The Importance of Virtue Ethics

Different Ethical Theories

In one of my very first posts on this blog, Understanding Ethical Disagreements, I examined how most major ethical disagreements in contemporary American society are a result of people ascribing to two different ethical theories, namely, virtue ethics and utilitarianism.  In that post, my sole purpose was to try to help people understand how these different ethical theories lead well-intentioned people to disagree about important moral issues, not to argue that one theory was better than the other.  In this post, I will make the case for one of these ethical theories, arguing that virtue ethics is a better way to approach ethical issues than its alternatives.

According to virtue ethics, the primary ethical question is, “What kind of person am I becoming?”  For virtue ethicists, ethics is primarily about getting rid of morally bad character traits and habits (vices) and developing morally good character traits and habits (virtues). According to utilitarianism, the primary ethical question is, “How can we achieve the best outcome?” For utilitarians, ethics is primarily about minimizing pain and suffering and maximizing pleasure and happiness for the greatest number of people.  According to a third ethical theory, deontological ethics, the primary ethical question is, “What should I do?”  According to this theory, ethics is primarily about following certain moral rules.

It should be pointed out that these three different ethical theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive alternatives in an absolute sense.  For example, there is a hybrid of utilitarianism and deontological ethics known as “rule utilitarianism,” which conceives of ethics in terms of following moral rules, supposedly founded on a utilitarian basis.  And ascribing to virtue ethics does not necessarily mean rejecting all absolute moral rules; there are certain actions which by their very nature are contrary to virtue, and part of being virtuous is being the kind of person who follows certain moral rules.  Nevertheless, these three ethical theories do have very significant differences, which often manifest in important ways at the practical level.  In this post I will make the case for why virtue ethics is important, without necessarily claiming that other ways of thinking about ethics have nothing to offer.

Correct Moral Beliefs are Not Enough

The first reason that virtue ethics is important is that, without virtue, we are often literally unable to do what is morally right, even if we know what the right thing to do is and want to do it.  For example, without the virtue of courage, a person may be literally unable to act to help someone in need in a dangerous situation, even if they know that is the morally right thing to do and have the best of intentions.  Without the virtue of self-control, a person may not be able to resist doing the wrong thing when experiencing strong emotions of lust, anger, or desire, even if they know it is wrong and have resolved beforehand not to do it.  Without the virtue of wisdom, a person may have every intention of achieving the best outcome, but end up doing quite the contrary when faced with a complicated situation they do not know how to handle.

Human beings are not purely rational creatures.  Far from it.  We are embodied beings who are more often defined by our habits and emotions than by rational thought.  In the real world, simply having correct moral beliefs about what is right and wrong and resolving to act in a morally good way are not sufficient to guarantee morally correct behavior.  We must also be the kind of people who actually do act in a morally good way when the time comes.  Having correct moral beliefs about what the moral rules are or what course of action will achieve the best outcome does little good if we do not have the virtues necessary to actually act on these moral beliefs in the real world.  

Most of our actions are not the result of conscious, deliberate choice.  Instead, the vast majority of our actions come from our habits and our subconscious mental processes.  While we do have the ability to stop, think, and carefully deliberate about what we should do, most of our ethically significant decisions do not take place in this manner, and very frequently we do not have time to engage in such careful, deliberate thinking when faced with an ethical decision.  This means that if we want to be people who act morally, it is not enough to have good moral decision-making skills; we must also deliberately form our habits so that we will habitually act in a moral manner.  We must discipline ourselves to get rid of vices and to develop virtues.  

Deontological Ethics is Inadequate

Many people think of morality only in terms of a certain set of moral rules.  Lying is morally wrong.  Stealing is morally wrong.  Murder is morally wrong.  There is some truth and value in thinking about ethics in terms of moral rules.  However, by itself, it is inadequate.  This is because most of our morally significant behavior cannot be adequately addressed by a set of abstract rules.

In the real world, we do sometimes encounter simple moral questions such as, “Should I steal this or not?”  However, more often than not, the moral questions we encounter are much more complex.  For example, we might ask, “I have $1,000.  How should I spend it?” or “I have ten hours of free time.  How should I spend it?”  There is no way to adequately address such questions via a set of abstract rules.  What we need is to become the kind of people who will navigate such complex questions in a morally upright manner.  If we have been formed into wise, compassionate, industrious, generous people, then we will do the right thing in these situations, even without any abstract, absolute rules to guide us.  If we want to act morally in a real, complex world, we need to become virtuous.

Utilitarianism Has an Impoverished Moral Vision

A great many modern Americans approach moral issues from a utilitarian standpoint in terms of laws, policies, and statistics.  If there is a problem in society, then we must address it by implementing some law or policy, and then statistically measuring its effects in society.  The actual justice of the law and the virtue of the lawmakers are insignificant; all that matters is whether the law or policy has, relatively speaking, good results overall statistically.  If someone advocates a certain policy or law on the basis of principle, but statistics show that the results of the law or policy will be less good in society overall, then this person will be accused of being immoral.  Such is the common utilitarian mindset of many Americans and their politicians.

The problem is, this way of approaching ethical issues has an impoverished moral vision.  Its only aim is to implement policies that will make things relatively better as far as is practicable, given what people in our society are like.  But it never addresses the deeper, underlying issue of whether people in our society should be like that.  The root cause of problems in our society, that people have vices and lack virtue, is never addressed.  Rather, it is simply assumed to be just how things are.  From this standpoint of resigned acceptance, utilitarian activists must constantly make moral compromises as they implement policies that supposedly statistically contribute to there being less suffering.  

For example, people criticize abstinence-only sex education programs by arguing that, statistically, they result in more teen pregnancies.  Of course, it is not these education programs, but American society’s celebration of sexual promiscuity and Americans’ lack of chastity (brought about by the sexual revolution) that is the cause of these teen pregnancies.  But people rarey address these causes because they are taken as a given.  As another example, people criticize law against abortion by arguing that, statistically, they result in more poverty and unwanted children.  Of course, poverty and children being unwanted are not caused by these laws, but by American citizens’ greed, irresponsibility, and individualism.  But people rarely address these causes because they are taken as a given.  

In contrast, virtue ethics recognizes that societal problems can never be fixed through laws and policies.  If society’s problems are going to be fixed, it can only be by people becoming virtuous.  This requires that they be part of communities that will form them into virtuous people.  

We do not have to simply accept the fact that people lack virtue.  People can change.  People can become virtuous.  As they do, we can build a better society that does not simply resign itself to great moral evil and then use unjust means to try to make an evil society a little less bad.  We can actually combat great moral evil and truly make the world a better place by forming people into virtuous human beings.  This is how all true and lasting moral progress has been made in human history: by changing people’s hearts and minds.  Modern society has taken some major steps backward with regard to virtue (e.g., the results of the sexual revolution), but such steps backward have been and can be reversed.  We can have real moral progress, but only by the development of virtue.