Chapter7 Virtue Ethics: Be a Good Person Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton &Company Virtue Ethics Both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist moral theories are concerned with action and attempt to answer the question “What should I do?” Virtue ethics is a theory of morality that makes virtue the central concern. Virtue ethics attempts to answer the question “What should I be?” Aristotle’s Ethics –1Almost all modern virtue ethicists trace their theoretical roots back to Aristotle. His ethics consists not in following moral rules that stipulate right actions but in striving to be a particular kind of person—a virtuous person whose actions stem naturally from virtuous character. Aristotle’s Ethics –2For Aristotle, every living thing has an end toward which it naturally aims, the thing that represents its greatest good.The greatest good for humans—their true goal—is eudaimonia, which means “happiness” or “flourishing” and refers to the true realization of the good life. EudaimoniaTo achieve eudaimonia, human beings must fulfill the function that is natural and distinctive to them: living fully in accordance with reason.The life of reason entails a life of virtue because the virtues themselves are rational modes of being. VirtuesTo Aristotle, a virtue is a stable disposition to act and feel according to some ideal or model ofexistence.It is a deeply embedded character trait that can affect actions in countlesssituations.Aristotle distinguishes between intellectual andmoral virtues. IntellectualVirtues MoralVirtues Wisdom Fairness Prudence Benevolence Rationality Honesty Loyalty Conscientiousness Courage The Golden Mean –1 Moral virtues occupy what Aristotle calls the “Golden Mean”—a balance between two behavioral extremes.For example, a moral virtue such as courage is the midpoint between the extremes of recklessness, on one side, and cowardice, on the other. The Golden Mean –2 For Aristotle, the Golden Mean expresses a fundamental truth: the virtuous—and happy—life is a life of moderation in all things. Modern Virtue Ethics Contemporary virtue ethicists agree with Aristotle on these points:The cultivation of virtues is not only a moral requirement but also a way to ensure human flourishing and a good life.A fully developed ethics must take into account motives, feelings, intentions, and moral wisdom.Acting only out of duty is a barren and one-dimensional approach to living a virtuous life. Evaluating Virtue EthicsVirtue ethics seems to meet the minimum requirements of coherence.It seems consistent with our considered moral judgments (Criterion 1) and with our moral experiences (Criterion 2).The main critique of virtue ethics centers on Criterion 3: the usefulness of the theory in moral problem solving. The Usefulness of Virtue Ethics –1 According to virtue ethics, when faced with a moral dilemma, we should do what a virtuous person would do. But how do we determine this? The right action is the one performed by the virtuous person, an.

1. Chapter7
Virtue Ethics: Be a Good Person
Copyright © 2019 W. W. Norton &Company
Virtue Ethics
Both consequentialist and nonconsequentialist moral theories
are concerned with action and attempt to answer the question
“What should I do?”
Virtue ethics is a theory of morality that makes virtue the
central concern.
Virtue ethics attempts to answer the question “What should I
be?”
Aristotle’s Ethics –1Almost all modern virtue ethicists trace
their theoretical roots back to Aristotle. His ethics consists not
in following moral rules that stipulate right actions but in
striving to be a particular kind of person—a virtuous person
whose actions stem naturally from virtuous character.
Aristotle’s Ethics –2For Aristotle, every living thing has an end
toward which it naturally aims, the thing that represents its
greatest good.The greatest good for humans—their true goal—is
eudaimonia, which means “happiness” or “flourishing” and
refers to the true realization of the good life.
EudaimoniaTo achieve eudaimonia, human beings must fulfill
the function that is natural and distinctive to them: living fully
in accordance with reason.The life of reason entails a life of
virtue because the virtues themselves are rational modes of
being.
VirtuesTo Aristotle, a virtue is a stable disposition to act and
feel according to some ideal or model ofexistence.It is a deeply
embedded character trait that can affect actions in

