Virtue ethics: Aristotle's eudaimonia, contemporary neo-Aristotelianism, care ethics
Anchor (Master): MacIntyre, A. — After Virtue (1981)
Intuition Beginner
Virtue ethics asks a different question from the usual "what should I do?" It asks "what kind of person should I be?" Aristotle (384-322 BCE) argued that the goal of human life is eudaimonia. The word is usually translated as "happiness," but it is better read as flourishing: living well and doing well across a complete life. We reach eudaimonia by cultivating virtues — stable traits of character such as courage, temperance, justice, and wisdom.
A virtue is a mean between two extremes. Courage sits between cowardice and recklessness; generosity between stinginess and wastefulness. The mean is not the arithmetic middle — it is relative to the person and the situation. What counts as courageous for a trained soldier differs from what counts as courageous for a frightened child.
The virtuous person has practical wisdom — Aristotle calls it phronesis. This is the trained ability to perceive what each situation requires. No set of rules can fully guide us, because life is too complex for any code to anticipate every case. The practically wise person reads the particulars and acts well.
Alasdair MacIntyre argued in After Virtue (1981) that modern moral philosophy is fragmented because it abandoned this Aristotelian picture. We argue past each other about rights, utility, and duty because we no longer share a background of virtues embedded in shared practices and traditions.
Care ethics, developed by feminists including Nel Noddings and Virginia Held, starts from a different place. It stresses relationships, dependency, and responsiveness to particular others rather than abstract universal principles. We are not isolated choosers but beings entangled in networks of care from birth.
Visual Beginner
Picture three frameworks for thinking about the moral life. The first is Aristotle's. At the centre stands a human figure, and around it arrange the virtues — courage, temperance, generosity, justice — each plotted as a point on a line between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency. A small eye marks the figure's heart: practical wisdom, perceiving where each mean falls.
The second picture is MacIntyre's. Here virtues live inside practices — socially established activities such as chess, architecture, or farming, each with internal goods you can only gain by becoming good at the practice. A tradition surrounds the practices, carrying the ongoing argument about what those goods are.
The third is care ethics. Two figures face each other — the one-caring and the cared-for — joined by a bond of attention and responsiveness. Around them spread the dependencies of human life: infancy, illness, old age. Universal rules float above, greyed out, unable to grasp the relation.
Each panel locates morality at a different level: in the character of the agent, in the practices and traditions that shape her, and in the relations of care that hold people together.
Worked example Beginner
A soldier ordered to hold a position faces advancing enemy troops. How does virtue ethics assess what she should do? It does not apply a rule such as "always retreat when outnumbered" or "never abandon your post." It asks what the courageous person would do here — and that requires judging the particulars.
The coward flees at the first sign of danger; the reckless person charges without regard for the mission or her comrades. Both get it wrong. Courage is the mean: holding the position as long as standing serves the common good, retreating when holding becomes pointless sacrifice. The mean is felt and judged, not calculated.
What counts as courageous depends on the agent. A seasoned officer and a raw recruit face different demands, and the right action for each differs. Practical wisdom — phronesis — is what lets the agent perceive where the mean lies for her, in this situation, at this moment. That perception is trained by habit.
Virtue ethics thus refuses to reduce the case to a formula. The verdict depends on the character of the agent and the features only she can read in the situation. This is why Aristotle treats ethics as less exact than mathematics: the right answer is always indexed to the particulars.
Check your understanding Beginner
Formal definition Intermediate+
Virtue ethics is the family of theories that makes the character of the agent — rather than rules of action or outcomes of action — fundamental to moral evaluation. The three foundational strands are Aristotelian virtue ethics, the neo-Aristotelian revival of the late twentieth century, and care ethics. Each strand supplies its own account of what a virtue is, how it is acquired, and how it guides action.
Eudaimonia and the function argument. Aristotle opens the Nicomachean Ethics [Aristotle NE] with the claim that every art, inquiry, and action aims at some good. The highest human good — the one we choose for its own sake — is eudaimonia. To identify what eudaimonia consists in, Aristotle runs the function argument (ergon): the good of a thing is performing its function well (a good knife cuts well, a good eye sees well). The human function is rational activity — activity of the soul in accordance with reason. So the human good is rational activity expressing virtue, over a complete life. Eudaimonia is not a feeling but an activity; it is something you do, not something that happens to you.
Virtue as habituated disposition. A virtue (arete) is a stable disposition to feel, choose, and act well, acquired through habituation — we become just by doing just actions, courageous by facing danger as the courageous person would. Aristotle distinguishes intellectual virtues (developed through teaching — wisdom, understanding) from moral virtues (developed through practice — courage, temperance, generosity). You cannot acquire a moral virtue by reading about it; repetition of the corresponding actions builds the settled character from which virtuous action flows.
