an innocent person). Whereas with virtue ethics you have the doctrine of the mean
and most crucially the mean is different for each person which means the virtuous act is different
depending on the person. For example if there was an act of harassment and there was a policeman off
duty. For him because he is more courageous then the virtuous act would be to intervene and help the
Is Virtue Ethics Convincing? 1