2. countlesssituations.Aristotle distinguishes between intellectual
andmoral
virtues.
IntellectualVirtues
MoralVirtues
Wisdom
Fairness
Prudence
Benevolence
Rationality
Honesty
Loyalty
Conscientiousness
Courage
The Golden Mean –1 Moral virtues occupy what Aristotle calls
the “Golden Mean”—a balance between two behavioral
extremes.For example, a moral virtue such as courage is the
midpoint between the extremes of recklessness, on one side, and
cowardice, on the other.
The Golden Mean –2
For Aristotle, the Golden Mean expresses a fundamental truth:
the virtuous—and happy—life is a life of moderation in all
things.
Modern Virtue Ethics
Contemporary virtue ethicists agree with Aristotle on these
points:The cultivation of virtues is not only a moral requirement
but also a way to ensure human flourishing and a good life.A
fully developed ethics must take into account motives, feelings,
intentions, and moral wisdom.Acting only out of duty is a
barren and one-dimensional approach to living a virtuous life.
Evaluating Virtue EthicsVirtue ethics seems to meet the
minimum requirements of coherence.It seems consistent with

3. our considered moral judgments (Criterion 1) and with our
moral experiences (Criterion 2).The main critique of virtue
ethics centers on Criterion 3: the usefulness of the theory in
moral problem solving.
The Usefulness of Virtue Ethics –1
According to virtue ethics, when faced with a moral dilemma,
we should do what a virtuous person would do.
But how do we determine this?
The right action is the one performed by the virtuous person,
and the virtuous person is the one who performs the virtuous
action. However, this is circular reasoning.
The Usefulness of Virtue Ethics –2
Another problem is the possible conflict of virtues in a
particular context.
Loyalty, for example, may conflict with honesty when the fate
of a friend is on the line and your testimony will make the
difference between life and death.
How do you choose between being loyal and being honest in
this case?
Learning from Virtue EthicsRegardless of its value as a stand-
alone theory of ethics, virtue ethics forces us to acknowledge
that virtue and character are large, unavoidable constituents of
our moral experience.Virtue ethics has forced many thinkers to
reexamine the place of principles in morality.
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 7
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
Chapter 6
Nonconsequentialist Theories: Do Your Duty

4. Kant’s EthicsReason alone, according to Kant, can inform us of
the moral law, the source of our moral duties.Right actions have
moral value only if they are done with a “good will”—a will to
do your duty for duty’s sake.To do right, therefore, we must do
it for duty’s sake, motivated by respect for the moral law.
ImperativesA hypothetical imperative tells us what we should
do if we have certain desires. For example, “If you need money,
work for it.”A categorical imperative tells us that we should do
something in all situations regardless of our wants and needs.
One example is “Do not steal.”
Kant says that the moral law consists entirely of categorical
imperatives.
The Categorical Imperative –1
All categorical imperatives, according to Kant, can be derived
from the categorical imperative.
Its first formulation states: “Act only on that maxim through
which you can at the same time will that it should become
universal law.”
The Categorical Imperative –2
According to the first formulation of the categorical imperative,
an action is permissible if its maxim can be universalized (if
everyone can consistently act on the maxim in similar
situations) andyou would be willing to let that happen.
The Categorical Imperative and Moral DutiesPerfect duties are
those that must be followed without exception. According to
Kant, such duties include the duty not to lie, not to break a
promise, and not to commit suicide.Imperfect duties are those
that can have exceptions or that are not always to be followed.
These include duties to develop your talents and to help others
in need.
The Means-Ends Principle

5. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative
states:“So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person
or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as
a means only.”
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –1Minimum requirement of
consistency?
yesCriterion 1: consistency with considered moral judgments
uncertainCriterion 2: consistency with our moral experiences
seems generally consistent with our moral experienceCriterion
3: usefulness in moral problem solving
uncertain
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –2Criterion 1: consistency with our
considered moral judgmentsAre there such things as “absolute,
exceptionlessmoral duties”? Can you imagine scenarios in
which Kant’s perfect duties should be violated in order to do the
“right thing”?
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –3Criterion 1: consistency with our
considered moral judgmentsIt seems we can imagine situations
in which we must choose between two allegedly perfect duties
that directly contradict each other.Such conflicts provide
plausible evidence against the notion that there are
exceptionlessmoral duties.
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –4Criterion 3: usefulness in moral
problem solving
The conflicts between perfect duties raise questions about the
usefulness of Kant’s moral theory in solving specific moral
dilemmas.
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –5
The first formulation of the categorical imperative seems to
allow a rule to be moral insofar as you personallyare willing to
live in a world that conforms to that rule, thus sanctioning some

