An Introduction to Moral
Philosophy
Week Six: The Virtue of Virtue Ethics?
Aristotle
 Recap
 Man is a ‘type’ of thing.
 A thing is measured by how well it performs its function.
 If a thing performs its function well, it is said to flourish ‘as that
thing’ (it flourishes qua thing) and can be called ‘good’ (as a token
of the type).
 Man’s function is to ‘reason well’.
 ‘The Virtues/Excellences’ are the means by which we achieve
flourishing.
 Distinction between a virtuous man, a ‘continent’ man, and an
incontinent, akratic, man.
Aristotle
 The problem of akrasia:
 If we all aim to flourish, and, on occasions where we
know what we should do to achieve this, why do we
sometimes fail?
 Smoker example.
 The akratic person acts knowing that what he does is
bad…
Aristotle
 Akrasia
 Universal Premise
 Practical Premise
 Conclusion
Aristotle
 Akrasia
 Universal Premise – all instances of smoking are bad
and, therefore, should be avoided.
 Practical Premise – this is an instance of smoking and,
therefore, should be avoided.
 Conclusion – I should not smoke this cigarette.
Aristotle
 Akrasia
 Universal Premise – all instances of smoking are bad
and, therefore, such actions should be avoided.
 Practical Premise – this is an instance of smoking and,
therefore, should be avoided.
 Conclusion – I should not smoke this cigarette.
Aristotle
 Overwhelming desire prevents us from ‘attending to’
the universal premise…
 Attending to?
Akrasia
 Overwhelming desire prevents us from ‘attending to’ the
universal premise…
 Attending to?
 Knowledge one has but isn’t currently being focused on.
 E.g. my car license place number is x. I know this
information, but before I ‘thought about it’ I wasn’t ‘attending
to it’.
 Drunk man and Empedocles (recitation, but no
understanding).
Aristotle
 Back to the virtues…
 Virtue – mean between two vices, one of excess, one
of deficiency…
 Role of ‘practical reason’ is to sort out what, in the
situation, would count as excess/deficiency.
 Example: Courage lies between two vices –
cowardliness (deficiency) and foolhardiness (excess).
Aristotle
 Virtues:
 Like ‘art’ (techne (=skill/craft)), virtues are developed by
“repetition of the correctly corresponding acts”. To
become a virtuous man, practice doing virtuous things
over and over and over until the act becomes ‘instinct’.
 E.g. getting out of bed earlier in the morning becomes
easier the more frequently one does it (promise).
 Andy Murray
Aristotle
 “Pleasure in doing virtuous acts is a sign that the
virtuous disposition has been acquired”
 Contrast with Kant?
 Good dog Vs. miserable saint?
Aristotle
 Virtues.
Courage (foolhardiness/cowardliness)
Temperance (self-indulgence/insensibility)
Liberality (prodigality/meanness)
Magnificence (vulgarity/niggardliness)
Pride (‘empty vanity’/‘undue humility’)
Good Temper (irascibility (vengeful)/‘un-irascibility’)
Aristotle
 Virtues
Friendliness (‘obsequiousness’/cantankerous)
Truthfulness (‘boastful’/mock-modest)
Ready wit (vulgar buffoons/boorish (humourless))
Quasi Virtue…
Shame! NOT a virtue because it is not a state of character, but
a sort of ‘passion’ (feeling). Shame is a fear of dishonour.
Aristotle
 Problems
1. Practical:
Sure, I can accept that a human being is a ‘normative
type’, but why should I aim to be the best of that type?
Sure, I accept that this is what a ‘good man’ is, but why
should I aim to be a good man?
Seeing ‘the good’ might not motivate some… psychopath
concern?
Aristotle
 Answer to problem one
 Question: why should I do this.
 Answer: because this is good.
 Does this work as an answer?
Aristotle

Answer to problem one:

The challenge can be presented as follows: to take scepticism seriously in the way
that Korsgaard does, is to assume that morality needs some extra-moral basis;
however, to be moral is precisely to think the moral reasons one has to act are
compelling in themselves, without any such basis for them being required by
someone who is a genuine moral agent. So, the Prichardian thinks that all we can
really do is remind the sceptic what his moral obligations are, and not get tempted
into trying to offer further support for them in some way, as then the sceptic may
end up acting morally, but will be doing so for the wrong reasons, so that we have
ultimately failed in our efforts to deal with his scepticism. Thus, the realist will claim
that the higher wisdom here is not to try to answer the sceptic, but to refuse to
engage with him for these Prichardian reasons; as a result, it is argued,
Korsgaard’s strategy of criticizing the realist for failing to answer the ‘normative
question’ is fatally flawed. Cf. McDowell 1998a: 86: ‘The question “Why should I
conform to the dictates of morality?” is most naturally understood as asking for an
extra-moral motivation that will be gratified by virtuous behaviour. So understood,
the question has no answer. What may happen is that someone is brought to see
things as a virtuous person does, and so stops feeling the need to ask it’.
Aristotle
 Stern (discussing Pritchard):
 The person looking for an answer to ‘why should I’ is
looking for the wrong sort of answer by trying to find a
non-moral base for a moral theory.
 Compare to ‘morality must be a product of (and
therefore derive its authority from) evolution – I have no
reason to participate in the ‘evolution’ of man, therefore
morality does not bind me.’
Aristotle
 Asking ‘why should I let morality bind me’ is to assume
that it does not already!
 Modern theories (i.e. ‘Constitutivism’) aim to show how
moral norms (rules) can be derived from looking into
the nature of agency and action.
 One is necessarily an agent, therefore one is
necessarily ‘evaluated’ by the relevant criteria.
 There has been (at least) one attempt (namely, by me)
to show that this is Aristotle’s position…
Aristotle
 Problem Two:
2. List of Virtues is not exhaustive…
Is this a problem for Aristotle?
Aristotle
 Problem Three:
3. Ergon Argument is implausible…
1. Anything with a function is a tool, instrument, or utensil
made by someone for a purpose.
2. Man is not a tool, etc., made by someone for a
purpose.
Therefore
3. Man does not have a function.
Aristotle
 Answer to problem three:
 We can put pressure on the first premise.
 E.g. the eye (heart, lungs, liver…) certainly has a
function, but it’s not clear that it was made by someone
for some purpose. It isn’t clear that Aristotle would
accept premise one as it’s formulated.
Aristotle
 Answer to problem three:
 Premise two might be a non-starter (not all things that
have a function are instruments, so man doesn’t have
to be a ‘tool’ to have a function).
 Theists might hold an (implausible) ‘intelligent design
account’ of creation. But this won’t help you argue
against Aristotle anyway so it’s not an objection.
Mill, Kant or Aristotle?
 Who to choose? Some try to hold Aristotle AND Mill,
Aristotle AND Kant (no-one, to my knowledge, holds
Kant AND Mill – that would be really odd).
 Plausible hybrid?
 Other options?
Summary
 Mill – Do that which increases happiness (net increase
of ‘pleasure’)
 Kant – Moral acts are those done from the motive of
duty (free of inclination).
 Aristotle – Be a virtuous person.
Conclusion
 Final thoughts…