Chapter 4: Virtue Theories
Theories of Virtue vs. Theories of Right Action
The ethical theories discussed so far, Kant’s Duty Ethics and Utilitarianism, are both considered “Theories of Right Action.” These moral philosophies share the assumption that ethics should focus on the concept of moral obligation, addressing the question of conduct:
What should I/we do? For nearly two thousand years, however, philosophers following the ancient Greeks operated under a different assumption.
They believed that moral philosophy should focus on character and the fundamental task of ethics should be to explore the question of character: What type of person should I/we strive to be? This is the essence of Virtue Theory. This section begins by examining some of the central ideas in Aristotle’s moral philosophy, followed by a characterization of Jesus’ ethical teachings.
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
Aristotle was born in 384 BCE in Stagira, a northern Greek colony. The son of a physician, Aristotle was Plato’s prized pupil, tutor to Alexander the Great, and, arguably, the greatest Western philosopher ever produced. His extensive work, covering nearly every area of philosophy, remains as relevant and influential today as it was two thousand years ago. For our purposes, we will focus on Aristotle’s moral philosophy and his Theory of [Moral] Virtue.
In general, the term “virtue” refers to desirable traits or characteristics. The ancient Greeks understood virtues as “excellences” that promote human well-being. These traits are desirable because they enhance our quality of life and contribute to the well-being of others. The Greek word for excellence, “Arete,” also translates as “virtue.” To fully appreciate Aristotle’s theory of virtue, we need a basic understanding of his philosophy of human nature.
Aristotle believed that human nature comprises three dimensions: the nutritive, the sensitive, and the rational [or intellectual]. The “nutritive” dimension refers to our physical or bodily aspect. All living things, including plants, animals, and bacteria, require sustenance. This need for nutrition is the root of our appetite for sensual goods like food and sex. This aspect of human experience is shared with other living beings.
In addition to the nutritive dimension, humans possess a sensitive element, which makes awareness possible. Unlike plants or germs, animals share this dimension with us. The third element is our rational or intellectual component—our reason. For Aristotle, reason is not merely the ability to engage in any form of cognition. While many animals exhibit some cognitive abilities, reason, for Aristotle, means having the capacity to contemplate and reflect—essentially, to “philosophize.” This rational element defines human beings and constitutes the essence of human nature. Aristotle believed not all individuals possess this capacity equally, a view that can be critiqued. For our purposes, we will assume that all humans possess this rational capacity equally.
Aristotle argued that living a virtuous life involves flourishing, or realizing one’s full potential, which he referred to as eudaimonia—often translated as “happiness” but better understood as “human flourishing.” Living a flourishing life aligns with living a “rational life,” as humans are fundamentally “rational animals.”
Aristotle distinguished between two types of virtues: intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues relate to theoretical reason and are acquired through study, while moral virtues pertain to practical reason and are products of practice. Wisdom and intelligence are examples of intellectual virtues, whereas courage and generosity are examples of moral virtues.
Regarding intellectual virtues, Aristotle posits that we should strive to possess as much as possible—the more wisdom or intelligence, the better. Moral virtues, however, are defined by moderation. Aristotle’s concept of “moderation” or “temperance” should not be confused with “mediocrity,” which implies low quality. Instead, moderation refers to the mean between two extremes. In terms of our nutritive and sensitive elements, Aristotle believed we should aim for this moderate point to achieve excellence or virtue:
“Virtue, then, is a disposition involving choice, the characteristic of which lies in moderation or observance of the mean relative to the persons concerned, as determined by reason, that is, as the man of practical wisdom would determine it.”
Aristotle’s view is that, regarding passions and desires, moderation will accurately characterize all virtuous persons. What constitutes moderation can vary from person to person. For instance, the moderate amount of food for an adult would be excessive for a toddler. Aristotle acknowledged that achieving temperance is difficult:
“It is a difficult business to be good; because in any given case it is difficult to find the midpoint—for instance, not everyone can find the center of a circle; only the man who knows how. So too, it is easy to get angry—or to give and spend money; but to feel or act towards the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, for the right reason, in the right way—that is not easy, and it is not everyone that can do it. Hence, to do these things well is a rare, laudable, and fine achievement.”
Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Golden Mean
The table below exemplifies the basic idea of Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Golden Mean.
| # | Type of Feeling, Attitude, Action, or Desire | Vice of Excess | VIRTUE (Golden Mean) | Vice of Deficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fear | Foolhardiness | Courage | Cowardice |
| 2 | Physical Pleasure | Overindulgence | Self-Control | Abstinence |
| 3 | Giving [Smaller] Gifts | Extravagance | Extravagance | Stinginess |
| 4 | With Respect to being Pleasant w/others | Brown-Nose | Brown-Nose | Grumpy |
| 5 | With Respect to Having a Sense of Humor | Buffoonery | Witty | Humorless |
| 6 | Pursuit of Accomplishments | Overly Ambitious | Ambitious | Unambitious |
| 7 | Appraising One’s Strengths/Weaknesses | Boastfulness | Honest | Self-Deprecation |
| 8 | Awareness of One’s Flaws | Shyness | Modesty | Shamelessness |
Jesus’ Ethics of Love
The term “theory” can be ambiguous. In philosophy, “theory” usually refers to a systematic and discursive attempt to justify or substantiate a proposition or thesis. As mentioned at the outset of our study, philosophy operates primarily through reason and logical analysis.
Therefore, it would be incorrect to label Jesus’ teachings about what we should do or how we should be as a “theory” in the traditional philosophical sense. However, in a more literal sense, derived from the Greek word “theoria,” meaning “a beholding,” “a looking at,” or “viewing,” it is permissible to consider Jesus’ teachings as constituting an “ethical theory.” This perspective allows us to view Jesus’ ethical teachings as a new way of seeing and relating to others, characterized by compassion, justice, and mercy.
On one occasion, an expert in the law asked Jesus, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” Jesus replied that the most important commandment was, “Love the Lord your God with all your soul and with all your strength.” He went on to say that the second most important commandment was to “love your neighbor as yourself.” In summary, we might describe Jesus’ teaching as an Ethics of Love, where the core principles are Love of God, Love of Others, and Love of Self.
To illustrate this Ethics of Love, consider the “Parable of the Good Samaritan” from the Gospel of Luke (10:25-37). This parable exemplifies Jesus’ call for a radical compassion and mercy. It addresses a specific question and presents a vivid moral lesson.
The Good Samaritan
[25] On one occasion, an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
[26] “What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you read it?”
[27] The expert answered: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”
[28] “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
[29] But the expert wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
[30] In reply, Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead.
[31] A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side.
[32] So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
[33] But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him.
[34] He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and took care of him.
[35] The next day, he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'”
[36] “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
[37] The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”
An essential understanding of Jesus’ message in the Parable of the Good Samaritan is that it answers the question, “Who is my neighbor?” The geographical proximity between ancient Jews and Samaritans was minimal, but culturally, ideologically, and theologically, they viewed themselves as worlds apart. For Jesus, the concept of “neighbor” extends beyond those who share our values and beliefs. His radical vision calls for compassion, mercy, and love towards all, including those with profoundly different worldviews.
Additionally, Jesus’ instructions extend to loving even our enemies.
Love for Enemies
“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”