Aristotle’s virtue ethics places a heavy emphasis on finding what is the “golden mean,” which is a virtue that is found between the two extremes of excess and deficiency, which are then considered vices. It is also further specified that virtue can either be learned over time (deemed “intellectual”) or performed through habit (considered “moral”). The most important concept of virtue ethics being, that virtue is a means by which happiness (or eudaimonism) is achieved. Additionally, it is stated that one who is virtuous behaves the right way, purely because it is right and their disposition is fixed as being virtuous. Aristotle’s concept of virtue also relies heavily upon actions, emphasizing virtue as a disposition, and not a way of life— the converse of happiness, rationalizing this by explaining that doing what is right must be learned throughout childhood, because an immoral person cannot be persuaded to become virtuous. These concepts of virtue (especially the golden mean) can be easily applied to the individual and used to analyze their behavior, which is a prominent strength of Virtue Ethics.
This can be demonstrated through two separate examples, such as with parental love and confidence. In the case of parental love, moderation in affection and discipline results in a child that knows boundaries with the parents, and are also secure in their familial relationships, and eventually in their personal relationships, promoting confidence and the ability to function well in society. There are also those who are either coddled or neglected during childhood. Based off of the former criteria, those who are coddled have very faint influences of discipline within their lives, leaving little structure for the child to develop self-restraint. Additionally, the ability to deal with failure is also taken away, so the child cannot appropriately handle the setbacks that are experienced in every day life, hindering function within society. Conversely, a child who is neglected will not experience the love and affection needed to develop emotionally and will lose the ability to become confident in any form of relationship. In combination with a similar lack of restraint put on their life, they lash out due to frustration and insecurity, again retarding their ability to function in a society.
The same concept can be applied to confidence as well, especially in the context of a society. With the virtue of modesty comes the ability to assert and have faith in one’s self, as well as being able to acknowledge when one is incorrect and take it in stride. The vices of modesty then becomes humility and arrogance. With humility, one lacks confidence in their ability to perform, and ends up fulfilling their negative perception of themselves, discouraging them from putting any effort into work and put their self-interests last when making any important decisions, stunting any potential for growth and innovation in the individual. Arrogance being the inverse reaction, one holds too high of an opinion of the self, resulting in being incredibly stubborn and possessing the inability to see flaws, creating someone impossible to work with in both personal and professional atmospheres. Through Aristotle’s definition of virtue, one can strike a desirable balance between traits in life, resulting in prosperity and happiness.
Additional strengths of Aristotle’s virtue ethics includes the fact that his grounds for what is moral is kept to a very vague description, the golden mean described as being, “a mean that is relative to us and determined by a rational principle,” meaning that actions that are considered virtuous or “right” are within the range of what is considered normal. This accounts for differentiation of virtues across different cultures, but does leave one to wonder why there are no universally accepted virtues. However, in addition to this, the fact that Aristotle gives no explicit example of what constitutes a virtuous deed and does not connect virtue to law, which keeps his arguments both relevant and timeless due to the ever-changing nature of the moral landscape.
With the broad nature of virtue ethics, it also becomes difficult to find a basis as to why one should be virtuous at all, because it emphasizes, “the importance of character and human excellence as opposed to moral rules or consequences,” (Mastin). Yet, the perceived weakness of Aristotle’s argument actually works to its advantage. This is because it does not appeal to any one higher power or sovereign entity: it appeals to the individual. Self-interest is the most powerful driving force to be virtuous, because one has no incentive to do something for the benefit of others unless it benefits himself as well. Therefore, if one’s well being or happiness is jeopardized through the enacting of a vice, one will then become inclined to be virtuous in order to preserve the self. Although this can be very influential on virtue, this does lead one to question Aristotle’s theory yet again when it comes to the specific topic of murder.
Murder becomes a very ambiguous topic in the world of Aristotelean ethics. As Mastin interjects,
…A virtue theorist may argue that someone who commits a murder is severely lacking in several important virtues (e.g. compassion and fairness, among others), but does proscribe murder as an inherently immoral or impermissible sort of action, and the theory is therefore useless as a universal norm of acceptable conduct suitable as a base for legislation.
This demonstrates that it is very difficult to create a real reason as to why someone should not murder another person because it shall be in their best interest to do so without any true consequence (in a context devoid of set laws) faced with this specific dilemma, virtue does begin to rely on set rules and regulations. Which, is where Thomas Hobbes’ theory of the social gains a significant edge over Aristotle’s ethics. This is because his theory connects morality to an established set of rules, which he explains can vary across various landscapes, and will be moral in relation to different cultures. It creates a double-enforcement of a set of morals, by means of the best interest of the individual (to avoid punishment) as well as by way of the government (or sovereign) which provides a guaranteed consequence for what is illicit— and also immoral in this theory.
That which is lacking in Aristotle’s view is that it is a very self-centered approach because it focuses on what vices mean in terms of the character of the individual, not taking into account the impact actions may have on others (Mastin). In addition, delineating what is the “golden mean” can be somewhat challenging because of it abstractions being that, “‘Too much’ and ‘too little’ aren’t quantities on a single scale,” (“Issues for Aristotle’s…”). Yet, it can be argued that this can helped be determined by social norms that are present.
A prominent dilemma that does present itself is when one does not have a knowledge of what is virtuous. Per “Issues for Aristotle’s…” example,
If I have practical wisdom, it seems that I simply know what to do. But if I do not have practical wisdom, what then? Knowing that the right action is what a virtuous person would do doesn’t help me because I don’t know what the virtuous person would do!
Aristotle’s set of virtues does not provide a solution or a means by which one may acquire a virtuous habit, another gap in his theory in which more structure is needed in his dictations to solidify what is virtuous.
Overall, Aristotle’s theory is very well-rounded and its vague nature leaves plenty of room for interpretation, which helps his cause in that those can find both arguments and answers for those arguments in its ambiguity. Although it lacks a certain structure to enforce virtuous acts, it has proven its worth over the course of time and will continue to exist as ling as social institutions and socially enforced norms persist.