6. clearly immoral actions.
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –6Criterion 3: usefulness in moral
problem solving
Some critics also claim that if a maxim is stated in enough
detail, we could use the categorical imperative to sanction all
sorts of immoral acts.
For example: "Lie only to avoid injury, death, or embarrassment
to anyone who has green eyes and red hair."
Evaluating Kant’s Ethics –7Criterion 3: usefulness in moral
problem solving
Another criticism of Kant’s theory is that the means-ends
principle is sometimes impossible to implement. It seems that in
some situations, in order to treat some persons as ends rather
than means, it is necessary to treat other persons as means.
Learning from Kant’s Ethics
Despite its shortcomings, Kant’s theory has been among the
most influential of moral theories, mainly because it embodies a
good part of what our considered judgments lead us to
embrace:universalityimpartialityrespect for persons
Natural Law Theory
As expressed by Thomas Aquinas, at the heart of natural law
theoryis the notion that right actions are those that accord with
the moral principles that we can “read” clearly in the very
structure of nature itself.
Natural Law and Human Nature –1
According to Aquinas, human nature aims to achieve a number
of good things:preservation of human lifeavoidance of
harmreproduction and care of kindthe search for truththe
nurturing of social tiesbenign and reasonable behavior
Natural Law and Human Nature –2Our duty is to achieve the

7. good—to fully realize the goals toward which our nature is
already inclined.Reason, which allows us to discern the natural
laws that can be derived from our nature, is the foundation of
morality.Judging the rightness or wrongness of an action is a
matter of consulting reason.
Natural LawsLike Kant’s perfect duties, the laws of natural law
theory are both objective and universal.Like Kant’s categorical
imperative, traditional natural law theory is strongly absolutist.
The Doctrine of Double Effect
The doctrine of double effectpertains to situations in which an
action has both good and bad effects. According to the doctrine
of double effect, an action is permissible if four conditions are
met:The action is inherently (without reference to
consequences) either morally good or morally neutral.The bad
effect is not used to produce the good effect (though the bad
may be a side effect of the good).The intention must always be
to bring about the good effect.The good effect must be at least
as important as the bad effect.
Evaluating Natural Law Theory –1Criterion 1: consistency with
considered moral judgmentsNatural law theory, like Kant’s
moral theory, contains absolute moral laws that admit no
exceptions.These absolutes can result in specific moral
judgments that diverge from common moral sense.
Evaluating Natural Law Theory –2Criterion 3: usefulness in
moral problem solvingNatural law theory’s usefulness is
undermined by the conflict between its assumptions about the
teleological character of nature and the scientific sense of
nature as nonteleological.It is problematic to try to find your
way from what is in nature to what should be.
Learning from Natural Law Theory
Natural law theory emphasizes intentionin moral deliberation,
such that an action can be right or wrong depending on one’s

8. intention.
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 6
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.
Chapter 5
Consequentialist Theories: Maximize the Good
Consequentialist TheoriesThe notion that right actions are the
ones that produce the greatest balance of good over evil seems
commonsensical.But how do the two most common
consequentialist theories actually work when tested against our
considered moral judgments and common moral experiences?
Ethical Egoism –1Ethical egoism is the theory that the right
action is the one that promotes the most favorable balance of
good over evil for oneself.This extreme self-interest is not
necessarily selfishness.The theory is not synonymous with self-
indulgence or recklessness.
Ethical Egoism –2Ethical egoism is not the same as doing
whatever one desires or whatever gives the most pleasure.Even
ethical egoists must consider the long-range effects of their
actions and their interactions with others.Most of the time,
ethical egoists are probably better off cooperating with others
and avoiding actions that antagonize other people.
Ethical Egoism –3Ethical egoism takes two forms:Act-
egoism:To determine right action, you must apply the egoistic
principle to individual acts.Rule-egoism:To determine right
action, you must decide whether an act falls under a rule that, if
consistently followed, would maximize your self-interest.
Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –1Ethical egoism

