NEMSU – Cantilan Campus

DGTT Ethics Module 4

LESSON 1: Utilitarianism

After working on this module, the students will be able to:

1. Discuss the basic and significant features of the ethics of utilitarianism;
2. Identify and describe the various elements of the hedonic calculus;
3. Compare and contrasts the two types of pleasures.

INTRODUCTION
The basic premise of utilitarianism is that an action is moral if it maximizes the overall social utility (or
happiness). Two of the most important philosophers in this tradition are Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill,
Utilitarianism a form of consequentialism, requires an individual to calculate the right response to an ethical
question by weighing up the positive and the negative consequences of an action. Whatever produces the
most happiness for most people will be the most ethical solution. It is important to note that the consequences
should be measured in terms of overall impact, not only in terms of the decision-maker. All consequentialists
hold that morality depends on the consequence of actions. As a specific case of consequentialism,
utilitarianism holds that the rightness of an action depends on whether it maximizes a particular consequence,
that is the overall social utility.

ABSTRACTION

Consequentialist Morality
Utilitarianism belongs to a theory in morality that can be labeled as consequentialist. Consequentialism
is an ethical theory when it puts primary consideration and emphasis on the effects or results that an act or
conduct brings rather than on the motive or intention that the agent may have.
Specifically, a consequentialist ethical theory essentially asks questions such as:
1. What good will come from doing this?
2. What benefit can one get in performing such an act?
3. What harm would come if a particular action is done?
4. Who will stand to gain if this action is performed?
Furthermore, as a consequentialist ethical theory, utilitarianism believes that actions are morally significant and
valuable only in as much as they produce what is desired or expected from them. Here, an act is always
viewed as a mere instrument to achieve something.

Ethical Hedonism
Utilitarianism is an ethical theory emphasizing the pleasure and happiness/contentment that one can
get from doing an act or from a particular course of action.
Utilitarianism also dislikes pain or unhappiness as possible effects on the performance of certain
actions. In general, pain and suffering should be avoided when one is thinking about doing something. If a
proposed act results in unhappiness than happiness, pain than pleasure, harm than good, then it has to be
rejected or avoided.
Hence for utilitarianism, right and wrong are dependent on the pleasure or pain that an act will bring or
result to. If an act produces pleasure, it is considered right or good; if it results in pain; it is considered wrong or
bad.
Furthermore, the theory of Ethical Hedonism advocates a philosophy that holds that the primary reason
for living is to seek pleasures or happiness and to avoid pain and suffering as much as possible. It also claims
that the good life is spent in the pursuit of bodily pleasures.
The Principle of Utility
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
The principle of utility was coined by Jeremy Bentham, this is to denote that essentially determines
whether an act can be good or right is its utility or usefulness (value) – to bring about desirable results or
consequences (understood as pleasure or happiness).
Bentham‘s Hedonic Calculus
In the remarkable attempt to anchor morality on more stable ground, Bentham devised a specific tool or
method for ethical analysis that aims to arrive at a definite basis of when to say that an act or conduct is right
or wrong. More so, its main goal is to help individuals, as well as lawmakers and legislators, decide what ought
to be done in any given set of circumstances.
In ethical or moral decision-making, Bentham claims that what truly matters, in the end, is the
maximization of pleasure or happiness and the minimization if not the total eradication of pain or suffering. This
particular scheme which Bentham called ―Hedonic Calculus‖ (hedone is a Greek term that means pleasure,
calculus is a science of calculation), is used for determining morality by measuring the exact amount of
pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness.

