Virtue Ethics

1. Introduction

Virtue ethics is a family of ethical theories that takes character—rather than rules, rights, or consequences—as the primary focus of moral evaluation. Instead of asking first “What ought I to do?” virtue ethicists characteristically ask “What kind of person ought I to be?” and “What does it mean for a human life to go well?”

Historically rooted in Classical Greek philosophy, especially in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, virtue ethics conceives morality in terms of virtues: stable, excellent dispositions of thought, feeling, and action such as courage, justice, temperance, and generosity. These traits are evaluated by reference to eudaimonia, often translated as “flourishing” or “living well,” understood as the overall success of a human life across its course.

In contrast to deontological and consequentialist approaches, which structure morality around universal duties or the maximization of good outcomes, virtue ethics emphasizes:

• the development of practical wisdom (phronēsis), an integrated capacity to perceive and respond aptly to the particulars of situations;
• the role of habituation, education, and social practices in shaping character;
• the centrality of emotions and motives, not merely outward behavior.

Modern virtue ethics is not a single doctrine but a diverse field. Some versions are neo-Aristotelian and naturalistic; others are theological, integrating Aristotelian ideas with Christian concepts of grace and charity; still others align virtue theory with care ethics, feminist theory, or global traditions such as Confucianism.

Debates within virtue ethics concern, among other issues, how virtues are defined and justified, whether they presuppose a robust conception of human nature or telos, and how they relate to moral rules and social institutions. Despite internal diversity, virtue-ethical theories share the conviction that understanding and cultivating the virtues is indispensable for explaining moral life and practical reasoning.

2. Historical Origins and Founding

Virtue ethics emerges as a distinct, systematic orientation in Classical Greek philosophy, though it draws on earlier practices of moral reflection.

Socratic and Platonic Background

Many historians trace its prehistory to Socrates, as portrayed in Plato’s early dialogues. Socrates’ persistent question “How should one live?” and his focus on virtues such as justice, piety, and temperance established an agent-centered approach. He famously argued that:

"

No evil can happen to a good man, either in life or after death.

— Plato, Apology

This view links moral virtue with a kind of invulnerability and with knowledge of the good.

Plato develops a more systematic virtue psychology in works such as the Republic, Gorgias, and Phaedo. He relates virtues to the harmony of the soul’s parts (reason, spirit, appetite) and to the Forms, especially the Form of the Good, thereby situating character within a broad metaphysical framework. While Plato is not a “virtue ethicist” in the modern classificatory sense, his integration of virtues, soul, and the good life is a crucial precursor.

Aristotle’s Systematization

The founding moment of virtue ethics in its classical form is commonly located in Aristotle’s ethical treatises, above all the Nicomachean Ethics, composed in 4th-century BCE Athens within the institutional setting of the Lyceum. Here Aristotle offers a comprehensive account of:

• eudaimonia as the human good;
• the virtues of character and intellect;
• habituation and moral education;
• practical wisdom and the “doctrine of the mean.”

His work provides many of the core concepts that later virtue-ethical theories either adopt, modify, or contest.

Hellenistic and Roman Developments

After Aristotle, Hellenistic schools further elaborated virtue-centered ethics:

Roman authors such as Cicero transmitted and adapted Greek virtue theories into Latin, influencing later Christian and medieval thinkers.

Transmission to Later Traditions

Through late Antique commentators and translations into Latin and later European languages, Aristotelian virtue theory entered scholastic philosophy and Christian moral theology, where it was reinterpreted in light of religious doctrines. This transmission set the stage for the medieval elaborations and subsequent transformations of virtue ethics.

3. Etymology of the Name

The modern expression “virtue ethics” is a relatively recent label, but it refers back to ancient concepts whose names carry distinctive connotations.

Greek Roots: Aretē and Ēthikē

The classical Greek term for virtue is ἀρετή (aretē), which originally denotes excellence or fitness for function rather than moral virtue in a narrow sense. Aretē applies to a wide range of things—racehorses, tools, or soldiers—as well as to human character. When applied to persons, it connotes the excellences that enable them to flourish as the kind of beings they are.

The term ἠθική (ēthikē), from which “ethics” derives, is linked to ēthos, meaning character, custom, or habitual disposition. In Aristotle, ēthikē aretē literally means “ethical/excellent character,” and ēthikē as a discipline is the inquiry into such character and its relation to the good life.

Latin Transmission: Virtus and Moralis

As Greek philosophy was translated into Latin, aretē was commonly rendered as virtus. Originally associated with manliness and martial prowess (vir meaning “man”), virtus gradually broadened to denote general excellence of character, especially civic and moral excellence, in Roman thought (e.g., Cicero, Seneca).

