11.5 Strengths and Weaknesses of Virtue Ethics

Here are some of the main strengths and weaknesses attributed to virtue ethics as an ethical approach:

Strengths:

Virtue theory emphasizes the moral education of emotions, perception and character rather than just behaviors. Allows flexibility for learning.  By framing ethics in terms aspiring to be moral exemplars and human excellence, virtue theories compellingly reconnect ethics to broader humanistic vision of life. Don’t we naturally seek to emulate those role models in our lives who seem to be flourishing? Doesn’t it make sense to walk their walk and talk their talk in an effort to flourish as they do?

It focuses on becoming good not just following universal rules, allowing responsiveness to individual and community needs.  Shouldn’t we put more value on emotions and on our personal relationships when it comes to making moral decisions? Virtue ethics emphasizes the whole person, not just our reason.

Identifying someone’s character is as easy as observing their habitual actions. A moral person is a person who practices being good to the point that it is habitually what he/she does in every circumstance in the same way an excellent violinist find the proper position to play any particular note by repetitive practice.

Virtue ethics may seem to avoid some of the apparent flaws of duty-based ethics and of utilitarianism. A person guided by virtue ethics would not be bound by strict rules or the duty to abide by a state’s legal code. Presumably, then, an individual who has cultivated a compassionate personality consistent with virtue ethics would not easily surrender a friend’s hiding place in order to avoid having to tell a lie, as would seem to be required by duty ethics. Nor would a person guided by virtue ethics be bound by the ‘tyranny of the (happy) majority’ that appears to be an aspect of utilitarianism.

The concept of eudaimonia provides a substantive telos and a narrative context for pursuing virtue as a component of a good life.

It builds ethical practices through habituation in accordance with human developmental psychology rather than ignoring it.

Weaknesses:

Virtue ethics provides little specific action guidance, especially when virtues reasonably conflict in a situation.  Because of its emphasis on the imprecise and highly contextual nature of ethics, virtue ethics is often criticized as insufficient as a guide to taking specific action. Moreover, a practitioner of virtue ethics might pursue one course of action one day in a circumstance, and a very different course of action the next for the same circumstance depending upon the dictates of what she believes to be best in accordance with her character on that day.

Virtue ethics can be viewed as selfish.  It asks us to consider all factors when making a decision but, in the end, the dominant factor is “what will make me a better person?” In this way, virtue ethics suffers from some of the same criticisms as a form of consequentialism called Ethical Egoism, the belief that I should always and only act in my own best interests.

It requires extensive agreement by a community on what traits count as virtues versus vices.  Is it possible to define a set of “human” virtues? Many wonder whether Virtue ethics is a form of cultural relativism. Are virtues specific to human societies at different times, or are there such things as “universal virtues” that we can say are valued by all societies at all times? Is there any truly ideal definition of an excellent human being? If not, it may be that virtue ethics does not give an adequate handle on how to become “good” persons.

Aristotle’s particular account incorporates outdated assumptions on gender, class, and the state that trouble many.

Ultimately the theory appeals to intuitive notions of human fulfillment that remain vague and difficult to measure.

Consensus on which character traits constitute virtues has likely shifted historically along with social values. This leaves virtue ethics open to accusations of moral relativism.