The Hedonic Calculus

1. Intensity – the more intense the pleasure, the better. One is morally bound to do an act that offers a
stronger degree of happiness or contentment. Not all pleasures are the same. Some pleasures are
stronger or are more intense than others.
2. Duration – the longer the pleasure lasts, the better. One is morally obliged to perform those actions
that provide a longer experience of pleasure. Pleasures also vary as to how long they last. There
are long-term pleasures and there are also short-lived pleasures.
3. Certainty – the more certain the pleasure, the better. One should pursue those actions where their
expected pleasures are more probable. One should ask how likely or unlikely it is that the expected
pleasure will result.
4. Propinquity – the nearer, closer, or more often that pleasures occur, the better. One is ethically
mandated to do an act that brings immediate pleasure than one that brings pleasure only at a
farther point in time. The soonest the expected pleasure will occur, the better.
5. Fecundity – the greater the possibility that the pleasure that one can derive from an act will be
followed by more pleasures, the better. One is morally required to perform actions that lead to a
series of pleasures down the road.
6. Purity – the purer the pleasure, the better. If you can have pleasure only in conjunction with pain,
better not pursue the action. Do an activity that is not tainted by pain. If there is an accompanying
pain or discomfort in the process, look for an alternative activity that will bring about an
unadulterated kind of pleasure.
7. Extent – the greater the number of people who can experience pleasure, the better. One is morally
bound to do only those actions that will make a lot of people happy. Between personal or individual
happiness and the happiness of many, one should prioritize the greater number and sacrifice his or
her own.

Bentham‘s hedonic calculus, as a methodical way of weighing the number of pleasures over pain in a
plus and minus scheme, provides a clearer and simpler way for us to determine what we ought to do under
certain situations.
Takes for instance when deciding to go abroad to work as a nurse, one weighs the gains (primarily
economic benefits) of working overseas and the cost it entails (such as leaving one‘s family behind).
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
Two types of Pleasures: Quantity and Quality
Bentham‘s formulation of the hedonic calculus is to provide a quantitative calculation of the value of
different pleasures where decisions are made into a simple exercise of addition and deduction at arriving at the
final balance put him (rightly or wrongly) under the level of a psychological hedonist. As Bentham maintains a
quantitative position in evaluating the amount of pleasure that we can get in doing an act, his genius as a pupil-
John Stuart Mill-develops his version that enables his view to deviate from that of his master.
John Stuart Mill introduces a way of determining pleasure that is not just confined to quantity or amount
but more on its quality. Thus he claims that pleasures are of two types: quantity and quality. He says that
pleasures of the mind or the spirit are higher than pleasures of the flesh and the body.
Accordingly for Mill, persons should seek the higher pleasure than just pursue the lower kind that is
associated with mere sensual satisfaction or fulfillment. He sums this up with this famous and unforgettable
line.

LESSON 2: Natural Law Ethics

After working on this module, the students will be able to:

1. Articulate the development and various interpretations of natural law thinking;
2. Identify the basic and universal human inclinations according to St. Thomas;
3. Explain the various specific moral principles under natural law theory;
4. Apply natural law thinking in the analysis of certain contemporary issues about sexual morality.

INTRODUCTION
Natural law is a theory in ethics and philosophy that says that human beings possess intrinsic values
that govern their reasoning and behavior. Natural law maintains that these rules of right and wrong are inherent
in people and are not created by society or court judges.
Natural law holds that there are universal moral standards are inherent in humankind throughout all
time, and these standards should form the basis of a just society. Human beings are not taught natural law, but
rather we ―discover‖ it by consistently making choices for good instead of evil.
Some schools of thought believe that natural law mainly applies to the realm of ethics and philosophy; it
is also used extensively in theoretical economics.

