Aristotle believed that the best way for people to achieve Eudaimonia was for them to develop and exercise those qualities that are most productive for living in a society. He believed that extremes of behaviour and of character are unhelpful in a society; for example very timid people at one extreme, and very assertive people at the other, can both cause problems. For Aristotle, then, virtue could be found in what he called the ‘Golden Mean’ (striking the right balance between extremes). Aristotle used the example of courage as a virtue, lying in between foolhardiness and cowardice.
Aristotle also said that right actions would automatically follow, once the agent acquires the virtues. He believed that future generations can be taught goodness from the example of those who have gone before it is argued that we learn more about morality from the living examples of virtuous people, than we do from learning a set of rules or principles.
Aristotle was also careful to point out that there are differences between moral virtues and intellectual virtues. He said intellectual virtues, such as profiency in foreign languages, are partly the result of talents with which a person is born, and owe a great deal to teaching whereas the moral virtues are learned by living them. He believed that by making an effort to live a virtuous life, people would develop the habits of virtue, and virtue would then become part of the character rather than an effort. He also believed that the best way of learning about the virtues was to follow the example of the ‘virtuous man’- this could be an ‘ideal type’ following the example of how we imagine a virtuous person, for example Jesus Christ.
b) “Virtue ethics is of little practical use to someone forced with a moral problem” Discuss (17)
Virtue ethics states that the best way to live is by taking the Golden mean (the balance between extremes), that way people can achieve Eudaimonia (fulfilment). However, if you were to ask the question “Can virtue ethics guide or help you when you are faced with a moral problem?” is a trickier scenario. Sometimes the ‘Golden mean’ might not be clear.
For example, if a patient had a disease and the doctor said that there were two options; the only cure for them was to cut off both their arms for full recovery, or they could take a risk and 0keep their arms for a possible recovery…how would someone know what the Golden mean is then? The answer is that there is no golden mean in this situation; if you were to cut off the arms (although it is an extreme action) you are also guaranteeing recovery. But if you were to keeping the arm (which might seem the sensible thing to do) you are playing with your life- which is also an extreme action, because it involves taking a large risk. In this scenario how can one determine what the Golden mean is? After all, they are both very extreme actions. One may argue by saying that cutting off the arms is more sensible because you are keeping the person alive, but then again another might say that you will cause so much misery and anguish in their life that it is not worth it. In these kind of scenarios, the golden mean is in the eye of the beholder and therefore not conclusive.
Another criticism of Virtue ethics is that some people may argue that it is sometimes necessary to take extreme actions- and not the Golden mean. For example, imagine in a Nazi concentration camp they have 10 Jewish people and they are about to be exterminated, and then you realise that you can save those 10 Jewish people- if you kill a 100 SS soldiers. Indeed, they are both serious undertakings, and although at first appearance one might consider killing the 100 SS soldiers, at further inspection, you would realise that they too have innocent families and would suffer at the loss of their fathers. So in this type of scenario, what would be the Golden mean? If the golden mean suggests that you should take the balance between the two actions, it doesn’t take long to realise that not only are both of them serious actions…but sometimes it is necessary to take serious actions in order to do the right things-my opinion in this case being killing the 100 SS soldiers. My point however is that sometimes you can only achieve what you want by taking extreme actions –which goes against the teachings of Virtue ethics.
My conclusion in relation to these scenarios is that in life, there are no rules that one should follow to lead a good life and become fulfilled. Each situation is different and calls for a different action, and although virtue ethics can work nine times out of ten for a situation- there will always be that one situation that calls for an extreme action to be done, that goes against the rules.