9. rests heavily on psychological egoism—the notion, common in
the social and biological sciences, that the ultimate motive for
all our actions is self-interest.
Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –2
The argument for ethical egoism based on psychological egoism
is:We are not able to perform an action except out of self-
interest (psychological egoism).We are not morally obligated to
perform an action unless motivated by self-interest.Therefore,
we are morally obligated to do only what our self-interest
motivates us to do.
Ethical Egoism and Psychological Egoism –3Does experience
show that all our actions are motivated by self-interest?Do we,
in fact, perform selfless acts to achieve satisfaction?Do some
defenses of psychological egoism render the theory untestable
and useless? Explain.
Evaluating Ethical Egoism –1
Criterion 1: consistency with our considered moral judgmentsA
major criticism of ethical egoism is that it is not consistent with
our considered moral judgments.There are many actions that our
considered moral judgments would define as wrong but ethical
egoism would endorse.
Evaluating Ethical Egoism –2
Criterion 2: consistency with our moral experiencesThe major
element of our moral experience that is clearly violated by
ethical egoism is the notion of moral impartiality—treating
equals equally.Ethical egoism obviously does not advocate
impartiality; instead, it advocates putting one’s own interests
foremost.
Evaluating Ethical Egoism –3
Criterion 3: usefulness in moral problem solvingArguments
regarding the usefulness of ethical egoism do not suggest

10. definitively whether the theory is useful.Our judgment
regarding the first two criteria should be sufficient to raise
doubts about the adequacy of ethical egoism as a moral theory.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianismsays that the right action or rule is the rule that
produces the best balance of happiness (or good) over
unhappiness (or evil) for everyone concerned.
Two Forms of UtilitarianismAct-utilitarianism:The morally
right action is the one that directly produces the best balance of
happiness over unhappiness for all concerned.Rule-
utilitarianism:The morally right action is the one that, if
followed as a general rule, would produce the greatest overall
good, all instances and everyone considered.
Classic Act-UtilitarianismIs built on the principle of
utilityRelies on the notion of “the greatest happiness for the
greatest number”Considers the consequences of a particular
action
Rule-UtilitarianismIs built on the principle of utilityRelies on
the notion of the “greatest happiness for the greatest
number”Focuses on the rule that a particular action
impliesStates that if the rule implied by an action is one that, if
followed in all cases, produces the greatest balance of happiness
over unhappiness for everyone concerned, then it is morally
right
Evaluating Utilitarianism –1
Criterion 1: consistency with our considered moral
judgmentsPerhaps the most serious problem with utilitarianism
is its conflict with commonsense views about justice.When
pursuing the “greatest happiness” goal, it is sometimes
necessary to harm a minority to benefit the majority—to act
unjustly against one in order to secure the happiness of

11. many.Justice, on the other hand, requires equal treatment of
persons.
Evaluating Utilitarianism –2
Criterion 2: consistency with our moral experiences
Utilitarianism seems consistent with our moral experiences.
Evaluating Utilitarianism –3
Criterion 3: usefulness in moral problem solving
Act-utilitarianism seems to have a “no-rest problem.” It requires
that in our actions we always try to maximize utility, everyone
considered.
Evaluating Utilitarianism –4
To address the “no-rest problem,” some philosophers have
turned to rule-utilitarianism. If a specific act can be seen as
consistent with a general rule that maximizes utility, then that
act can be considered morally right. In this way, rule-
utilitarianism seems to align its moral judgments closer to those
of common sense.
Social Contract Theory
Social contract theory (or contractarianism) states that morality
arises from a social contract that self-interested and rational
people abide by in order to secure a degree of peace, prosperity,
and safety.
Hobbes’s Perspective
Hobbesargues that the state of nature is a war of everyone
against everyone, in which people live a life that is “solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
A social contract, with a powerful sovereign called a Leviathan
to guarantee compliance, allows an orderly and secure society.
When the Leviathan takes control, morality comes into
existence.

12. Evaluating Social Contract Theory –1Positives:Social contract
theory gives reason to believe that morality is objective, for it
consists of the rules that rational members of society have
determined to be most beneficial for all.Under social contract
theory, there is little difficulty determining what is right.
Evaluating Social Contract Theory –2Problems: If only those
who explicitly and freely consent to a social contract are
obligated to comply, then most everyone would not be
obligated.Social contract theory holds that the only individuals
who have moral status are those who can legitimately be party
to a social contract, and the only ones who can participate in a
social contract are those for whom participation would be
mutually beneficial.Those who are so vulnerable or
disadvantaged that they cannot be contractors, including the
elderly, the disabled, and the chronically ill, have no moral
status within a social contract.
Credits
This concludes the PowerPoint slide set for Chapter 5
Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues
Fifth Edition (2019) by Lewis Vaughn.