ABSTRACTION
Natural Law Theory is a legal theory that recognizes law and morality as deeply connected, if not the same.
Morality relates to what is right and wrong and what is good and bad.
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
Natural law theorist believes that human laws are defined by morality, and not by any figure of
authority, like a king or government. Therefore, we humans are guided by our human nature to figure out what
the laws are and to act in conformity with those laws.
The term natural law is derived from the belief that human morality comes from nature. Everything in
nature has a purpose, including humans. Our purpose, according to natural law theorists, is to live a good,
happy life. Therefore, actions that work against that purpose-that is, actions that would prevent a fellow human
from living a good, happy life- are considered ―unnatural‖ or ―immoral‖.
In Ethics, the concepts of morality under the natural law theory are ―subjective‖. This means that the definition
of what is ―right‖ and what is ―wrong‖ is the same for everyone and everywhere.
Purpose of Law
The purpose of the law is to provide justice. From natural law perspective it is stated as ―a law that
doesn‘t provide justice (an unjust law) is considered not a law at all. Therefore a flawed law is one that no one
should follow. In short, any good law is moral, and any moral law is good‖.
Interpretation, Conception, and Influence of Natural Law
Stoics’ Interpretation of Natural Law
The word ―stoic‖ comes to be associated with a particular attitude of serenity if not indifference, toward
anything that arises in the universe. Talking about stoic, this refers to the person who can endure pain or
hardship without showing their feelings and hardships. Stoicism is a school of Hellenistic philosophy founded
by Zeno of Citium in Athens in the early 3 rd century BC. It is a philosophy of personal ethics informed by its
system of logic and its views on the natural world. According to its teaching, as social beings, the path to
eudaimonia (happiness or blindness) is found in accepting the moment as it presents itself, by not allowing
oneself to be controlled by the desire for pleasure or by the fear of pain, by using one‘s mind to understand the
world and to do one‘s part in nature‘s plan, and by working together and treating others fairly and justly.
Aristotelian Conception of Natural Law
In 384-322 B.C. Aristotle was highly acknowledged as the greatest of all ancient philosophers. Aristotle
somehow follow follows the stoics way of thinking, believes that everything that exists in nature serves some
specific purpose and that we can never fully understand what it is for, or what its purpose for. Aristotle points
out that ―some functions, such as growth and reproduction, human beings share with all other living things;
other functions such as sensual perception, they share with animals or brutes. Here Aristotle concludes that
the very function or activity that makes humans distinct from the rest of creation is the capacity to think.
Aristotle‘s conception of natural law revolves around four basic ideas.
1. Everything in nature has a purpose.
2. Everything in nature has essential nature-certain features that constitute its defining process.
3. Everything in nature has its proper good.
4. Something‘s natural purpose, its essential nature, and its proper good are intimately related.
The Thomistic Influence on Natural Law
Law, as defined by St. Thomas in classical concept, a law that is articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas,
was defined as an ―ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by one who has the care of the
community‖. Law is an ordinance simply means it is a command or directive emanating from a legitimate
authority. And since it is an order, ―it is binding upon the subjects to obey.‖ A law in the sense is not just a
request but a command.
Furthermore, for something to be law, it has to be in accord with human reason, that is, it must be
something that any reasonable human being can agree with. Thus, for a law to be truly considered one, it
should be a product of reason in the finest sense of the term.
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
Essential Elements for a Law to be Reasonable
1. It must be just – this means the law should not command what is morally wrong or evil.
2. It must be honest – this means that a law should not contradict in essence any higher law.
3. It must be possible for fulfillment – this means that the people who are obliged by law can follow it
without extreme difficulty.
4. It must be relatively permanent – this means a law once established and enacted, should be more or
less stable, meaning, it must be something that continues to be binding on the subjects unless repealed
or amended with good reason by the legitimate authority or its proper or rightful representatives.
5. It must be promulgated – this means that the law to be followed by the subjects, must be made
known or publicized to them in a language or manner that is understandable so that they can comply
with it.
6. It must be directed to the common good – this means that the law should promote the general
welfare rather than just serve a few individuals.
7. It must be promulgated by one who has the care of the community – this means that a law should
be enforced or established by a competent and legitimate authority.
Attributes of Natural Law
1. The natural law is obligatory – the natural law is said to carry with it an obligatory element precisely
because it imposes upon men the moral obligation to follow it as a necessary condition to attain the last