The doctrine of the mean. Each moral virtue is a mean (meson) between two vices, one of excess and one of deficiency, relative to us. The mean is not an arithmetic midpoint but what the practically wise person would determine in the circumstances — relative to the agent, the object, the time, and the manner. Anger, for instance, is neither always wrong nor always right; the virtue of mildness is feeling anger at the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right reason. Some actions (murder, theft) have no mean — they are bad in themselves, and there is no right way or time to commit them.
Moral perception and phronesis. Practical wisdom (phronesis) is the intellectual virtue that grasps the mean in particular cases. The practically wise person (phronimos) perceives what the situation demands; there is no algorithm that could replace this perception, because the relevant features are always particular. Aristotle compares the situation to navigation: rules help, but the skilled navigator reads wind, current, and coast. This is why ethics is less precise than mathematics — its subject matter admits of variation and exceptions.
Voluntary action and akrasia. We are responsible only for voluntary actions — those done knowingly and from choice. Force and ignorance undermine voluntariness, and so undermine blame. Aristotle then confronts akrasia — weakness of will: knowing what is good but failing to do it. Socrates had denied akrasia was possible ("no one does wrong knowingly"); Aristotle explains it as appetite overwhelming reason, the way a sleeping or drunk person may know the good without acting on it. Akrasia is a real failure, not ignorance of the good.
MacIntyre — practices, narrative, and tradition. MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) [MacIntyre] rebuilds virtue ethics on a historical-social base. A practice is a socially established cooperative activity with internal goods — standards of excellence you can only grasp by becoming a practitioner (chess, architecture, farming, portrait painting). Internal goods contrast with external goods (money, fame, power), which are always someone's loss when they are another's gain. The virtues are those qualities of character needed to achieve the internal goods of practices — without honesty, courage, and justice, a practice decays into a pursuit of external rewards. The narrative unity of a human life supplies the context in which virtues make sense: we are storytelling animals whose actions are intelligible only inside the stories we live. Traditions are historically extended arguments about the goods internal to practices, and virtue is what sustains a tradition through its crises. MacIntyre's diagnosis is emotivism: stripped of virtue and tradition, modern moral claims reduce to expressions of preference, which is why modern moral arguments are interminable.
Care ethics. Noddings's Caring (1984) [Noddings] grounds ethics in the caring relation. Natural caring — the spontaneous responsiveness of a mother to her child — is the ideal; ethical caring is what sustains caring when natural caring fails, drawing on the memory of natural caring to motivate continued response. The structure is asymmetric: there is the one-caring (whose attention is engrossed in the cared-for) and the cared-for (whose response completes the relation). Obligation arises from the relation itself, not from an abstract duty. Held develops care as a value alongside justice, arguing that the justice paradigm — modelled on law and contracts between autonomous adults — is masculine and partial; the care paradigm models morality on the mother-child relation and treats trust, responsiveness, and relationship as central moral concepts. Kittay's Love's Labor [Kittay] presses the dependency critique: equality-based theories ignore the labour of caring for dependents and the dependency of caregivers. Tronto's Moral Boundaries [Tronto] treats care as a political practice, attacking the public-private distinction and arguing for democratic caring — the distribution of care responsibilities is itself a question of justice.
Argument reconstruction — Aristotle's function argument and the doctrine of the mean Intermediate+
Aristotle's function argument (Nicomachean Ethics I.7 [Aristotle NE]) is the engine that drives his entire ethical theory, because it purports to derive the human good from facts about human nature. The argument and the mean that follows are best reconstructed step by step, since each step has drawn philosophical fire.
Step 1 — The good is the function performed well. For any thing with a function, its good is performing that function well: a good flute-player plays the flute well, a good sculptor sculpts well. This is the analytic premise, and it is comparatively uncontroversial: "good F" is an attributive adjective whose sense is fixed by what Fs are for.
Step 2 — Humans have a function. If flautists, sculptors, and shoemakers each have a function, and if parts of a human (eye, hand, foot) each have a function, then humans as such have a function too. This is the substantive premise, and it is the most contested. The premise leans on a teleological biology that modern science does not share: that each kind of thing has a natural end built into its form.
Step 3 — The human function is rational activity. What distinguishes humans from plants (which merely grow and reproduce) and from other animals (which sense and move) is rational activity — activity of the soul in accordance with reason. The human function is not merely living, or even sensing, but living in accordance with reason.
Step 4 — Therefore the human good is rational activity expressing virtue. Combining the steps: the good for a human is rational activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, over a complete life. Eudaimonia is not pleasure, not wealth, not honour — it is excellent rational activity.
