Introduction
Throughout our Philosophy and Ethics class, we have explored how various ethical theories emphasise different elements of morality, such as intentions, consequences, or character. Aristotle’s virtue ethics, as outlined in his Nicomachean Ethics, prioritises the cultivation of personal virtues like honesty and courage over rigid rules or isolated actions, aiming for eudaimonia or human flourishing (Aristotle, 350 BCE). This essay argues that while focusing on character offers a valuable approach to moral decision-making in modern society—particularly in fostering long-term ethical behaviour—it is not always superior to rule-based or consequentialist methods. Instead, a combination is often ideal, as character alone may overlook immediate harms or universal duties. I will support this position with reasons drawn from class discussions on Aristotle, Kant, and Mill, and illustrate it through two real-world examples: whistleblowing in corporate settings and political leadership during environmental crises. This balanced view acknowledges the strengths of virtue ethics while recognising its limitations in complex, contemporary contexts.
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics and Its Modern Relevance
Aristotle’s theory, as we examined in class, posits that ethical living stems from developing a virtuous character through habitual practice, rather than merely adhering to rules or calculating outcomes (Aristotle, 350 BCE). In modern society, this approach arguably promotes deeper moral integrity; for instance, in everyday life, a person with virtues like generosity might naturally help others without needing explicit guidelines. However, critics, including those influenced by Kantian deontology, argue that this focus can be subjective and fail to provide clear directives in diverse situations (Kant, 1785). Indeed, class discussions highlighted how virtue ethics encourages self-reflection, which is crucial for issues like social inequality, where personal growth leads to sustained advocacy. Yet, in politics, where decisions affect millions, a sole emphasis on character might excuse flawed actions if the individual deems themselves virtuous. Therefore, while character-building fosters authentic morality, it must be complemented by rules to ensure accountability, supporting my position that a hybrid approach is preferable.
Real-World Example 1: Whistleblowing in Corporate Environments
Consider the case of whistleblowing, such as in the Enron scandal of 2001, where employees exposed accounting fraud that led to the company’s collapse (BBC News, 2002). From Aristotle’s perspective, a virtuous person—embodying courage and honesty—would blow the whistle as an expression of their character, aiming for overall flourishing in society. This aligns with class ideas on how virtues guide habitual ethical choices without needing external validation.
In contrast, Kant would approach this through deontology, emphasising duty and the categorical imperative: one must act only according to maxims that could become universal laws (Kant, 1785). Thus, whistleblowing is morally required if lying or concealing fraud violates the duty to truthfulness, regardless of personal consequences. Mill’s utilitarianism, however, would evaluate the action based on outcomes, weighing the greatest happiness for the greatest number (Mill, 1863). Exposing Enron might cause short-term job losses but prevent broader financial harm, making it ethically sound if net utility increases.
This example illustrates why character-focused ethics can be effective for personal motivation but risks inconsistency; a less courageous individual might rationalize inaction. Rules (Kant) and consequences (Mill) provide clearer guidance, suggesting that in corporate ethics, combining virtues with structured accountability is superior.
Real-World Example 2: Political Leadership in Environmental Crises
A second example is political decision-making during climate change, such as the UK’s response to the 2015 Paris Agreement, where leaders committed to reducing emissions (UK Government, 2016). Aristotle would argue that a leader with virtues like prudence and justice would naturally pursue sustainable policies, developing character that inspires public trust and long-term environmental stewardship.
Kant, however, would insist on following universal duties, such as the imperative not to exploit future generations, treating environmental protection as a non-negotiable rule irrespective of political expediency (Kant, 1785). Mill would assess based on consequences: policies should maximise overall well-being, perhaps by calculating the utility of emission cuts against economic costs (Mill, 1863). For instance, delaying action might boost short-term happiness through jobs but lead to greater suffering from climate disasters.
Here, focusing solely on character could falter if a leader’s virtues are misguided—say, prioritising national interests over global ones. Class discussions on utilitarianism noted its practicality for policy-making, while deontology ensures fairness. Thus, this supports my view that character is beneficial for inspiring moral leadership but needs integration with rules and outcomes for effective modern governance.
Conclusion
In summary, while I partially agree that Aristotle’s emphasis on character provides a robust foundation for moral decision-making in everyday life, politics, and social issues—by promoting genuine virtue over mechanical adherence—it is not inherently better than focusing on rules or actions. The examples of whistleblowing and environmental politics demonstrate how Kant’s deontology offers universal consistency and Mill’s utilitarianism ensures beneficial outcomes, addressing virtue ethics’ potential subjectivity. Ultimately, a combined approach, as hinted in class syntheses of these theories, could guide modern society more effectively, encouraging both personal growth and societal welfare. This balance mitigates limitations, fostering ethical progress in an increasingly complex world.
References
- Aristotle. (350 BCE) Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by W. D. Ross. Internet Classics Archive.
- BBC News. (2002) Enron scandal at-a-glance. BBC News. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1780075.stm (Accessed: 15 October 2023).
- Kant, I. (1785) Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Riga: Johann Friedrich Hartknoch.
- Mill, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son and Bourn.
- UK Government. (2016) The Paris Agreement. London: Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy.