end or happiness.
2. The natural law is universal – the natural law is said to be universal in the sense that it is applied to
all people regardless of differences in culture, tradition, nationality, religion, political beliefs, race,
individual temperaments, ethnicity, etc.
3. The natural law has its poor sanctions – natural possess an obligatory character, it also has its
sanctions or penes to those who do not obey its command.
4. The natural law is knowable or recognizable – the natural law is one law that is open to all rational
beings to discover.
5. The natural law is immutable or unchangeable – the author of nature is God Himself, whose divine
decrees emanate from his unchanging and immutable nature (God as always God, forever and ever).
The Contents of Natural Law
Natural law moral thinkers distinguish between formal norms and material norms, as both distinguish
from natural law. Formal norms ―are those that relate to our character, that is, to what kind of persons we ought
to be‖. Some examples of this particular kind of norms are such moral imperatives as: ―Do good and avoid
evil‖, ―Whatever you wish others to do to you, do so totem‖, ―Be honest‖ ―Be chaste‖, or Do not be selfish,
proud, vain, or foolish‖.
Basic and Universal Natural Human Inclinations
There are basic and natural human tendencies or inclinations that are present in all of us according to
St. Thomas Aquinas. These are:
1. Self –Preservation or Survival – that is, man has to preserve himself in existence.
2. Propagation of our species – that is, to unite sexually to produce offspring for the continuance of the
next generation of the human race.
3. To live in Peace and Harmony with other Men - that is just and fair dealings with others.
4. To seek for Truth and Knowledge of God – that is, to use his will and intellect to know the truth and
seek the good, including his highest good, which is eternal happiness with God.
Specific Ethical Principles under the Natural Law theory
The Principle of Double Effect
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to act in
pursuit of a good end in the full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results.
The Principle of the Inviolability of Life
In religion and ethics, the inviolability(blessedness) or sanctity of life (holiness) is a principle of implied
protection regarding aspects of sentient (emotional) life that is said to be holy, sacred, or otherwise of
such value that they are not to be violated as a violation.
The Principle of Forfeiture
According to the principle of forfeiture, a person who threatens the life of an innocent person forfeits
(losses) his or her right to life. Killing is taking the life of a non-innocent person, whereas murder is taking the
life of an innocent person.
The Principle of Totality
According to the philosopher Thomas Aquinas, all of the organs and other parts of the body exist for the
sake of the whole person.
The Principle of Stewardship
Stewardship is a way of life, a way that begins with acknowledging God as the creator and giver of all
and responding with generosity and the responsible management of our resources.
As disciples of Jesus Christ, we choose to be caretakers of all God have given to us. Gratitude for
these gifts and blessings is expressed in prayer, worship, offering, and sharing our gifts out of love for God and
one another.
Just War Theory
Just war theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by military leaders,
theologians, ethicists, and policymakers. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable
through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just.
Just War Theory employed by a country under attack to protect itself is only justified under certain
specific conditions.
1. Lawful Authority
2. Just Case
3. Last Resort
4. Good Intention
5. Reasonable Chance of Success
6. Right use of Means
7. Proportional Response
Lawful Authority
For a war to be just and thus justified, it has to come from a lawful and competent authority.
In the Philippines, under Article VI, sec. 23 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution ―Only the Congress and not the
President by a vote of two-thirds of both houses in joint sessions, voting separately shall have the sole power
to declare a state of war‖.
Just Cause
According to the Just War tradition, war is justified only if it is waged to protect the innocents from
imminent (approaching) harm.
Last Resort
Waging a war can never be a first and primary option of a country against another.
This also implies that all possible peaceful and legal means to resolve conflicts must be thoroughly
exhausted and tried before one can resort to war.
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
Good Intention
Countries that decide to go to war should have the element of good faith.
A question to ask here could be: ―Is the war for the sake of peace and justice or is it driven by revenge,
power, and greed‖.
Reasonable Chance of Success
War can only be justified if a nation that resorts to it has a reasonable chance of attaining its objectives.
Right Use of Means
For a war to be justified, the right use of means should be intrinsically moral and legal.
Countries involved must only employ ―ordinary‖ means in combat. The use of weapons of mass destruction,
such as nuclear bombs, or chemical or biological warfare is a violation of this particular condition, and thus,
morally objectionable.
Proportional Response
Since war necessarily involves violence, any violent response thereof must be directly proportional to
the act of provocation or aggression coming from the enemy.