Objection — the function argument is question-begging. Modern critics charge that the move from "humans are rational" to "the human good is rational activity expressing virtue" smuggles in a normative premise: that what is distinctive of a species is what is good for it. Why should the capacity that sets us apart be the one that defines our good? A defender replies that the argument need not be read as bare distinctiveness; it can be read as appeal to a life-form — the form of life characteristic of the species — and what counts as flourishing for a member of that form. Foot and Thompson (discussed in the master tier) develop this reconstruction, grounding the function argument in natural-history judgments about the human life-form rather than in contested metaphysics.
The mean as a consequence of the function argument. If the human good is excellent rational activity, then virtue is the state that disposes us to such activity, and the doctrine of the mean specifies what excellence amounts to for each affect and action. The mean is what the practically wise person would determine — neither too much fear nor too little, neither too much anger nor too little, but the amount that excellent rational activity requires here. The mean's relativity to the agent is no defect: a recruit's courageous risk and an officer's may differ, because what expresses excellent rational activity depends on the agent's role, training, and capacities.
Akrasia as the limit case. The function argument tells us what the good is; akrasia shows why agents fail to pursue it. Appetite can overpower the agent's recognition of the good, producing action against her better judgment. The possibility of akrasia is why habituation matters — virtue must be trained into the agent's dispositions, not merely known.
Bridge. The function argument fixes the target (eudaimonia as excellent rational activity), the mean fixes the shape of virtue (relative intermediates between vices), and phronesis fixes the mode of application (perception of particulars). The intermediate exercises test these pieces; the master tier takes up the neo-Aristotelian revival, the situationist challenge to stable character, and care ethics' rejection of the whole agent-centred picture.
Exercises Intermediate+
Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics, phronesis, and agent-based theory Master
Hursthouse's V-rules. Rosalind Hursthouse's On Virtue Ethics (1999) [Hursthouse] gives virtue ethics an action-guiding structure to rival deontology and consequentialism. The virtuous agent acts from traits like honesty, generosity, and kindness, so virtue ethics yields V-rules — "act honestly," "act generously," "do not act dishonestly," "do not act cruelly." A V-rule names a virtue (positive rule) or a vice (negative rule) and instructs the agent to act accordingly. These look like deontological rules, but their grounding is different: a V-rule holds because acting from the corresponding virtue is what the virtuous agent does, and acting from the corresponding vice is what the vicious agent does. Hursthouse argues this structure lets virtue ethics handle the standard action-guiding cases without collapsing into either Kantianism or utilitarianism.
Hursthouse on abortion. In "Virtue Theory and Abortion" (1991) [Hursthouse abortion], Hursthouse applies virtue ethics to a case that rights-based theories frame as a stand-off between fetal rights and maternal rights. The virtue-ethical reframing asks instead what virtues and vices are expressed in the decision — wisdom, responsibility, and practical judgement versus callousness, frivolity, or self-deception. The status of the fetus becomes one consideration among many, not the decisive one. The argument does not simply legalize or prohibit abortion; it asks whether the agent is acting from a virtuous appreciation of what is at stake, given her circumstances. This illustrates a general feature of virtue ethics: it shifts the question from "what is permitted?" to "what kind of agent is acting, and on what motives?"
Foot on natural goodness. Philippa Foot's Natural Goodness (2001) [Foot] reconstructs the function argument without teleological metaphysics. Foot argues that natural normativity is familiar from the life sciences: a plant whose roots fail to take in water is a defective plant, because there are facts about what plants of that kind do to thrive. The same structure applies to humans. The human life-form determines what counts as good for a human — we need certain virtues to live the kind of life characteristic of our species. Moral evaluation is a species of natural-history judgement: saying a human is courageous or just is, on this view, like saying an oak is a good specimen of its kind. Foot's move is to naturalize virtue without reducing it to convention or preference.
Thompson and the representation of life. Michael Thompson's "The Representation of Life" (1995) [Thompson] supplies the logical grammar Foot draws on. Thompson distinguishes natural-history judgments ("the domestic cat is a four-legged carnivorous mammal that hunts at night") from statements about particular members of a kind. Natural-history judgments express the life-form, and judgements about particulars are evaluated relative to it. A given cat that cannot hunt is still a cat, but a defective one. This framework lets Foot and Thompson ground virtue in the human life-form without invoking Aristotelian teleology as a metaphysical thesis about purposes in nature.
Geach on attributive adjectives. P. T. Geach's "Good and Evil" (1956) [Geach] supplies a complementary semantic point. "Good" is an attributive adjective, not a predicative one: a "good knife" is not something that is both good and a knife, but a knife that is good as a knife — the noun fixes the standard. The same holds for "good human" and "good farmer." The standard of goodness is fixed by the kind of thing involved. This blocks subjectivist readings of "good": there are facts about what makes a knife a good knife, and similarly there are facts about what makes a human a good human, fixed by the kind.
