Virtue Ethics Explained: Aristotle, Character and Contemporary Relevance
This work has been verified by our teacher: 6.02.2026 at 18:00
Homework type: Essay
Added: 5.02.2026 at 6:48
Summary:
Explore virtue ethics with Aristotle’s insights on character, moral virtues, and practical wisdom, and discover their ongoing relevance in today’s ethical discussions.
Virtue Ethics: An Enduring Pathway to Moral Character
Ethics has always been central to philosophical debate, raising questions about how we ought to live and which values should guide our choices. Amongst the array of ethical theories developed over millennia, virtue ethics stands out for its deep focus on personal character and moral development. Unlike other approaches which prioritise rules or consequences, virtue ethics emphasises the cultivation of virtues that shape a good human life. Grounded in the insights of Aristotle and Ancient Greek thought, it still provokes discussion in modern Britain’s classrooms and public discourse. This essay will examine the foundation and features of virtue ethics, evaluate its continued relevance, and weigh both its enduring strengths and criticisms.Historical Origins: From Greek Ideals to Aristotle
To understand virtue ethics, it is useful to consider its rich heritage. In Ancient Greece, stories of mythical heroes like Achilles or Odysseus were told as moral instruction as much as entertainment. These tales extolled qualities such as courage, wisdom, and temperance—traits that allowed their protagonists to overcome difficulty and thrive. The gods were imagined as epitomising human excellences, and their stories served as touchstones for reflection on what makes a flourishing life.It was Aristotle, however, who gave systematic shape to virtue ethics, particularly in his works *Nicomachean Ethics* and *Eudemian Ethics*. For Aristotle, the ultimate aim for humans was *eudaimonia*, often translated as ‘flourishing’ or ‘living well’. This was not understood merely as fleeting pleasure, but as a comprehensive, lifelong endeavour to actualise one’s potential. Aristotle was keen to distinguish virtue ethics from other moral frameworks—rather than seeing the right action as that which follows a rule or achieves a particular outcome, he saw virtues as lasting dispositions of character which, through practice, enable us to choose well. Central to Aristotle’s scheme was the role of reason: he distinguished intellectual virtues, like wisdom and understanding, from moral virtues, such as bravery or generosity. The virtue of practical wisdom (*phronesis*) is especially significant, guiding individuals to act appropriately in varied situations where rigid rules may be absent.
The Core Features of Virtue Ethics
Virtue ethics is marked by several defining features that set it apart from other moral theories. First, its primary concern is the character of the agent, not the morality of isolated acts. This distinguishes it from deontological approaches, like those of Kant, which stress duty and universal rules, and from utilitarianism, developed by thinkers like Bentham and Mill, which calculates rightness based on outcomes. For virtue ethicists, the good person is one who has cultivated admirable traits within themselves—qualities known as virtues.A central concept here is the Doctrine of the Mean, which Aristotle developed to articulate how virtues are often a matter of balance. Each virtue lies between two vices: one of deficiency and one of excess. Take courage, for instance. Insufficient courage is cowardice, while too much becomes recklessness. Similarly, generosity sits between stinginess and wastefulness. This nuanced approach recognises that ethics requires sensitivity and judgement.
The idea of *eudaimonia* is another pillar. Virtue ethics presents flourishing as the natural goal for human beings—a life lived in accordance with reason and marked by personal excellence. Importantly, *eudaimonia* is not a by-product of virtuous action but its very purpose; the practising of virtues is intrinsically valuable, not merely a route to an external end.
Virtue ethics also insists on the unity of moral and intellectual virtues. It is not enough to have good intentions; one must possess the wisdom to understand how best to act. The virtuous person is therefore someone who not only habitually acts well but does so knowingly and with fitting motivation. In Aristotle’s vision, virtue is fostered from a young age and becomes second nature—a process that is as much about education and socialisation as it is about personal decision.