LESSON 3: Deontological Ethics

After working on this module, the students will be able to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the basic principles of Deontology
2. Apply the concept of Universalizability and Humanity to one‘s moral experiences.
3. Distinguish moral from immoral acts using categorical imperative
4. Differentiate Deontology from other Moral Theories
5. Identify the Strength and Weaknesses of Deontology.

ACTIVITY
Kant's ―formula of human nature‖ is simple and powerful. When we use it, we only need to consider
whether the act itself treats others (or ourselves) as mere means? Or, do you see others as a means of
achieving our goals without their consent?
The following conducts are generally considered immoral. If they are tested with the formula of
humanity, what kind of moral reasoning and judgment will be the result? (hints: the guiding questions are;
1. Does the conduct treat others as mere means?
2. Does the conduct respect the humanity of others (and ourselves), regarding others (and ourselves) as
persons with rationality and dignity?

Moral Judgement
Conduct Moral reasoning
Moral/Immoral
Example: Breaking Treating others‘ trust as a means for achieving one‘s goals. Immoral
a promise
1. Cheating in
examinations
2. Plagiarism

3. Rape
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
4. Extortion

5. Torture

DEONTOLOGY
Deontology is derived from the Greek word ‗Deon‘ which means Duty. This theory mainly refers to the
study of Duty & Obligation. The proponent of this theory is the German Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel
Kant; popularized by his important work on moral philosophy namely Groundwork towards Metaphysics of
Morals (1785), the Critique of Pure Reason (1781), Critique of Practical Reason (1788), and Critique of
Judgement (1790).
Deontology is a normative theory that provides a guide on what ―ought‖ to be done rather than on
describing what kind of a person we are as held by Aristotle in his theory on Virtue Ethics. This theory also
disagrees with consequentialism and believes that action should not be assessed using the consequences or
results that they bring about i.e. utilitarianism.
The deontological theory puts more emphasis on what is right rather than what is good. Choices and
actions cannot be justified by the good result it was able to produce. Even if such action leads to lesser harm
or maximizes pleasure, certain actions will still be considered immoral. If it is not by what is deemed to be right
according to deontology‘s concept of categorical imperative then it ought not to be undertaken.
Immanuel Kant in his model of categorical imperative emphasized that moral rules should hold no
exception. An example would be lying. The idea about ―White Lies‖ being permissible is wrong because
according to Kant, lying is lying and will always be wrong despite the reason, situation, or result of the act.

Consider this example: You and your friends are out on a camping trip when suddenly the mother of one of
your friends called you and asked if you are with her daughter. It seemed like your friend lied about her
whereabouts. If you were to adhere based on categorical imperative how would you respond?
 Would you lie? Or would you tell the truth?

Kant expressed in his work on Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) what categorical
imperative is. According to him

“ Act only according to such a maxim by which you can at once will it to become a universal law”

This statement is used to determine whether an act is morally permissible or not. Maxims refer to rules
that we adhere to in our day-to-day life; however, it lacks the status of being considered as a law that is
mandatory and unavoidable. To illustrate this example imagine the act of taking a bath in the morning every
day. This is a rule that many of us do but then again it is not something that is required for everyone. You may
take a bath in the morning every day but it does not mean that everybody ‗should‘ take a bath in the morning
every day too.

2 formulation of the Categorical Imperative

 The formula of Universal Law
 Formula of Humanity
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
Universal Law
Universalizability refers to the idea of a maxim being considered a Universal law. By that, we mean imagining a
hypothetical world wherein such a maxim becomes a law that everyone is required to follow and obey. For a
maxim to become a universal law you have to imagine a world where your act is not an exception to the rule
and everyone is required to do the same and live by the same principle. Would you be willing for that maxim to
become a universal law? If yes, then it can be universalized and deemed morally permissible. If not, then you
should not do it nor follow it for such an act is morally impermissible. This therefore can be used as the basis
for determining what we ought to do and what we aren‘t ought to be doing.
Example:
1. Promises are made to be broken