McDowell on silencing and perception. John McDowell's "Virtue and Reason" (1979) [McDowell] develops the perceptual model of virtue. The fully virtuous agent perceives the situation correctly, and once she does, the relevant consideration silences competing reasons — there is no further "should I?" question for her, because she sees what the situation requires. Virtue is thus a kind of perception: a reliable sensitivity to morally relevant features. McDowell combines this with particularism — the view that no general principle can determine right action in advance, because the relevance of a consideration can shift with context. The practically wise agent does not apply principles; she reads the particular case.
Dancy's moral particularism. Jonathan Dancy's Ethics Without Principles (2004) [Dancy] systematizes the particularist side. A consideration that counts in favour of an action in one case (keeping a promise) may count against it in another (when keeping it would betray an innocent person). There are no general principles whose presence always fixes the valence of a consideration; the valence is determined holistically by the whole configuration of the case. Virtue ethics and particularism are natural allies: both reject codification of morality into rules, and both make judgement of particulars central.
Annas on virtue as skill. Julia Annas's Intelligent Virtue (2011) [Annas] develops the analogy between virtue and practical skill. A skilled pianist does not merely produce notes; she understands why she plays as she does, can explain her choices, and aims to improve. Annas argues virtue has the same structure: the virtuous agent acts intelligently, can articulate reasons, and progresses from learner to expert. The skill model resists the picture of virtue as blind habit: Aristotle's habituation is not mechanical repetition but a path of learning in which the agent comes to understand what she is doing. Stangl extends this work to phronesis and its relation to moral particularism, pressing how the skill-like structure of virtue squares with the absence of an algorithm.
Eudaimonism versus non-eudaimonistic virtue ethics. Annas's The Morality of Happiness (1993) [Annas 1993] reads ancient ethics as uniformly eudaimonist — every ancient theorist holds that virtue is for the sake of the agent's own flourishing. Modern virtue ethics sometimes drops eudaimonism. Mark LeBar distinguishes self-effacing from self-assured eudaimonism: the self-effacing version makes the agent's flourishing the formal structure of justification while the agent herself need not aim at it, the self-assured version has the agent directly aim at her own flourishing. Christine Swanton's Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View (2003) [Swanton] goes further, offering a non-eudaimonistic pluralism in which virtues respond to multiple independent value sources (creativity, excellence, the natural world), none reducible to the agent's flourishing. The debate is whether virtue ethics needs the eudaimonist anchor to avoid collapsing into a list of admirable traits with no unifying justification.
Agent-based virtue ethics. Michael Slote's Morals from Motives (2001) and From Inquiry to Virtue (2016) [Slote] and Linda Zagzebski's Virtues of the Mind (1996) [Zagzebski] develop agent-based theories. On these views, the primary bearer of moral evaluation is the agent's motives or inner states, and acts are evaluated derivatively — an act is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. Slote grounds evaluation in benevolent motives; Zagzebski defines virtues as traits of the ideally virtuous agent and evaluates acts by reference to what she would do. The appeal is a clean foundation: start from admirable agents and let everything else follow. The critique is nontrivial. Critics charge that agent-based views risk collapsing into consequentialism (if the right act is the one the benevolent agent would produce) or into an empty circularity (if the virtuous agent is defined as one who does what virtuous agents do). A further worry is that agent-based theories ignore the act itself — two acts with identical motives but different outcomes would be evaluated alike, which seems to lose moral structure.
Care ethics, situationism, and comparative virtue traditions Master
Care ethics and the justice debate. The deepest tension inside care ethics is its relation to justice. Held's The Ethics of Care (2006) [Held] presents care as an alternative to the justice paradigm, not merely a supplement. The justice paradigm models morality on legal relations between autonomous adults — rights, duties, contracts — and treats impartiality as the mark of the moral. Held argues this paradigm is masculine in origin and partial in coverage: it ignores the mother-child relation, dependency, and the emotional labour that holds lives together, and it treats care as a private matter outside morality's public reach. The care paradigm models morality on the relation between caregiver and cared-for, and treats responsiveness, attention, and trust as central moral concepts.
The Kohlberg-Gilligan debate. The empirical spur for care ethics was the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate. Lawrence Kohlberg's stage theory of moral development measured maturity by progress toward abstract principle-based reasoning (the Kantian apex). Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982) [Gilligan] argued that this measuring rod systematically discounted the care-oriented reasoning more common among women, mistaking a different voice for a deficient one. Gilligan did not claim women reason one way and men another as a biological fact; she argued that the dominant developmental psychology had flattened a real moral orientation into a stage below the top. The debate ramifies into the ethics of care: if care reasoning is genuinely moral and not immature, then morality has at least two structurally different forms (see 29.06.03 for the psychology).
