The Ethics of Virtue
Moral virtue, Socrates says, is rooted
in moral wisdom. Moral wisdom refers to one’s knowledge of the good. What
is the moral good? The opposite of wisdom is ignorance. Virtue is the
knowledge of the good. A person of virtue therefore is a man of wisdom. Moral
wisdom requires self-examination. Wisdom, Socrates tells us, is about “knowing
thyself.”
The practice of the good is
called phronesis. For Aristotle,
moral virtue signifies the capacity to be excellent in doing things. Moral
wisdom does not come from a single act of kindness or honesty. It is a habit.
It is grounded in the way a person lives. As such, it comes from the practice
of the good. This constitutes what moral character is all about.
Individuals act, according to the above notion of
moral virtue, in pursuit of human happiness. The goal of every human action is happiness.
This means that people must utilize things only as means. But this, more often
than not, is misunderstood. Because of ignorance, people often equate happiness
with material pleasure.
It can be recalled that Plato understood the
good life as a life that is governed by a sense of harmony. Just like
Aristotle, goodness and virtue are linked, for their unity produces harmony. For
Plato, the good life is one that can be pictured out in terms of the efficient
functioning of instruments. For instance, a knife is good if it cut wells. In
the same manner, a human being is good if he develops a similar kind of
efficiency.
The formation of human character results in
the realization of a happy life. For Aristotle, happiness is the state of
living well. Aristotle says: “Every virtue or excellence both brings into good
condition the thing of which it is the excellence and makes the work of that
thing be done well…therefore, if this is true in every case, the virtue of man
also will be the state of character which makes a man good and makes him do his
own work well.” (NE 2:6)
Self-Perfection
Aristotle thinks that the human being possesses
a distinctive function to fulfill. Aristotle explains his moral theory through
the constitution of the human being. Aristotle says that the human being is
composed of body and soul. For him, the soul is the seat of control while the
body is the instrument. It is the soul that commands the body. The soul,
Aristotle believes, consists of rational and irrational elements. The rational
element is the intellect. It is the center that determines how human beings
must act.
The irrational part of the human soul consists
of the vegetative and the appetitive elements. The vegetative element deals
with the body’s organic growth, seen as the lowest part of the soul. The other
part is the appetitive element which deals with human emotions and desires.
Human beings have feelings of fear and anxiety or the emotion of joy and
resentment. What the individual does is sometimes based on these impulses. The
basic idea is for the human being to be able to control these impulses, and
direct the soul to the morally virtuous act.
It is the intellect that regulates human
action, and for this reason, it is the highest element of the human soul. In
relation to this, Aristotle explains the meaning of moral virtues. He says that
“virtue, being of two kinds, the intellectual and moral: man’s intellectual
virtue owes its birth and growth to teaching while moral virtue comes about as
a result of habit.” (NE 2:1) Now, the key to its explanation comes from the [doctrine
of the mean]. The human being must seek the middle when he acts. Aristotle tells
us:
Virtue, then, is a state of character concerned with choice,
lying in the mean, i.e. the mean relative to us, this being determined by a
rational principle, and by that same principle by which the man of practical
wisdom would determine it. (NE 2:6)
The
self can achieve perfection through phronesis.
Our moral virtues, according to Aristotle, are not mental capacities. Rather,
these are character traits. Character refers to the human being’s ability to choose
in such a way that his actions are neither excessive nor inadequate. Such
requires a form of self-mastery. This self-mastery constitutes the meaning of good
character.
Thus, a person who is courageous possesses
the virtue of courage. This means that in the face of many risks, he knows and
acts in a particular way exhibiting such a trait. Moral virtue, in this regard,
helps the individual attain self-perfection, which is the realization of the
potentials of the soul. Virtue defines a person’s character, which is the
ultimate goal of the individual.
Aristotle
says that ethics is concerned with what constitutes the finality of our action.
Thus, Aristotle writes in Nichomachean
Ethics: “All activities aim at some good. Every art and human inquiry, and
similarly every action and pursuit, aim at some good; and for this reason the
good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim.” (NE 1:1)
Human Happiness
The
objects of human desire or the things that people pursue are not in themselves
the highest good. Material things are temporary whereas virtue is eternal.