This maxim cannot be considered a universal law. Why? Some people, abide by this rule and make
promises without the intention of fulfilling that promises. However, for it to become a universal law you have to
imagine a world where everyone will make promises and then break them. Would that be ideal? If such a rule
were to become a universal law the idea of a promise would be contradicted by breaking it and self-defeating.
No one would make promises anymore nor would anyone believe a promise.
For this maxim to be universalized you formulate the opposite maxim. For this example the opposite maxim
would be:
Maxim: Promises are made to be broken
Opposite Maxim: Promises are NOT made to be broken

Another Example:
Maxim: I should cheat on the exam to get a good grade
Opposite Maxim: I should NOT cheat on the exam to get a good grade

If the maxim becomes a universal law then it can become a basis for determining the morality of an action. If
promises are not made to be broken and you made a promise and then broke it, your act can be considered
morally wrong according to deontology regardless of the situation you are in or the result of your action.

Formula of Humanity
Kant‘s second formulation of the Categorical imperative states ―Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your
personal or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.‖ This statement implies that
humans as rational beings should be treated always as an end but never as mere means. Although this could
be misunderstood since we always use each other as means to each other‘s end. This is unavoidable however
Kant here emphasized what he meant by mere ends. We should not treat others in a way that violates their
humanity and disrespects their rationality.
An example would be borrowing money from a friend. Upon asking her to lend you some money you
intended to use in buying a new cellphone, you told her you needed the money to pay for your tuition fee. You
manipulated her by not telling her your true intention. If only you told her the truth you would have given her the
option to make up her mind whether to lend you the money or not thus respecting her choice.
We should not treat people in a way that they do not agree with. Our ―humanity‖ is a collection of features
that makes us distinctively human; this includes our rationality. Kant‘s humanity formula requires us to respect
the humanity in a person and condemn all acts that treat humans as mere ends.
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4

LESSON 4: Virtue Ethics

INTRODUCTION
THE HUMAN QUEST FOR HAPPINESS
Aristotle‘s ethics believe that every act that a person does is directed toward a particular purpose or
aim. The Greeks called this telos. One does something for a purpose and a person‘s action reveals the ―good‖
that s/he aspires for. It is to achieve this ―good‖ that a person pursues something. For example, a person
pursues a chosen career to provide a better future for his/her family. This ―better future‖ is good toward which
the person strives to work hard. Therefore, for Aristotle, the good is considered to be the telos or purpose for
which all acts seek to achieve.
Now, for Aristotle, the ―goods‖ (teloi) for which a person strives are hierarchical. One can strive to
achieve a higher purpose. There is then the highest purpose, the ultimate good of a human being. This
ultimate good is final and self-sufficient. According to Aristotle, the highest purpose and the ultimate good of a
person are happiness or eudaimonia.
How does a person arrive at his/her highest good? For Aristotle, humans are social, rational animals
that seek to ―live well.‖ To that end, he proposed virtue ethics to help us reach eudaimonia, a world that means
living well or flourishing. Eudaimonia is reached by living virtuously and building up your character traits until
you don‘t even have to think about your choices before making the right one. This excellent way of doing things
is called virtue or arete. Therefore, to live well means to live by virtue.

VIRTUE ETHICS
Virtue ethics focuses more on a person‘s approach to living than on particular choices and actions and so has
less to say about specific courses of action or public policies. Virtue ethicists think that the main question in
ethical reasoning should be not ―How should I now act?‖ but ―What kind of person do I want to be?‖ Developing
virtues that we admire in others and avoiding actions that we recognize as vicious develop our moral
sensitivity: our awareness of how our actions affect others. Virtuous persons can empathize, imagine
themselves in another person‘s shoes, and look at an issue from other people‘s perspectives. (Lumen, 2020)
Virtue ethics, ―is ethics whose goal is to determine what is essential to being a well-functioning or flourishing
human person. Virtue ethics stresses an ideal for humans or persons. As ethics or ideals or excellences, it is
an optimis type of ethics.‖ (Corpuz, 2020)
In other words, it is the development of the good or virtuous person that is important in this moral theory, not
abstract rules or consequences of acts or rules except as they derive from a good or virtuous person or cause
that person to be good or virtuous. (Thiroux, 2014)