The broader term moralis (from mores, customs) gave rise to “morality” and “moral philosophy,” which in medieval and early modern usage often included virtue-centered discussions, even when not labeled “virtue ethics.”

Modern Coinage: “Virtue Ethics”

The specific phrase “virtue ethics” gains currency mainly in the second half of the 20th century, especially in Anglophone philosophy, partly in response to Elizabeth Anscombe’s 1958 article “Modern Moral Philosophy” and subsequent work by Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, and others. It is often used to distinguish an agent-centered and character-focused approach from rule-based (deontological) and outcome-based (consequentialist) theories.

Some scholars note that this terminological contrast is somewhat anachronistic when applied to ancient authors, who did not self-describe as “virtue ethicists.” Others argue that the label is still useful as a way of highlighting continuities between ancient eudaimonistic traditions and contemporary theories that foreground the virtues.

Despite differences in emphasis across languages and periods, the etymological strands—aretē, ēthikē, virtus, moralis—all converge on ideas of excellence in character, habit, and ways of life, which the modern term “virtue ethics” seeks to capture.

4. Classical Formulations: Aristotle and Beyond

Classical virtue ethics is most fully articulated in Aristotle, but it develops within a broader ancient landscape.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle presents a systematic account structured around the notion of eudaimonia as the highest human good. He argues that flourishing consists in rational activity in accordance with virtue over a complete life. Virtues are hexeis (stable states) that regulate emotions and actions by reference to the doctrine of the mean—a virtuous response navigates between excess and deficiency (e.g., courage between rashness and cowardice).

Phronēsis (practical wisdom) is central: it integrates experience, perception of particulars, and deliberation about what is good and beneficial for a human life. Moral education is described in terms of habituation, whereby repeated right actions, guided initially by external norms and exemplars, shape the agent’s character so that virtuous action eventually becomes “second nature.”

Plato’s Virtue Theory

Although often treated separately from Aristotle, Plato offers important classical formulations of virtue. In the Republic, he correlates the four “cardinal” virtues—wisdom, courage, temperance, justice—with the harmony of the soul’s parts and the just city. Virtue is tied to knowledge of the Form of the Good and achieved through philosophical education. This framework makes virtue deeply cognitive and metaphysical; vice is often described as a kind of ignorance or disorder.

Stoic Virtue-Centered Ethics

Stoic philosophers (e.g., Zeno, Chrysippus, later Roman Stoics like Seneca and Epictetus) articulate a rigorous virtue ethics with distinctive features:

• Virtue is the only true good; external things (health, wealth, reputation) are “indifferents.”
• The ideal is to live in accordance with nature, understood as right reason pervading the cosmos.
• Emotions are evaluated in terms of judgments; the virtuous agent corrects false value-judgments and attains apatheia (freedom from irrational passions).

Stoic ethics thus emphasizes moral integrity, self-command, and universal cosmopolitan concern.

Other Hellenistic Contributions

Other schools also engage with virtue:

These classical formulations provide contrasting models of how virtues relate to knowledge, emotion, nature, and the good, which later virtue ethicists draw upon, synthesize, or oppose.

5. Core Doctrines of Virtue Ethics

Although virtue ethics includes diverse traditions, several core doctrines recur across major formulations.

Primacy of Character and Virtue

Virtue-ethical theories typically treat virtues—stable dispositions of character—as fundamental to moral evaluation. Actions are assessed partly by whether they express, cultivate, or stem from virtuous dispositions. Proponents argue that focusing on character better captures everyday moral experience, where motives, emotions, and patterns of behavior matter as much as isolated acts.

Eudaimonia and the Good Life

A second core doctrine links virtue to eudaimonia or flourishing. Many virtue ethicists hold that:

• virtues are constitutive of a flourishing life (being courageous and just is itself part of living well); or
• at minimum, virtues are necessary conditions for genuine flourishing, even if not sufficient.

This eudaimonistic structure means that ethical prescriptions are justified by appeal to what makes a human life go well, rather than by an external law or aggregate utility alone.

Practical Wisdom and Context-Sensitivity

Virtue ethics emphasizes phronēsis or practical wisdom as the capacity to deliberate well about action in concrete circumstances. Rather than following fixed algorithms, the practically wise person:

• discerns morally salient features of situations;
• balances competing considerations and virtues;
• judges how general values apply here and now.

This leads many virtue ethicists to stress context-sensitivity and the limitations of rigid rule systems.