Things have a certain sense of limitation. It is only moral virtue that lasts. Aristotle
thinks that “the life of money-making is one undertaken with compulsion, and
wealth is evidently not really the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful
and for the sake of something else.” (NE 1:5)
Goods like money, honor or power are desired
not for their own sake, but for the sake of something else higher. Material
wealth brings pleasure; honor begets pride; and political power brings
influence. But all these goods cannot be the ultimate goal of human life. In
searching for this finality, men must act morally to attain the good life.
Aristotle explains that “verbally there is
general agreement; for the general run of men of superior refinement say that
it is truly human happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being
happy.” (NE 1:4) Happiness, it is said, defines the [good life]. It is a kind
of life marked by excellence, a life that is fully worth living.
Aristotle says that people must seek the
good. The good for Aristotle is concerned with the state of living well. The state
living well is eudaimonia which for the
Greeks means living the good life. It is more than the sense of satisfaction,
which people often confuse with the real meaning of happiness. Happiness means
that the good life consists of the life that is truly lived. It is that kind of
life that flourishes with noteworthy human activity.
Living well depends on the use of resources
which serve as the means to attain the good. The ability to flourish enables each
individual to achieve the highest end of human life. Happiness is never about
the accumulation of material wealth. It goes beyond the ephemeral value of
things. Only human happiness is desirable in itself. Other things are mere instruments
for human happiness. Aristotle says:
Now, such a thing as happiness, above
all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself, and never just for
the sake of something else, but honor, pleasure, reason, and every virtue that
we choose indeed for themselves, but we choose them also for the sake of
happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the
other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor in general, for anything
other than itself. (NE 2:7)
Well-being
is expressed in dynamic activity. Living well, in this sense, is connected with
doing or being able to act out what is necessary to realize the [good life].
Aristotle writes, “happiness seems… to come as a result of virtue and some
process of learning and training.” (NE 2:9) An analogy can be made between
flourishing and the gardener. The good gardener possesses all the skills and
tools to be able to flourish in what he does. He cares for his plants and he also
seriously loves his work. This habit makes itself manifest in his character.
It
can be said that the gardener who gives his time and skill to improve his work
is one who is truly able to find the fulfillment in what he is doing. Doing well
means that one has the ability or real freedom to attain the good. In a way,
living well means that the human person has all the opportunity to make proper
choices in life that enables his unfolding. This unfolding refers to one’s
self-realization. To realize oneself means that one is able to do the things
that one finds valuable because these are things that contribute to the
development of the human person.
The Ethics of Moral
Obligation
Every person, Kant says, knows the meaning of the moral good. This knowledge is the source
of moral duty. Moral duty, Kant thinks, is universal. It applies to all persons
everywhere at all times. It is the fundamental law of our nature. Kant tells us
that “the dignity of humanity consists in the ability of being universally
legislating though with the very condition that it is also subject to the same
legislation.” (CI: 38)
Since the human being is capable of
deliberating, following rules, and making free choices, he is subject to the
moral law. (Holmes 2007:103) The rational nature of man presupposes his freedom.