Virtue Ethics in Modern Context
While virtue ethics began in Ancient Greece, it has been notably revived in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, especially in the United Kingdom. Elizabeth Anscombe, an Oxford philosopher, criticised the dominance of rule-based or utilitarian ethics in contemporary moral thought—much of which, she suggested, was ill-suited to modern secular society. She argued that, with the decline of shared religious beliefs, appeals to fixed moral laws had lost their foundation, and proposed a return to virtue as the basis for moral judgment.Alasdair MacIntyre, another significant British philosopher, expanded on this, lamenting the fragmentation of moral discourse in modern times and advocating a return to the communal traditions that had given rise to virtues in the first place. For MacIntyre, virtues are rooted in shared practices and narratives, not abstract lists. Other thinkers, such as Charles Taylor, have explored how virtue ethics provides a rich account of moral development and self-understanding without recourse to supernatural authority—a view that resonates with the more pluralistic, post-religious fabric of contemporary Britain.
Moreover, adaptions of virtue ethics now place greater emphasis on community and the social dimensions of character. Where Aristotle’s model focused on the (male, Greek) citizen, today’s virtue ethicists see the cultivation of virtue as lifelong, inclusive, and shaped by a much broader range of social circumstances.
Strengths of Virtue Ethics
One of the strengths of virtue ethics is its holistic approach. By encouraging the development of the whole person—emotionally, intellectually, and in relation to others—it does not simply advocate for moral acts in the abstract, but for the growth of moral agents themselves. In British schools, for example, the emphasis on personal development, citizenship, and character education owes much to a virtue-ethical way of thinking.Virtue ethics is also strikingly practical. Real-life moral challenges rarely present themselves as abstract puzzles with clear rules or cutting calculations of utility. Instead, they demand judgement, sensitivity, and often require balancing multiple considerations. Virtue ethics, with its focus on habituation and lifelong moral growth, reflects the messy realities of everyday life. It is adaptable to cultural shifts and particularities, as values are interpreted in the context of evolving traditions and communities.
Furthermore, by stressing the importance of moral education and learning from exemplars, virtue ethics foregrounds how ethical understanding is developed. The role of teachers as moral guides and the modelling of good character in institutions echoes Aristotle’s insight that virtue is both taught and learnt. Finally, virtue ethics does not see the individual in isolation; the flourishing of one is bound up with that of the community—a perspective particularly resonant in contemporary British society, where questions of community cohesion and mutual responsibility are prominent.
Weaknesses and Criticisms
Despite its many attractions, there are significant criticisms of virtue ethics. One major issue is its lack of specific guidance when faced with complex ethical dilemmas. While virtues like courage and honesty are admirable, they do not always provide a clear answer in situations where they appear to conflict. For example, should a teacher tell a painful truth to a pupil, valuing honesty, or withhold it to show compassion? Without clear rules or procedures, virtue ethics may leave us uncertain.Another challenge concerns cultural variation. The very definition of virtue has differed across times and places. Qualities deemed admirable in Victorian England may be seen as problematic or quaint today; consider the changing views on traits like obedience or modesty. Critics question whether it is possible to define a list of virtues that transcends such variations, or if virtue ethics inevitably becomes relativist.
There is also the accusation that some of Aristotle’s virtues are ill-fitted to the modern era. For example, temperance in an age of abundance, or humility in a society that values self-promotion, can seem outdated. If virtue ethics is to remain relevant, it must allow for reassessment and adaptation of what counts as a virtue.
Finally, there is concern that by focusing on individual character, virtue ethics may neglect broader issues of social justice. British public life today is acutely aware of inequalities and structural barriers that inhibit flourishing for some. It is not clear that promoting virtue at the personal level can address these wider problems, which may require collective action, attention to rights, and reforms in law and policy.
Evaluation: Relevance and Critical Reflection
Despite these criticisms, virtue ethics continues to offer valuable insights for personal and collective moral development. Its strengths as an educational and psychological account of morality are difficult to rival. Virtue ethics does not necessarily compete with deontological or consequentialist theories, but provides a complementary perspective that addresses the questions these frameworks often neglect—especially those concerning who we are, rather than just what we do.In Britain’s increasingly pluralistic society, virtue ethics may also offer a flexible basis for moral dialogue. While it recognises the limits of defining one, universal set of virtues, it opens up space for discussion about shared human goods and the values required for peaceful co-existence. This dialogical approach could prove more fruitful than rigid rule-imposition.
Nonetheless, there is a case for supplementing virtue ethics with more concrete principles when faced with urgent ethical choices—such as those in medicine, law, or public policy. A “hybrid” approach, in which virtues inform our motives and identities, while rules or consequences help adjudicate hard cases, is arguably most suitable for modern Britain.
Rate:
Log in to rate the work.
Log in