Habituation and Moral Development

A further doctrine concerns moral psychology and education: virtues are acquired through habituation, practice, and participation in communities and practices that shape dispositions. Early guidance from parents, teachers, and laws gradually gives way, in mature agents, to self-directed virtuous choice informed by practical wisdom.

The Role of Emotions and Motives

Virtue ethics generally insists that a fully virtuous state involves properly trained emotions and good motives, not mere outward conformity to norms. The courageous person, for example, not only acts bravely but also feels fear and confidence in an appropriate way. This integration of affect and reason distinguishes virtue approaches from views that focus exclusively on external behavior.

Different traditions refine or contest these doctrines—e.g., how tightly to link virtue with eudaimonia, or how to understand habituation—but they broadly concur that ethics is centrally about what it is to be a good human being and how such a person comes to be.

6. Metaphysical Views and Teleology

Metaphysical commitments in virtue ethics vary significantly, but teleological ideas are historically prominent.

Aristotelian Teleology and Human Function

Classical Aristotelian virtue ethics is grounded in a teleological metaphysics. Aristotle holds that natural beings have forms and teloi (ends). Humans, as rational animals, have a characteristic ergon (function): activity of the soul in accordance with reason. Virtues are the excellences that enable humans to fulfill this function, and eudaimonia is the successful realization of this nature over a lifetime.

On this view:

• moral properties are partly natural properties—facts about what allows a kind of being to flourish;
• ethical evaluation presupposes a robust human nature with determinate potentials.

Theistic and Thomistic Teleology

In Thomistic virtue ethics, Aristotelian teleology is integrated into a Christian metaphysical framework. Thomas Aquinas maintains that:

• all creatures are ordered to God as ultimate end;
• natural virtues dispose humans toward their natural good;
• theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) orient them to a supernatural end: beatific union with God.

Here, teleology operates on two levels (natural and supernatural), and the metaphysics of creation, providence, and grace shapes how virtues are understood and ranked.

Contemporary Naturalistic Teleology

Contemporary neo-Aristotelians such as Philippa Foot and Michael Thompson defend a naturalistic but still teleological account, often by appealing to “life-form” judgments: we evaluate plants, animals, and humans by standards internal to their species’ form of life. Human virtues are then those traits that contribute to the flourishing of rational, sociable animals. Proponents argue that such standards are objective without requiring non-natural properties.

Critics question whether teleology can be made compatible with modern science or whether it smuggles in contested normative assumptions about “normal” functioning, gender roles, or social hierarchies.

Minimalist and Anti-Teleological Approaches

Some virtue ethicists adopt more minimal metaphysical commitments. They may:

• downplay or reject strong teleology, instead grounding virtues in practical identity, social practices, or reflective endorsement;
• treat metaphysics as largely bracketed, focusing on phenomenological or narrative descriptions of moral life (e.g., in some strands of MacIntyre-inspired, practice-based accounts).

Others, influenced by existentialism or pragmatism, reconceive virtue without a fixed human telos, emphasizing self-creation, contingency, or evolutionary perspectives.

Thus, while teleological metaphysics remains central to many virtue-ethical theories, there is active debate about how robust such teleology must be, how it should be justified, and whether virtue ethics can or should be detached from thick metaphysical pictures of human nature.

7. Epistemological Views and Moral Knowledge

Virtue ethics advances distinctive claims about how moral knowledge is possible and about the cognitive role of character.

Practical Wisdom as a Mode of Knowledge

Central is the notion of phronēsis (practical wisdom) as an intellectual virtue. Rather than a set of explicit rules, phronēsis is:

• a capacity for good deliberation about how to live and act here and now;
• sensitive to particulars—the concrete features of situations, people, and relationships;
• integrated with character and emotion, not detachable from the agent’s overall outlook.

Aristotle compares this to perception: the virtuous person “sees” what is called for in a situation, in a way not fully capturable by general principles.

Habituation and Learning from Exemplars

Many virtue ethicists argue that moral understanding is acquired through experience, habituation, and engagement with moral exemplars. Observing and emulating exemplary figures—whether historical, literary, or personal—helps shape:

• patterns of attention (what one notices as morally salient);
• emotional responses (what one fears, admires, or condemns);
• interpretive frameworks for understanding life events.

This view contrasts with models that locate moral knowledge primarily in the grasp of abstract rules or in the calculation of outcomes.

Moral Perception and Emotion

Contemporary virtue epistemology often emphasizes moral perception: the idea that trained emotions and sensibilities make agents better able to recognize moral reasons. For example, compassion may help disclose the suffering of others as morally significant. Here, emotions contribute to, rather than merely distort, moral cognition, provided they are educated by virtue.