This means that man has the obligation to obey his rational nature. For Kant, the
human will is good, not because the consequences are good, nor because it is
capable of attaining the end which it seeks, “but it is good in itself, or
because it wills the good.” (CI: 359)
The human person knows the good internally
through the autonomy of the will. For Kant, duty is the supreme norm of
morality or “the obligation to act from reverence to law.” (361) Kant then puts
forward what is known as an a priori (meaning
‘prior to experience’) or a formal moral philosophy. He says that our moral
principles are known a priori. Moral
philosophy, in this regard, is pure and formal. Kant says that “the conception
of duty, however, we must not derive from experience…the idea of duty as duty
belongs to the idea of reason which determines the will on a priori grounds.” (262)
According
to Kant, “nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or even out of it,
which can be called good without qualification except a good will.” (Kant 2002:
33) All moral worth is determined by a [good will]. Kant, in this regard,
“insists to derive any moral worth from our actions we must do them from the
right motive.” (Holmes 2007: 101)
Morality
for Kant proceeds from a moral ought. The moral ought, for Kant, is
the fundamental moral principle governing the goodness of an action. All good
emanates from the moral ought, which for Kant is not a description of the good,
but an authoritative and normative principle. This principle dictates or
commands our action. For Kant, the good is grounded in our moral obligation. (CI:
363)
Autonomy of the Will
Kant says that we are autonomous beings. Human
action in this regard must be free from the influence of external factors. It
can be said that outside reasons can influence the way people act. The social environment
may affect our behavior. For Kant, a moral judgment should be free from the
dictates of an external influence. Autonomy means [self-rule]. He writes,
Autonomy is the basis of the dignity of every human being and
of every rational nature…although a conception of duty implies subjection to
the moral law, people yet ascribe a certain dignity and sublimity to the person
who fulfills his duty. (Kant 2002: 38)
The individual performs the
[moral ought] in accordance to the inner law of the will. For Kant, autonomy is
the property of the will. The [will] is the law by itself. The will legislates
for itself. Thus, the autonomy of the will provides the moral agent the
capacity to legislate the moral law within. Since the law comes from within, a
person is required to do the good accordingly. Otherwise, the individual
violates his capacity for self-rule.
The idea of moral duty proceeds from the
notion of moral agency. For Kant, the moral agent is one who acts on the basis
of a rational will. A good act by any moral agent is determined through his
rational capacity. The basic idea is that a good act is that which an agent
does by following the moral law within. Kant views the [good will] as good in
itself. A good will is not dependent on outside objects or circumstances. Kant
writes:
By a good will is not meant mere well-wishing; it consists
in a resolute employment of the means within one’s reach and its intrinsic
value is no way increased by success or lessened by failure. (CI: 359)
Thus, we pursue the good life or anything good in this world, say a career or a decent way of life, not because we desire certain values these give to us, but because we have a duty to fulfill the moral law within. An act is moral on the basis that it is the right thing to do. This righteousness proceeds from a good will alone. What matters in this regard is the intention, that is, the pure intention of doing what is good.
The external incentives of any reward
or one’s skill in doing things do not qualify for the strict requirements Kant
set for a good will. The ultimate motivation of the individual in his act must
only be the will to do the good act itself. Meaning to say, a good act is
performed because as rational beings we know that we are duty-bound to do so.
In this sense, Kant would require that human individuals do not perform good
acts because they are primarily motivated by profit or benefit.
A hypothetical imperative seeks to realize an
outside inclination. Kant says that, “a hypothetical imperative states that a
certain thing must be done, if something else which is willed is to be attained.”
(363) The concept of a hypothetical imperative means that an action is good
relatively to a certain possible end or to a certain end. (363) A hypothetical
imperative implies that an act is done because of an external consequence, for
instance, a reward.
For
Kant, however, moral worth proceeds from a good will, not from an outside
motive. The sole intention of the actor must be doing the act for its own sake.
The good act has no other purpose except the fulfillment of a duty, which is
the internal moral law of the human being. A perfectly [good will] would stand
under our objective laws. (363) Thus, the ultimate good is simply doing what is
good for its own sake. Kant says:
Good and pleasure are quite distinct. Pleasure results from
the influence of subjective causes on the will of the subject, and these vary
with the susceptibility of this or that person. (363)
We
can, for instance, compare motivation by duty with other sorts of motives. When
the individual does something for the sake of his happiness or for the sake of
being recognized, such things do not express a good will. The reason is that
the individual seems to do things only to be praised, and this does not
correspond to a good motive. A self-serving intent can destroy the morality of
any act.
The “good will” does not desire
self-promotion. Kant says that, “if the action is good in itself, the moral imperative,
as a necessary principle of a will that conforms to reason, is categorical.”
(363) It is the desire to do good that determines the moral value of an act and
not the interest to benefit from doing something. Moral duty, in this regard,
is a non-negotiable principle.
