Download How Important is Character in Ethics paper

Help Received: Writing Center,
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Illustrated Readings
How Important is Character in Ethics?
By: Cadet Andrew Smith
ERH-207W-02
Mr. Morgan
December 10, 2015
Word Count: 1433
Do you believe yourself to be an ethical individual? What, do you think, are the
most important components of ethics and being an ethical person? Is character one of
those important components? These questions are extremely important for you to answer
in your own mind and then to keep at the forefront of your thought process throughout
the argument of this paper. This paper will answer the question of whether or not
character is important to ethics and present differing views on the topic to give voice to
all relevant arguments. After having presented the arguments, this paper will try to
convince the logical audience that truly ethical decisions are impossible to make without
good character.
This paper will use terms in the argument that, while common to society, are
sometimes defined differently from that of a philosophy stand point and therefore must
be correctly defined before moving on. The first of the words to be defined is Character:
character is defined as a distinctive mark used to distinguish one item from another or a
group of qualities that distinguish one individual from another (Homiak). The second
word is Virtue: virtue is defined as moral character. The third word is Disposition:
disposition is defined as a character trait with which the character of a person is built.
Fourth is the word Faculty: faculty can be defined as an aptitude or talent for doing
something. Next is the word Ethics: ethics is concerned with distinguishing between
good and evil in the world, between right and wrong human actions, and between
virtuous and nonvirtuous characteristics of people. Finally, the word Vice: vice can be
defined as an immoral or wicked personal characteristic; the opposite of a virtue.
2
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics Book II, he states that there are two types of
virtue: moral and intellectual. Intellectual virtues are taught to us throughout our lives
with no real action required while moral virtues are learned through practice and
repetitive action on our part. Every human is born capable of being morally virtuous but
we must continuously train ourselves to behave in a virtuous manner. We cannot learn to
be virtuous by thought alone; we must practice (Nicomachean Ethics). Since every
human and situation is different, there are no set guidelines with which to gauge whether
or not a person is virtuous. However, Aristotle states that good character can be identified
as being the mean between two extremes. The two extremes to any virtue are deficiency
or excess of that virtue. For example, courage is a virtue but the extremes would be
cowardice and rashness. There are a few actions which are never virtuous. As I said
before, virtues do not have specific guidelines and situations vary greatly but so does the
acceptable level of that virtue from one person to another. An example of this would be
the courage that is acceptable for a child and the courage acceptable for a full grown adult.
The child is still maturing and learning while the adult is expected to be more developed.
One of the biggest obstacles to overcome in order to be a morally virtuous
individual is how to act when faced with pleasure and pain. Aristotle believes that there
are both inappropriate pleasures and pains. For example, an alcoholic feels inappropriate
pleasure when he drinks and becomes drunk and feels inappropriate pain when he is
unable to drink. A more virtuous and temperate person would feel appropriate pleasure
abstaining from alcohol or drinking in moderation. Since there are no concrete rules to
govern conduct, Aristotle offers three principles to identify a person with morally
virtuous character as opposed to those who appear virtuous by accident: first, a virtuous
3
person is aware that he is behaving in a virtuous manner; second, he behaves in a virtuous
manner for the simple reason that it is virtuous; third, this continues virtuous behavior
evolves into a constant, virtuous disposition. Virtue is not a feeling or a faculty but a
disposition. Feelings influence us to act in a certain way while our faculties dictate our
ability to feel. Virtue is a more permanent action; therefore virtue disposes us to act in a
good way.
Through this logical succession, Aristotle came to the conclusion that virtue was a
disposition that compelled us to consistently behave in an acceptable way; a mean
between the two extremes. In some cases, and depending on the person, the mean is
closer to one extreme than to the other. For example, courage is closer to the excess of
rashness than to the deficiency of cowardice. This is because humans tend to have more
of a problem with cowardice than rashness and courage is more closely aligned with
rashness than cowardice. There are many virtues that have either a deficiency or an
excess that we as individuals are more prone to gravitate to. This thought leads to
Aristotle’s three rules of conduct: first, avoid the extreme that is farthest from the mean;
second, notice what areas we are particularly susceptible to and avoid them diligently;
and third, be wary of pleasure, as it often impedes our judgment.
Aristotle’s believes that virtues are dispositions and fundamental in understanding
how humans behave. Someone who has been taught to act a certain way all of their lives
does not simply change because we give them a reason to. People are imprinted with
behaviors that become their character early in their childhood. Now that I have covered
Aristotle’s views on virtue being crucial in the building of ones character, I will transition
to John Stuart Mill’s opposing view of Utilitarianism.
4
John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism or Greatest Happiness principle states
that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they
tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mills sole definition of happiness is the
absence of pain. He states that there are varying degrees of happiness that should be
ranked according to the level of happiness they provide; that some pleasures hold more
weight because they are rooted in ones higher faculties. One way to tell if a pleasure is of
a higher quality or not is if the person would trade that quality for another or keep it
regardless of if it was also accompanied by some amount of pain. He believes that an
individual should only be virtuous if that action gives that individual pleasure. Mill
argues that happiness is the basis of justice and that all actions are rooted in a desire to
find happiness. This being the case, Mill says that a human would not choose a lower
level of existence to avoid pain. For example, a well educated individual would not want
to downgrade to an ignorant individual but would instead prefer to preserve his dignity as
an educated member of society and endure whatever pain that comes with that
responsibility. Along with that point, Mills utilitarianism looks at the happiness of the
whole society, not just the individual, so if an individual possess a character trait that is
somewhat less desirable to that individual but makes the society better off, this quality
trait is more desirable by all because it brings more happiness to more people.
These two views are very different. While they are both proponents of happiness,
one puts a large emphasis on character and how it is necessary to achieve Eudaimonia
(Hursthouse) and allow for justice in society. The other puts less of an emphasis on
character, believing that the only way to achieving happiness is by experiencing pleasure.
I agree wholly with Aristotle in the fact that virtue and what is right must govern our
5
character and how we act, sometimes regardless of how we feel about achieving that
action. We must put our own personal interests aside sometimes for the betterment of
those around us. If we were guided solely by what made us happy, society would be
chaotic because some people would only be happy through virtue deficient actions and
justice would not be prevalent if happiness was the sole dictator of ones actions in life.
6
Bibliography

Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. 1861. Book 1, 2 and 5. Print.

Ross, W.D., trans. Nicomachean Ethics. 359. Book 1-3. Print.

Homiak, Marcia, "Moral Character", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2015 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/moral-character/>.

Hursthouse, Rosalind, "Virtue Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/ethics-virtue/
7