WHAT IS VIRTUE?
What is virtue? The dictionary defines virtue as ―the quality of moral excellence, righteousness, and
responsibility... a specific type of moral excellence or other exemplary quality considered meritorious; a worthy
practice or ideal.‖A virtue is thought to be a good character trait. Aristotle thought that virtue was crucial for a
well-lived life. He thought virtue was skill at living. (https://www.philticosophytalk.org/shows/virtue)
Aristotle sees virtues as character traits and tendencies to act in a particular way. We gain them through
practice and by copying 'moral exemplars' until we manage to internalize the virtue. We become temperate by
practicing temperance, courageous by practicing courage, and so on. Eventually, virtue becomes a habit.
(Hendricks, 2018)This means that a person or an individual becomes good or moral not by doing a singular act
of goodness but by acting, or rather, by doing good repeatedly or regularly, so it will become a habit. Thus,
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
making it an integral and inseparable part of one‘s daily life and conduct. To become a virtuous person,
therefore, is to make the virtues (the good/positive and desirable character traits) the defining feature of one‘s
being. (Fernandez)

BASIC TYPES OF VIRTUE (EXCELLENCE)

Aristotle identifies two types of virtues: (1) intellectual virtues and (2) moral virtues.
1. Intellectual virtues are ―good habits of the mind, enabling it to be a more efficient instrument of
knowledge. They make one more effective in the use of what he or she knows and, to that extent,
contribute to the practice of moral virtue.‖ (Hardon, 2001) For Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, the
following are examples of intellectual virtues: understanding, science, wisdom, art, and prudence.

2. Moral virtues refer to a person‘s disposition to act well. Moral virtue, or excellence of character, is the
disposition (Gkhexis) to act excellently, which a person develops partly as a result of his upbringing,
and partly as a result of his habit of action. These virtues include courage, temperance, liberality,
magnificence, magnanimity, patience, truthfulness, etc.

VIRTUE AND CHARACTER FORMATION

Virtue ethics is concerned primarily with the task of developing a good character. Moral character is formed by
one‘s actions. The habits, actions, and emotional responses of the person of good character are all united and
directed toward the moral and the good. To be of good character, one must know the good, act in morally good
ways, and be disposed and inclined toward the good through the development of virtues. Virtues play an
important role in character formation. Growing in the virtues forms good character. Therefore, morality‘s central
theme, based on virtue ethics, is ―[mainly about] producing excellent persons who act well out of spontaneous
goodness and serve as examples to inspire others‖ (Pojman&Fieser, 2017).
A person can then be said to be good or moral if s/he is a person of character. A person of character embodies
positive qualities such as wisdom, courage, temperance, justice, magnanimity, and others. One‘s character
then is the result or by-product of acts or deeds of repeated goodness. One is a good person or a person of
virtue not really because of what one does but of what one is. Being precedes doing. Goodness is simply a
logical consequence of one‘s character or identity. (Fernandez)
So, when virtuous people are confronted with specific moral situations, they will naturally do the right thing
precisely because the right thing is part of who they are, their character, and their inner core. One does the
good precisely because one is good, not the other way around.
So, when people are said to be morally good, this is so ―because of the good character that enables them to
spontaneously do the right thing.‖ (Fernandez)
To sum up, moral virtue, according to Aristotle, is a ―state of character‖ which habitually acts according to the
middle measure that practical wisdom identifies as the moral choice that should be acted upon, given the
concrete situation presents to the person. The goal of virtue ethics is to promote the character of the person.
Building a good character is a task and responsibility of every person.
VIRTUE AS THE GOLDEN MEAN
Virtuous actions lie between two extremes — excess and deficiency. For example, acting courageously lies
between two extremes — acting cowardly and acting recklessly. (Johnson, 2018) For Aristotle, virtue is the
Golden Mean between two extremes both of which are vices.
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4

