Virtue theory / Natural Law
Natural
Law/Virtue
Ethics
Morality and Human Nature
Natural Law Theory
Based upon assumption that the good is consistent with fundamental design
Not the laws of nature, those laws are descriptive
Moral laws – prescriptive in that they tell us how we ought to behave
Historical Origins: Aristotle (through Aquinas)
An observer of Nature
His teleological view provides a conclusion about human good
Aquinas’ Hierarchy
Eternal Law
The law of God’s regulative reason
Natural Law
That part of God’s Law that is incorporated into human nature
Divine Law
The Law that man receives by special revelation from God
Human Law
Law devised by man for specific purposes
Natural Inclinations
Life
Natural inclination to self-preservation
Procreation
Natural inclination to reproduce
Knowledge
Natural inclination to learn
Sociability
Qualifying Principles
Principle of Forfeiture
A person who threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits his own right to life
Principle or Doctrine of Double Effect
Distinguishes between the intended and the foreseen but unintended consequences of actions
Doctrine of Double-Effect
The act is good in itself
The bad effect is unavoidable
The intention of the actor is good
The bad effect(s) are not part of the purpose
Key point are: “intentions” and “avoidability ”
Applying Double-Effect
Is the act permissible?
Yes
Is the bad effect avoidable?
No
Is the bad effect the means of producing the good effect?
Not
Intended
Is the bad effect proportionate?
Yes
Passes
Yes No Yes
Intended
No
Not permissible - Forbidden
Evaluating Natural Law Theory
Determination of actions is a result of seeing moral law in human nature
Can the way things are by nature provide a basis for knowing how they ought to be?
Chance, direction, and the purpose of life
Virtue Ethics
• Focuses on the character of the moral agent performing the action
Intentions will be an important consideration but will not be the only consideration
Consequences may also be important
Principles may also be important
• According to virtue ethics, an action is right if and only if it is what a moral agent with a virtuous character would do in those circumstances
Aristotle on the Virtues
Believed that the ultimate good for man was
eudaimonia (i.e., living a fulfilling, satisfying life)
Believed a person had to develop in themself certain virtues of character, in order to achieve eudaimonia
Virtues included courage, self-restraint, justice, temperance, honesty, benevolence, love of knowledge, generosity, etc.
Most important virtue was phronesis, practical wisdom, which guided one as to when particular virtues were appropriately displayed
Two Types of Virtue
Intellectual virtues represent excellences in reasoning skills that can be taught through inquiry and study.
Moral virtues, by contrast, are products of habit that begin in childhood and are strengthened in adult life.
The Golden Mean
• Aristotle also spoke of the importance of
“The Golden Mean”
• Essentially states that each virtue should be displayed at an appropriate level: not too little, not too much
Too little courage is cowardice, too much courage is recklessness
Lack of honesty is a vice, but being too honest is also a vice
Every science, investigation or action aims at some good. Such good exists in a hierarchy, with the lesser goods being instrumental in the seeking of higher goods, but many things are good in and of themselves.
The highest good will be the final goal of purposeful striving, something good for its own sake. For humans this good is eudaimonia (happiness/flourishing), which is always an end in itself.
The arête (excellence/virtue) of anything resides in its proper function.
The proper function of human beings, and therefore their moral excellence ( arête ), resides in the “active life of the rational element.”
Therefore, the good for human beings is “an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence/virtue.” Such a life necessarily involves acting in accordance with reason.
To act in accordance with reason is a matter of observing the principle of the mean relative to us, i.e. finding the appropriate response between excess and deficiency in a particular situation.
The traditional virtues, e.g. courage, all fit within this scheme
Virtue ethics is not concerned so much with actions or duties as with the development of character.
The development of a proper character is what will lead to proper action, not simply conformity to some rule or duty.
Thus virtue ethics concerns itself more with
being the type of individual who will make proper moral decisions rather than with defining rules/duties which will direct action independent of the individual who is faced with a moral decision.
Contemporary Virtue Ethics
Virtue Theory revived in late 20th century due to dissatisfaction with consequentialist and deontological theories
Universalizes virtue as the basis of the theory
All moral agents should seek to develop a virtuous character
Right action is based upon what a person with a virtuous character would do in those circumstances
Correct answers to moral problems can only be obtained through understanding of the virtues
Consequences and principles are merely tools to aid the moral agent
William Frankena – “A Critique of Virtue-Based Ethics”
“principles without traits are impotent and traits without principles are blind”
Virtue ethics defines traits of character that we admire, but cannot provide a satisfactory explanation for why we should admire those specific traits over others.
Continued.
Principles without dispositions toward action are likewise without teeth.
Frankena sees the two approaches as complementary, rather than competitive