For
Kant, the moral act is in itself necessary. It is without
reference to another end. Henceforth, the categorical imperative is the single
moral principle having the real spirit and dignity of being a moral law since
it is the sole command that is absolute. For Kant, this authoritative dictate
is a permanent imprint in the human subject whose nature is rational and free,
through which we determine the absolute or categorical sense of morality
The Categorical Imperative
The categorical imperative promulgates
what alone is to become the absolute moral obligation. Moral subjects are all duty-bound,
otherwise, they would violate their own nature. In making a choice, man must
follow what reason mandates. This implies that moral responsibility is inescapable
for all rational beings. Such presupposes an absolute ought that alone defines
what is right. The two salient principles of Kantian morality are as follows:
a.
Act as if
the rule from which you act were to become through your will a universal law of nature. (365)
b.
Act so as
to use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always
as an end, never merely as a means. (365)
First, universality means that a moral
act is [unconditional] in nature. It is an absolute. This means that a moral
act knows no boundaries. The right thing to do is always the right thing to do,
whatever the circumstance, in all places at all times. Universality means that
put in the same condition any individual would act in the same manner as
another following the dictates of one’s duty.
For example, Kant asks if the act of
breaking a promise can be morally justifiable. The answer, according to Kant,
is a resounding ‘no’. The reason being is that doing so would destroy the
essence of any promise, which is by the operation of one’s reason, is meant to
be fulfilled. To fail a promise is to violate the very condition why a person
makes a promise. If any man intends to be dishonest, then why make a commitment
in the first place?
Second, the idea that the human being is an end in itself emanates
from the moral claim that each person has dignity. This moral worth means that every
human person is inviolable. Kant tells us that “rational beings are called
persons because their nature shows them to be ends in themselves, that is,
something that cannot be used merely as means. (365) For example, one might
want to get wealthy. However, the human person, being an end in itself, cannot
be used to satisfy the desire of someone who wants to acquire excessive wealth.
A
moral act, Kant tells us, is that which treats men and women as ends. This
means that every human being must be respected as the ultimate bearer of moral
worth. To use a person as means is to violate the moral worth of the same. To
reduce a human being to the level of things is enslavement. Human beings are
free. To violate our freedom is to violate our humanity. The moral task at
hand, in this regard, is to respect the autonomy of every human being.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarian morality is a theory that grounds the rightness or wrongness
of an act on its effects rather than on the act per se. It asserts that the
moral value of an act is one that we can find in its consequences. Consequences
are to be evaluated based on the tendency to bring [pleasure] or utility. The
motive or reason behind the act is insufficient to determine the goodness or
badness of an act. Jeremy Bentham defines the meaning of utility:
By utility is meant that property in
any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or
happiness…or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness
to the party whose interest is considered. (Bentham 1976: 34)
Moral
judgment pertaining to an act will have to be rendered after an act shall have
produced good or bad consequences, whether or not it results to pleasure. John
Stuart Mill believes that, “the creed which accepts as the foundation of
morals, utility, or the greatest happiness principle, holds that actions are
morally right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness and wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” (Mill 2007: 6)
Based
on the principle of utility, human action by its own nature does not possess any
moral qualification. If an action makes one happy, then it is good. Mill says
that happiness is the intended pleasure and the absence of pain and by
unhappiness, pain and the privation of pleasure. (6) Acts should be considered
in terms of their benefit or advantage. An act is morally bad if it results to a
loss or disadvantage.
Thus, pleasure, as the consequence of
an act, determines whether or not an act is worth doing. If the result or
effect of an act is desirable, then the act possesses moral worth. An act that
produces any disadvantage or suffering is undesirable and as such, not worth
doing. What is only worth doing is that which results to the greatest pleasure
of the greatest number. All individuals in society, of course, aim at achieving
pleasure. Thus, we must be conscious that others also deserve their happiness.
The importance of the principle of
utility is that it appeals a lot to one’s common sense. Take for instance the desire
of donating money to schools. If one donates money to any school, then one is
helping children become better citizens. Hence, there is an obvious perception
of efficiency and the prudent use of resource. It is beneficial. In contrast,
if one gives money to beggars, it has no real effect on the well-being of the
beggar. Worst, it can even tolerate his condition and perpetuate the beggar’s
poverty.