Kittay, Tronto, and the political extension of care. Kittay's Love's Labor (1999) [Kittay] argues that equality-based theories presuppose the labour of dependency work — someone fed, clothed, and tended the now-autonomous adult — and that this presupposition is invisible in the theory. The ethics of care applied to disability and caregiving exposes the dependency of the dependent and the dependency of the caregiver on social support. Tronto's Moral Boundaries (1993) [Tronto] extends care into politics: care is a political practice, the distribution of caring responsibilities is a question of democratic justice, and the public-private distinction that confines care to the domestic sphere is itself a political device for keeping some people (often women) doing unpaid labour. Daniel Engster's "Rethinking Care Theory" (2005) [Engster] offers a more universal formulation: care is the activity of meeting the basic needs of those who cannot meet their own, and since everyone is sometimes dependent, a universal obligation of care can be derived without abandoning the relational core.
The justice theorist's reply. Susan Moller Okin argues that the right move is not care or justice but care within justice: a properly feminist Rawlsianism would take the family and dependency seriously inside the original position, and justice as fairness would then generate principles that protect caregivers and dependents (see 30.04.04). The exchange turns on whether care is a separate moral paradigm or a domain that justice, properly extended, can cover. Held insists the two paradigms are genuinely different in structure; Okin and Engster argue the gap can be closed from the justice side. The literature remains divided.
Confucian virtue ethics. Confucianism is, on many readings, a virtue ethics. The Analects [Confucius] centres on the junzi (the exemplary person) who cultivates ren (humanity, benevolence), yi (rightness), li (ritual propriety), zhi (wisdom), and xin (trustworthiness). The self is relational — defined through roles and relationships, above all filial piety — rather than the autonomous individual of liberal theory. Mencius develops the picture with the doctrine that human nature has the four beginnings (of compassion, shame, deference, and moral judgement) which, cultivated, grow into the virtues; human nature is good in the sense that the seeds of virtue are native and need only nurture. Comparative work — Yu's The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle (2007), Sim's Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius (2007), and Angle's Human Rights and Chinese Thought (2002) [comparative] — presses the structural parallels (a phronimos-like sage, virtues as means and dispositions, the role of habituation) and the divergences (the Confucian relational self vs the Aristotelian individual, ritual vs the mean as the locus of virtue). MacIntyre's Dependent Rational Animals (1999) [MacIntyre 1999] draws explicitly on the Confucian and Aristotelian recognition that humans are vulnerable and dependent, not the unattached rational agents of Enlightenment moral theory. Neo-Confucianism extends and transforms the picture (see 20.10.01).
Buddhist ethics and virtue. Damien Keown's The Nature of Buddhist Ethics (1992) [Keown] argues that Buddhist ethics is best read as a virtue ethics: the goal is nirvana, the path runs through the cultivation of paññā (wisdom), sīla (ethical conduct), and samādhi (concentration), and the structure parallels Aristotle's — virtues are cultivated dispositions oriented to a final good. The parallel between eudaimonia and nirvana is the load-bearing analogy. The reading is contested: Jay Garfield and the Garfield-Edelgrass collection Buddhist Ethics: A Free Reader [Garfield] press that some Buddhist traditions read more naturally as consequentialist or as a distinct fourth kind of ethics, and Christopher Heathwood argues that Buddhist ethics, given its emphasis on the relief of suffering, is structurally consequentialist. The debate mirrors the one over whether Confucianism is genuinely virtue ethics or a sui generis tradition (see 20.11.01).
The situationist challenge. The most-discussed empirical critique of virtue ethics comes from situationist social psychology. John Doris's Lack of Character (2002) [Doris] and Gilbert Harman's "Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology" (1999) [Harman] argue that the experiments — Milgram's obedience studies, the Stanford prison experiment, the Good Samaritan experiments — show that behaviour is driven by situational factors (the presence of an authority, whether one is in a hurry, ambient smells) far more than by stable character traits. If there are no global, cross-situationally stable character traits of the kind virtue ethics requires, then the virtuous agent is a fiction and the theory lacks psychological footing.
Responses to situationism. The virtue-ethics literature has answered on several fronts. Athanassoulis argues that Aristotelian virtue is precisely a rare and hard-won achievement, not a default of human psychology, so the experiments show at most that most people are not fully virtuous — not that virtue is impossible. Rachana Kamtekar presses that Aristotelian virtues are not the global, situation-insensitive traits Doris attacks: the courageous person is courageous in the relevant situations, situationally sensitive by design, and the situationist experiments rarely probe the situations a given virtue would govern. Christian Miller's Character and Moral Psychology (2014) and The Character Gap (2017) [Miller] offer a middle path: most people have mixed traits — neither globally vicious nor globally virtuous — that are partially situation-sensitive, and the empirical picture is more nuanced than either virtue ethicists or situationists claim. The debate remains live and feeds into the broader moral-psychology literature.