Critics question whether such perceptual metaphors obscure the need for critical reflection and whether they can explain disagreement between seemingly virtuous agents.

Cognitivism, Realism, and Fallibilism

Many virtue ethicists lean toward cognitivism—the view that moral judgments can be true or false—and often toward some form of moral realism, holding that there are truths about virtues and human flourishing that are not reducible to preferences. However, these commitments are not universal:

Across these variations, there is widespread acceptance of fallibilism: even the wise can err, and moral knowledge is refined through dialogue, narrative, and critical engagement with traditions.

Relation to Virtue Epistemology

In analytic epistemology, some theorists (e.g., Ernest Sosa, Linda Zagzebski) have developed virtue epistemology, which treats intellectual virtues as central to knowledge. While distinct, this movement parallels ethical virtue theory in emphasizing reliable character traits and agent-centered accounts of justification, and it sometimes draws explicitly on ethical virtue concepts.

8. Ethical System: Virtues, Vices, and the Mean

Within virtue ethics, the ethical system is articulated primarily in terms of lists and structures of virtues and vices, and in many classical forms by the doctrine of the mean.

Virtues and Vices as Character Traits

Virtues are relatively stable character traits that dispose agents to feel, think, and act appropriately. Vices are corresponding traits of excess or deficiency that systematically misdirect responses.

Aristotle’s catalogue includes virtues such as courage, temperance, generosity, magnificence, magnanimity, mildness, friendliness, truthfulness, wit, modesty, and justice. Later traditions supplement or modify these lists: for example, Christian moralists emphasize the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude) and theological virtues (faith, hope, charity).

Doctrine of the Mean

Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean holds that many virtues occupy a middle ground between two opposed vices. This is not a call for mediocre compromise, but a claim about right measure relative to the agent and circumstances, determined by practical wisdom.

The “mean” is thus a normative ideal calibrated to the situation and the agent’s capacities, not an arithmetic average.

Some critics argue that not all virtues fit this schema (e.g., justice or honesty), and many virtue ethicists treat the doctrine of the mean as a heuristic rather than a universal formula.

Unity, Plurality, and Conflict of Virtues

Debates arise over whether virtues form a unified package or can exist in isolation. Classical Stoics often suggest that one cannot fully possess a single virtue without possessing them all, given their grounding in right reason. Aristotelians are more open to partial virtue and mixed characters.

Virtue ethicists also address apparent conflicts between virtues (e.g., honesty vs. kindness). Some claim that genuine virtues, properly understood, are harmonizable by practical wisdom; others accept tragic conflicts where any choice involves sacrificing some value.

Right Action in Virtue Terms

Many contemporary virtue ethicists offer action-guiding formulations such as:

• an action is right if and because it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances; or
• right actions are those that express or sustain the virtues.

Detractors question whether such formulations are sufficiently precise for decision-making, while defenders argue that they reflect the inherently judgment-based nature of moral practice.

9. Political and Social Philosophy in Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics extends beyond individual character to questions about political community, institutions, and social practices.

Aristotelian Civic Virtue

In Aristotle’s Politics and Nicomachean Ethics, the polis (city-state) is essential for human flourishing. Political life:

• provides the conditions under which citizens can develop and exercise virtues;
• has an educative role, shaping habits through laws, customs, and public institutions;
• is oriented toward the common good, understood as shared flourishing rather than merely the aggregation of private interests.

Civic virtues such as justice, civic friendship (philia), and public-spiritedness are integral to this picture.

Republican and Communitarian Themes

Modern and contemporary virtue ethicists often adopt or adapt republican and communitarian ideas:

• Republican strands emphasize virtues required for active citizenship, resistance to domination, and participation in self-government.
• Communitarian interpretations (e.g., MacIntyre) stress that virtues are intelligible only within traditions and practices that define internal goods and standards of excellence (e.g., medicine, law, crafts, sports).

These views tend to challenge strongly individualistic or purely procedural political theories, arguing that political structures inevitably shape character and so cannot be normatively neutral.

Virtue Politics and Institutions

“Virtue politics” refers to political projects that aim to cultivate civic and moral virtues through:

• education systems and civic curricula;
• laws that discourage vice (e.g., corruption, greed) and encourage public goods;
• institutions that embody and sustain practices (e.g., universities, professional guilds, religious communities).

Proponents contend that such arrangements support long-term social trust and justice. Critics worry about paternalism, perfectionism, or the marginalization of dissenting conceptions of the good life.