The Hedonistic Calculus
Utilitarianism judges the rightness or
wrongness of an act through a “hedonistic calculus”, or the “measurement of pleasure
or happiness.” To be able to strengthen the point that pleasure is the basic
moral good, pleasure should be measurable. There has to be a standard of
measure, some sort of a norm to be able to put forward the claim that pleasure
is the greatest good. If pleasure is non-measurable, then it cannot be the
standard, since what people think and feel about pleasure are different.
The seven elements in measuring utility
according to Bentham include intensity (degree of pleasure), duration (length
of time one experiences the pleasure), probability (the most certain effect is
what is desired), proximity (frequency of the pleasure), fecundity (capacity to
result to more pleasures), extent (more people can experience the pleasure) and
purity (the absence of painful counter-effects). (Bentham 1976: 64-67)
For utilitarian morality, the maximum
is always the most desirable. It is the most desirable because it is what
provides the greatest in terms of the utility of an act. Mill improves on Bentham’s
elements, suggesting that they are crudely based on the quantitative measure of
pleasure. He proposes the importance of knowing the quality of one’s happiness.
Thus, Mill sees the above standard as limited. Humans experience pleasure in
higher realms, for instance in the arts. Bentham’s old standard seems to
consider human nature only in a very limited way. It is a kind of hedonism that
seems to be crudely mechanical. He explains that happiness or pleasure should
not only be about the amount of pleasure. It matters what kind of pleasure one
gains. Mill says,
If I am asked, what I mean by
difference of quality in pleasures, or what makes one pleasure more valuable
than another, merely as a pleasure, except its being greater in amount, there
is but one possible answer. Of two pleasures, if there be one to which all or
almost all who have experience of both give a decided preference, irrespective
of any feeling of moral obligation to prefer it, that is the more desirable
pleasure. (Mill 2007:7)
The above suggests that people have many
preferences because human beings have a higher nature. Humans aim at achieving
higher contentment. This contentment is the highest human good. Will Kymlicka
states that for utilitarianism “the experience of pleasure is the chief human
good. It is the one good which is an end-in-itself, to which all other goods
are just means.” (Kymlicka 2007: 13)
The point is that the ultimate basis of all morality is pleasure. The individual chooses and acts in view of such end, regardless of his circumstance. It is an upbringing that intends to give weight to a life that one finds enjoyment in. The best life, in this sense, is the kind of life where pleasure is found. Mill explains:
The point is that the ultimate basis of all morality is pleasure. The individual chooses and acts in view of such end, regardless of his circumstance. It is an upbringing that intends to give weight to a life that one finds enjoyment in. The best life, in this sense, is the kind of life where pleasure is found. Mill explains:
According to the greatest happiness
principle, the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all
other things are desirable, is an existence exempt as far as possible from
pain, and as rich as possible as enjoyments, both in point of quantity and
quality. (Mill 2007:10)
Act and Rule Utilitarianism
It
is impossible to account for all the consequences of an act. On one hand, the
notion of act utilitarianism necessitates that all the consequences of human
action should result to general happiness. All actions, hence, should possess
the attribute of greatest benefit for the greatest number. Utilitarian morality
proceeds from the claim that the [good act] is one that generates the maximum
amount of pleasure and the least in terms of pain.
But of course, this is not the case all the
time as some human acts have repercussions beyond the immediate effects. For
instance, some parent who chooses to work abroad will help provide for the
financial need of a family. However, the big disadvantage in terms of the absence
of a parent to guide children as they grow up or in difficult situations such
as when a child gets sick is barely accounted for.
The notion of rule utilitarianism, in contrast
to act utilitarianism, would consider the idea that moral action is that which
belongs to the kind of acts, by way of common experience, that results to
maximum utility. This means that we are no longer required to consider all the
merits and demerits of an act. Rather, in doing something, human action must be
one that belongs to a set of norms or a basic standard that has been proven to
be beneficial.
The difference is that while act
utilitarianism requires that people must act in order to realize pleasure, rule
utilitarianism simply sets a standard for morality to achieve the same result. Act
utilitarianism relies on our common sense. Sense observation can calculate the utility
of our actions. In contrast, rule utilitarianism will provide the guidelines
for good human behavior. The rules determine as to whether or not an act
results to a desired consequence.