Virtue and moral psychology. The empirical turn has generated a productive subfield. Nichols's Sentimental Rules (2004) [Nichols] studies the role of emotion in moral judgement. Doris's Talking to Our Selves (2015) [Doris 2015] develops a dialogic theory of the self that threatens the unified agent virtue ethics presupposes. Alfano's Character as Moral Fiction (2013) [Alfano] is more sceptical still, arguing that the folk concept of character is a useful fiction we attribute to others but that does not correspond to psychological reality. Nancy Snow's Virtue as Social Intelligence (2010) [Snow] integrates social psychology with virtue, and Michael Hannon's recent work extends the integration. The overarching question is whether virtue ethics can survive the empirical scrutiny of moral psychology or must be revised into something less dependent on thick character traits.
Applied virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has spread into applied domains. Hursthouse's work on applying virtue ethics shows the framework reaching medicine, ecology, and everyday life. Sandel's What Money Can't Buy (2012) [Sandel] is a virtue-ethical critique of marketization: selling things (kidneys, votes, apologies) crowds out the virtues proper to non-market practices and degrades the character of participants. Robert Solomon develops virtue ethics in business, arguing that the corporation is a practice with internal goods and that business virtues (honesty, fairness, loyalty) are genuine virtues, not merely instruments of profit. In environmental ethics, Cafaro's Virtue Ethics and the Environment and Ronald Sandler's Character and Environment (2007) [Sandler] develop environmental virtue ethics — what traits of character fit a human to flourish in ecological context. Shannon Vallor's Technology and the Virtues (2016) [Vallor] extends the analysis to technology: social media, surveillance, and AI shape the characters of their users, and a virtue-ethics of technology asks which technologies cultivate and which corrode virtue (see 20.02.06 for AI ethics).
Virtue ethics and political philosophy. The political extension of virtue ethics revives the classical idea that the polis exists to cultivate virtue in citizens. MacIntyre's critique of liberal modernity argues that the liberal state's claim to neutrality among conceptions of the good is itself a substantive (and damaging) position: it abandons the practices and traditions in which virtue is cultivated and leaves citizens as emotivist consumers. Sandel's Democracy's Discontent (1996) [Sandel 1996] develops a civic-republican alternative in which democracy requires virtue — the disposition to deliberate about the common good, not merely to pursue private interests within neutral rules. Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self (1989) [Taylor] supplies the background: identity is constituted by moral frameworks, and the liberal pretence of framework-neutrality hides the frameworks it secretly relies on (see 20.07.01).
Liberalism's reply. The standing challenge to virtue politics is the liberal neutrality objection. If the state cultivates virtue, it takes sides among contested conceptions of the good, violating the neutrality liberals take to be a condition of legitimacy in pluralistic societies. Stephen Macedo's Diversity and Distrust (2000) and William Galston's Liberal Purposes (1991) [liberal virtues] argue the middle ground: liberal societies can and must cultivate liberal virtues — toleration, respect for law, critical reflection — without descending into perfectionism. Jürgen Habermas presses the harder line: liberal public reason must remain neutral among comprehensive doctrines, and a politics that officially cultivates substantive virtue violates the terms of public justification. The dispute — whether liberal democracy can sustain itself without cultivating virtue, and whether cultivating virtue betrays liberalism — is one of the deepest in contemporary political philosophy.
Connections Master
Theories of justice
20.02.01is the direct prerequisite. Rawls's constructivism and the contractarian tradition presuppose agents deliberating about principles; virtue ethics asks the prior question of what kind of agents deliberates well. The care-ethics critique of Rawls (Okin, Kittay, Held) extends the dependency critique back into the original position itself.The good life and eudaimonia
20.02.05is the closest sibling. This unit supplies the ethical apparatus (virtue, the mean, phronesis) that the good-life unit presupposes; the well-being currency dispute there (hedonism, desire satisfaction, objective-list) is the value-theoretic counterpart of the eudaimonia debate here.Deontology
20.02.08pending is the immediate predecessor. Deontology grounds morality in universal rules and dignity; virtue ethics grounds it in character and flourishing. Hursthouse's V-rules and Kant's categorical imperative are structurally parallel but groundedly different, and the question of whether Kant's Doctrine of Virtue can be read as genuine virtue ethics is a standing bridge.Consequentialism
20.02.07pending is the other foil. The situationist critique (Doris, Harman) and the moral-saints objection to utilitarianism (Wolf) approach the same fault line from opposite sides: consequentialism threatens the integrity of the agent, while virtue ethics is accused of having no determinate action-guidance at all.Ethics of artificial intelligence
20.02.06connects through Vallor's Technology and the Virtues and the question of which technologies cultivate virtue in their users. The alignment problem also has a virtue-ethical framing: what dispositions should an AI system be trained to express?Confucianism
20.10.01and Buddhism20.11.01are the comparative hooks. The reading of Confucian and Buddhist ethics as virtue ethics (Yu, Sim, Keown) is contested but generative, and the cross-cultural debate illuminates which features of virtue ethics are local to Aristotle and which are structural.Democracy and political theory
20.07.01connects through the civic-virtue tradition (Sandel, MacIntyre, Taylor). Whether liberal democracy needs virtue to sustain itself, and whether cultivating virtue betrays liberal neutrality, is the central question at the boundary between this unit and that one.Theories of justification
20.01.02pending and virtue epistemology connect through the agent-centred structure shared by virtue ethics and virtue epistemology (Sosa, Zagzebski): both make the state of the agent — her character or cognitive virtues — fundamental to evaluation. Bird's crossover work explicitly links the two.
