Critic paper on some of the weaknesses of virtue ethics.

1. Virtue Ethics:
An Egoistic and Vague Moral Theory?
Virtue ethics emphasizes the role of moral character and virtue in moral philosophy rather
than the duties or roles (deontology) and the consequences of the action (utilitarianism)
(Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018). The very principle of virtue ethics is that an action is right if and
only if it is what a virtuous person would do in certain circumstances (Sakellariouv, 2015). Virtue,
as describe by Aristotle, is the mean between extremes of deficiency and excess and a virtuous
person exhibits all of the virtues.
There are three main directions in virtue ethics: (1) Eudaimonism which is based on human
flourishing, (2) agent-based theory which emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-
sense and (3) ethics of care that challenges the idea that ethics should focus solely on justice and
autonomy and that nurturing and caring should also be considered (Athanassoulis, nd). Virtue
ethics offer great advantages since it encompasses different virtues which are all important in order
to live a harmonious life. However, critics found some objections to virtue ethics.
Virtue ethics is character-based or agent-based
Michael Slote (1997) proposed that Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics is an agent-based
ethics- they are concerned with what it means to be a virtuous agent/person and how to acquire
those virtues. In simple words, virtue ethics is about “how should a person be” rather than “what
should a person do” (Dimmock & Fisher, nd).
Although it is important to teach ourselves to be virtuous, morality was supposed to be
about other people. However, in virtue ethics, its primary concern is the character development of
the self which contradicts the purpose of morality. The problem with a character-based ethics is
that it failed to consider the extent to which our actions affect other people since its focus is on
developing virtue of oneself (Keller, 2010). However, I disagree with this argument. Virtues, in
general, are the good moral quality in a person (Cambridge Dictionary, 2020) and a person
possessing these virtues is concern in developing the right character that will respond to the needs
of others in an appropriate way. In other words, virtue ethics still regards the situation of others.
As someone who was taught to be virtuous, I can say that having those virtues can lead you in
helping others not because of the expected result but because you know it is what you are ought to
do. Just like the infamous story of the Good Samaritan. He helped the poor man because he knows
the poor man’s situation.
To further understand the argument, let’s take for example the virtue of kindness. You saw
on the news how the typhoon Ulysses had affected your fellow Filipinos. You saw their devastating
state- people need food, clothes, medicines and other necessities to live. You know they need help
and as someone who have most of the things that those people need, you opt for a donation. This
act of kindness is pursued because you know you have to help them in anyways you can. The
virtue of kindness is about being able to perceive situations where one is required to be kind and

2. have the disposition to respond kindly in a reliable and stable manner (Athanassoulis, nd). In
addition, I believe that if that certain virtue is developed in you, you will have that will to do good
to others.
The indeterminacy of virtue ethics during moral dilemma
Theorists and critics describe virtue ethics as vague as it doesn’t have clear answers on
what to do during moral dilemma. Virtue ethics failed to resolve moral conflict (Sakellariouv,
2015; The Ethics House, 2016). Moral dilemmas are situations wherein two or more virtues are in
conflict and only one of these virtues should be honoured (Kvalnes, 2019). It is said that to be
virtuous is to follow what a virtuous person would do. But this statement only leads to another
problem: “How do we identify a virtuous person?”
Aristotle proposed the “golden mean” which defines what a virtue is. According to him,
the golden mean is the middle between two extremes and that this golden mean is what we should
follow. However, when faced with certain dilemma, this golden mean would lead to many
confusions. For instance, you saw a man that is being beaten by two men, bigger than you, in a
dark alley and there are no other passers-by except for you. In this situation, you’ve got to two
options: first is to gather your courage and stop the men in beating their victim and the second is
to be a coward and just run away leaving the poor man in the alley. By the principle of “golden
mean” courage is the middle between cowardice and recklessness, and so you have to be
courageous. Of course you know that you need to help the poor man but in what way will you help
him? And that leads you to another confusing situation, either you will straight go to them but
doing this might lead to you getting beaten also or call for the authority, by doing this, you have
saved the man and at the same time prevent yourself from the danger if you are to stop them by
yourself. By the principle of virtue ethics, a virtuous person would assess the situation and choose
the best option. But as for me, there are many what ifs for this kind of situation especially if I will
go for the second option. What if calling the authority might not be the best option because it took
them too long to respond and that the worse that I have been expecting had come?
According to Hursthouse (2003), when a person reflects upon the dilemma baring the
virtues in mind, the correct decision can be made. When a virtue is practiced enough, it become a
habit. Although she’s got a point, I can still say that virtue ethics doesn’t have the strong or solid
foundation to become a basis during moral conflict. Cause in most cases, we would really take the
result of that particular action as the basis of our decision. And virtue ethics doesn’t focus on the
consequences of the action. For example, in abortion, would a woman be compassionate or be
brave? Would she keep the child even if she knows that it is a result of an unpleasant incident that
would haunt her or have mercy and keep the child? Would she “be brave” and take up the
challenges that awaits her even if she knows she is not fully capable of taking care of it? For this
situation, of course we will judge our decision based on the outcome of that particular decision.
And so virtue ethics wasn’t really followed. Surely, virtue ethics is unclear on what a good or bad
action is since it doesn’t have rules to follow or it doesn’t consider the consequences.

3. Conclusion
The purpose of virtue ethics is to nurture a person in becoming virtuous so that he may live
correctly. But what is really living correctly? The moral theory doesn’t give proper direction on
what is right and what is wrong. As long as you’re living virtuously then you are living correctly.
But virtues can be misinterpreted and be an “empty statement” when certain circumstances arises.

4. Bibliography
http://www.markedbyteachers.com/as-and-a-level/religious-studies-and-philosophy/a-virtue-
ethics-is-of-little-use-when-dealing-with-practical-ethicsa-tm-discuss.html
Athanassoulos, N. (nd). Virtue ethics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/.
Cambridge Dictionary. (2020). Virtue. Retrieved from:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/virtue.
Dimmock, M. and Fisher, A. (nd). Aristotelian virtue ethics. Ethics for A-level. pp. 49-60.
Retrieved from: https://books.openedition.org/obp/4421?lang=en
Hursthouse, R. (2003). Virtue Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Keller, S. (2010). Virtue ethics is self-effacing. Australian Journal of Philosophy. DOI:
10.1080/00048400701343010. Retrieved from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00048400701343010?journalCode=rajp20#:
~:text=Page%201-
,VIRTUE%20ETHICS%20IS%20SELF%2DEFFACING,considerations%20that%20justif
y%20our%20acts.
Kvalnes, O. (2019). Moral dilemmas. In Moral reasoning at work. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-15191-1_2. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-
030-15191-1_2#citeas
Sakellariouv, A. (2015). Virtue ethics and its potential as the leading moral theory. Discussions.
Vol. 12(1). Retrieved from: http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1385/virtue-ethics-
and-moral-theory
Slote, M. (1997). Three methods of ethics: A debate Blackwell. pp. 176-229.
The Ethics House. (2016). Ethics explainer: virtue ethics. Retrieved from:
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-virtue-
ethics/#:~:text=Some%20argue%20virtue%20ethics%20is,us%20overcome%20difficult%
20ethical%20conundrums.&text=A%20virtue%20ethicist%20might%20refuse,them%20as
%20the%20good%20guy.