Moral virtue, then, is defined by Aristotle as being ―a disposition to choose by a rule... which a practically wise
man would determine‖ to be the mean between the two extremes of excess or deficiency. According to
Aristotle, practical wisdom is the ability to see what the right thing to do in any circumstance is. Therefore, a
person must determine what a ―practically wise, virtuous man‖ would choose in any circumstance calling for
moral choice and then do the right thing.
STRENGTHS OF VIRTUE ETHICS
1. The holistic view of human nature. The reason is applied through phronesis or practical wisdom, but
unlike Kant, the emotions are not ignored, as virtue ethics is holistic (includes emotion in the building of
character). To Aristotle, personal and social flourishing (eudaimonia) is the final rational goal, and
reason tames and moralizes the desires and appetites of the irrational part of our soul.
2. Character-based. Habits of character are central, developed through training…we need heroes who are
moral role models as well as ―virtuous = skillful‖ footballers. The present age is ―instrumental‖ in the
sense of things being a means to an end, and pragmatic, in that we tend to ―bend the rules‖. Behind
action lies character: it may be legal for an MP to claim expenses for a duck house, but is it honest?
3. Morality as a social construct. Virtue Ethics sees morality as grounded in a view a. of human nature (to
Aristotle the rational and irrational sides in conflict) and b. The social concept of the ―good life‖ (the life
fulfilled) differs from society to society (see relativism weakness). Modern Philosophers have placed too
much emphasis on action and reason without emphasizing socially agreed virtues, also too much
stress on the language of morals: what do we mean by saying ―stealing is wrong‖?
4. Partiality. Both Kant and Mill require impartiality for their ethical viewpoints, for example, Mill says
―utilitarianism requires the moral agent to be strictly impartial, as a disinterested and benevolent
spectator‖. James Rachels comments: ―it may be doubted whether impartiality is such an important
feature of the moral life…some virtues are partial and some are not. Love and friendship involve
partiality towards loved ones and friends; beneficence towards people, in general, is also a
virtue…what is needed is not some general requirement of impartiality, but an understanding of how the
different virtues relate to each other‖ (2007:173-4)

WEAKNESSES OF VIRTUE ETHICS

1. Relativistic. We cannot agree on what the key virtues are, which differ from culture to culture eg Al
Qaeda thinks it is virtuous to be a suicide bomber. One person‘s terrorist is another person‘s freedom
fighter and hero…so goodness must depend on something else. Perhaps we can escape this problem
by defining what, for me or my society, are the virtues that will make me (or us) flourish. ―Aristotle saw
pride as a special virtue, Christians see it as a master vice‖. Rachels (2007:166)
 NEMSU – Cantilan Campus
DGTT Ethics Module 4
2. Bourgeois. Bertrand Russell argued that Aristotle‘s virtues were bourgeoisie Victorian suspicion of
extreme passion and emotion (doctrine of the mean = be sensible, child) a, and ―there is a complete
absence of benevolence and philanthropy‖ i.e. desire to sacrifice yourself for others.
3. Decisions are difficult. ―It is not obvious how we should go about deciding what to do‖ Rachels
(2007:176) Anscombe argues we should get rid of the idea of ―right action‖ altogether and just use
virtue words e.g. ―unjust‖, ―dishonest‖. William Frankena has argued, ―virtues without principles are
blind―. Rachels argues that virtue ethics is incomplete because it can‘t account for the fact that ―being
honest‖ implies a rule, so ―it‘s hard to see what honesty consists in if it is not the disposition to follow
such rules‖, Rachels (2007:177).
4. Conflicting virtues. What happens when virtues conflict, for example, when honesty and kindness
conflict, or honesty and loyalty to one‘s friends? ―It only leaves you wondering which virtue takes
precedence‖, concludes Rachels. Pojman comments ―virtue ethics has the problem of application: it
doesn‘t tell us what to do in particular instances in which we most need direction‖ (2006:166).

(Excerpted from https://peped.org/philosophicalinvestigations/table-strengths-and-weaknesses-of-virtue-ethics/)