Cross-domain to psychology: the Kohlberg-Gilligan debate and the situationism literature (Doris, Harman, Miller) are simultaneously empirical psychology and philosophical arguments about virtue. Cross-domain to law: virtue jurisprudence (Solum) asks whether legal reasoning should be modelled on the judgement of the virtuous jurist rather than on rule-application.
Historical and philosophical context Master
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (compiled c. 350 BCE from lecture notes, possibly by his son Nicomachus) [Aristotle NE] was the founding text, but it was not always central. In antiquity the Eudemian Ethics (now thought to be Aristotle's own, with the Nicomachean drawing on it) circulated alongside it, and after Aristotle's death the Stoics developed a competing eudaimonist ethics in which virtue alone is sufficient for happiness — a stronger thesis than Aristotle's, which allows external goods to matter. The Aristotelian corpus was largely lost to Western Europe after late antiquity; it returned through Arabic and Jewish intermediaries in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Aquinas's synthesis of Aristotle with Christian theology made the Nicomachean Ethics a central text of scholastic moral thought. On Aquinas's reading, the Aristotelian virtues are natural dispositions perfected by the theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) and directed toward a supernatural end — a framework that dominated Catholic moral theology for centuries.
The early modern period broke the synthesis. Machiavelli severed political virtue from moral virtue, recasting virtù as the cunning effectiveness of the prince. Hobbes reconceived ethics as the prudential calculation of individuals escaping the state of nature, and the new science of the seventeenth century displaced the teleological biology on which the function argument depended. By the eighteenth century, Hume grounded morality in sentiment rather than in nature or reason, and Kant grounded it in the self-legislation of practical reason. The Aristotelian framework — virtues as means within a teleological account of human nature — lost its scientific and metaphysical footing, and what survived was a list of virtues detached from the structure that gave them sense.
The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries belonged to utilitarianism and Kantianism. Virtue language persisted — Mill spoke of character, Kant wrote a Doctrine of Virtue — but the dominant theories located the source of morality in consequences or in law, not in character. G. E. M. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy" (1958) [Anscombe] is conventionally marked as the turning point. Anscombe argued that the modern moral theories (utilitarianism, Kantianism) retain a law conception of ethics — obligation, duty, prohibition — after abandoning the divine-law framework that gave those notions sense, and that the result is a corrupt moral psychology. Her proposal was to drop obligation-centred moral philosophy until an adequate philosophy of psychology — above all, of action, intention, and virtue — could be developed. The essay did not itself reconstruct virtue ethics, but it named the project.
The reconstruction came in waves. Foot's and Murdoch's work in the 1950s and 1960s recovered the ordinary-language resources for talking about goodness and virtue; Geach's semantics of attributive adjectives supplied the logical grammar; MacIntyre's After Virtue (1981) gave the historical diagnosis and a positive account of practices, narrative, and tradition; and through the 1980s and 1990s Hursthouse, McDowell, Nussbaum, and others developed neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics into a genuine rival to Kantianism and utilitarianism. Hursthouse's On Virtue Ethics (1999) [Hursthouse] consolidated the V-rule structure and the action-guiding case; Foot's Natural Goodness (2001) [Foot] and Thompson's work on natural-history judgments offered a fresh foundation for the function argument; and Annas's The Morality of Happiness (1993) and Intelligent Virtue (2011) [Annas] integrated ancient and modern virtue ethics and developed the skill analogy.
Care ethics emerged on a parallel track. Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982) [Gilligan] supplied the empirical provocation; Noddings's Caring (1984) [Noddings] the first systematic theory; Held, Kittay, Tronto, and Baier developed it through the 1980s and 1990s into a distinct moral paradigm with political reach. The relation between care ethics and virtue ethics is contested — some readers treat care ethics as a species of virtue ethics (the virtue of caring), others as a structural alternative that rejects the agent-centred picture in favour of the relation as the primary unit. The two traditions share the rejection of impartial rule-based morality but diverge on what should replace it.
The contemporary field is organized around several live disputes. The situationist critique from Doris and Harman presses whether virtue ethics has the psychological footing it claims; the replies from Kamtekar, Athanassoulis, and Miller refine the account of character traits the theory needs. The particularism debate (Dancy, McDowell, against codification) presses whether ethics can be principled without principles. Comparative virtue ethics (Confucian, Buddhist, Aristotelian) asks how much of the structure is local to Aristotle and how much is structural to ethical life. The political extension (MacIntyre, Sandel, Taylor, against liberal neutrality) presses whether liberal democracy can do without virtue. And the applied turn — environmental virtue ethics, virtue in technology, virtue in business — tests the framework against real domains where character is cultivated or corroded. The unit you have just read is a map of these disputes, organized around the founding question: what kind of person should I be?
Bibliography Master
Aristotle — Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 BCE; Oxford ed. by L. Brown, trans. Ross/Davis, 2009).
Aristotle — Eudemian Ethics (c. 320 BCE; Oxford ed., 2011).
Anscombe, G. E. M. — "Modern moral philosophy", Philosophy 33(124), 1-19 (1958).
MacIntyre, A. — After Virtue, 3rd ed. (University of Notre Dame Press, 1981; 2007).
MacIntyre, A. — Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues (Open Court, 1999).
Foot, P. — Natural Goodness (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Hursthouse, R. — On Virtue Ethics (Oxford University Press, 1999).
Hursthouse, R. — "Virtue theory and abortion", Philosophy & Public Affairs 20(3), 223-246 (1991).
McDowell, J. — "Virtue and reason", The Monist 62(3), 331-350 (1979).
Annas, J. — The Morality of Happiness (Oxford University Press, 1993).
Annas, J. — Intelligent Virtue (Oxford University Press, 2011).
Dancy, J. — Ethics Without Principles (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Thompson, M. — "The representation of life", in Virtues and Reasons, ed. Hursthouse et al. (Oxford University Press, 1995).
Geach, P. T. — "Good and evil", Analysis 17(2), 33-42 (1956).
Swanton, C. — Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View (Oxford University Press, 2003).
Slote, M. — Morals from Motives (Oxford University Press, 2001).
Slote, M. — From Inquiry to Virtue (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Zagzebski, L. T. — Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
Noddings, N. — Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (University of California Press, 1984).
Gilligan, C. — In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development (Harvard University Press, 1982).
Held, V. — The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global (Oxford University Press, 2006).
Kittay, E. F. — Love's Labor: Essays on Women, Equality, and Dependency (Routledge, 1999).
Tronto, J. C. — Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care (Routledge, 1993).
Engster, D. — "Rethinking care theory: the practice of caring and the obligation to care", Public Affairs Quarterly 19(1), 51-71 (2005).
Okin, S. M. — Justice, Gender, and the Family (Basic Books, 1989).
Doris, J. M. — Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Doris, J. M. — Talking to Our Selves: Reflection, Ignorance, and Agency (Oxford University Press, 2015).
Harman, G. — "Moral philosophy meets social psychology: virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 99(3), 315-331 (1999).
Kamtekar, R. — "Situationism and virtue ethics on the content of our character", Ethics 114(3), 458-491 (2004).
Miller, C. B. — Character and Moral Psychology (Oxford University Press, 2014).
Miller, C. B. — The Character Gap: How Good Are We? (Oxford University Press, 2017).
Alfano, M. — Character as Moral Fiction (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Snow, N. E. — Virtue as Social Intelligence: An Empirically Grounded Theory (Routledge, 2010).
Nichols, S. — Sentimental Rules: On the Natural Foundations of Moral Judgment (Oxford University Press, 2004).
Confucius — The Analects (c. 450-250 BCE; trans. E. Slingerland, Hackett, 2003).
Mencius — Mencius (c. 300 BCE; trans. D. C. Lau, Penguin, 2004).
Yu, J. — The Ethics of Confucius and Aristotle: Mirrors of Virtue (Routledge, 2007).
Sim, M. — Remastering Morals with Aristotle and Confucius (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Angle, S. C. — Human Rights and Chinese Thought: A Cross-Cultural Inquiry (Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Keown, D. — The Nature of Buddhist Ethics (Palgrave, 1992).
Garfield, J. L. (ed.) — Buddhist Ethics: A Free Reader (Oxford University Press, 2021).
Sandel, M. J. — What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2012).
Sandel, M. J. — Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy (Harvard University Press, 1996).
Sandler, R. — Character and Environment: A Virtue-Oriented Approach to Environmental Ethics (Columbia University Press, 2007).
Vallor, S. — Technology and the Virtues: A Philosophical Guide to a Future Worth Wanting (Oxford University Press, 2016).
Taylor, C. — Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Harvard University Press, 1989).
Galston, W. A. — Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State (Cambridge University Press, 1991).
Macedo, S. — Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2000).
Baier, A. — "What do women want in a moral theory?", Noûs 19(1), 53-63 (1985).
LeBar, M. — "Virtue ethics and eudaimonia", in The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Ethics, ed. L. Besser-Jones and M. Slote (Routledge, 2015).