Liberal and Pluralist Adaptations

Some thinkers seek to reconcile virtue ethics with liberal democracy, arguing that:

• liberal institutions can protect the space needed for diverse forms of flourishing;
• virtues like tolerance, civility, and respect for rights are themselves central civic virtues;
• the state should avoid imposing a single comprehensive conception of the good, even while supporting a thin set of shared virtues required for stable cooperation.

Debates continue over whether virtue ethics is inherently at odds with value pluralism, or whether it can underwrite a pluralistic but still character-focused political theory.

10. Practices, Habituation, and Moral Education

Virtue ethics devotes extensive attention to how virtues are acquired and sustained, highlighting the role of practices, upbringing, and education.

Habituation and Early Training

Aristotle famously claims that we become just by doing just actions, courageous by doing courageous actions. Habituation involves:

• repetition of actions under guidance (from parents, teachers, laws);
• gradual internalization of standards and reasons;
• transformation of emotional responses, so that virtuous behavior becomes both easier and more pleasant.

This process is seen as beginning in childhood, when agents are not yet fully rational, and continuing throughout life as character is refined.

Role of Practices and Traditions

Contemporary virtue ethicists, particularly in the MacIntyrean tradition, emphasize social practices:

"

By a ‘practice’ I mean any coherent and complex form of socially established cooperative human activity… through which goods internal to that form of activity are realized.

— Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue

Examples include medicine, teaching, artistic creation, and sports. Such practices:

• contain internal goods (e.g., excellence in healing, justice in adjudication);
• require and cultivate specific virtues (e.g., honesty, courage, fairness);
• are sustained by institutions that can either support or corrupt them.

Moral education thus involves induction into practices and traditions that embody standards of excellence.

Exemplars, Narratives, and Role Models

Virtue education frequently relies on moral exemplars and narrative:

• biographies and stories (historical, religious, literary) present paradigms of virtuous and vicious lives;
• learners are invited to emulate admirable figures and to reflect on failures as cautionary tales;
• narrative self-understanding—seeing one’s life as a story—guides long-term commitment to virtues.

This approach is prominent in religious catechesis, civic education, and professional formation.

Formal Education and Character Programs

In modern contexts, virtue ethics influences character education in schools, professional ethics training, and leadership programs. These often:

• identify core virtues relevant to a domain (e.g., integrity, compassion, diligence);
• incorporate habit-forming practices (reflection, community service, mentorship);
• aim to integrate cognitive understanding of ethical issues with practical skills and emotional development.

Critics question whether institutional programs can genuinely shape deep character or risk promoting conformity rather than critical virtue. Proponents argue that without intentional structuring of environments and practices, character formation is left to chance or to market and media influences.

11. Medieval and Theological Developments

In the medieval period, virtue ethics is significantly reshaped within Christian theological frameworks, while also drawing on Islamic and Jewish philosophy.

Scholastic Synthesis: Thomas Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas (13th century) offers the most influential medieval virtue theory. Integrating Aristotle with Christian doctrine, he:

• distinguishes acquired virtues (developed through habituation) from infused virtues (given by God);
• retains the cardinal virtues (prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude) as central to natural moral life;
• adds theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) that orient humans toward their supernatural end—union with God.

For Aquinas, charity is the “form” of the virtues, ordering all others to divine love. His Summa Theologiae provides an extensive taxonomy of virtues, vices, gifts of the Spirit, and corresponding acts.

Augustinian and Monastic Emphases

Earlier and alongside scholasticism, Augustine and monastic traditions emphasize:

• the role of grace and divine assistance in attaining true virtue;
• the importance of humility, obedience, and charity as core Christian virtues;
• the idea that pagan virtues, lacking right orientation to God, are at best “splendid vices.”

This raises questions about continuity between classical and Christian virtue: are Aristotelian virtues fully genuine, or do they require theological re-interpretation?

Islamic and Jewish Aristotelianism

Medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers also develop virtue ethics under Aristotelian influence:

These thinkers adapt the doctrine of the mean, classifications of virtues, and teleological frameworks to their respective religious worldviews.

Late Medieval and Early Modern Transitions

Late medieval moral theology continues to use virtue categories, but over time, voluntarist and law-centered tendencies (e.g., in Ockham, Scotus, some nominalists) shift emphasis toward divine commands and moral rules. This development foreshadows early modern moves away from classical virtue frameworks, even as virtue language remains embedded in pastoral and confessional practices.

The medieval period thus transforms virtue ethics from a largely philosophical account of flourishing into a theological-ethical system structured by doctrines of sin, grace, salvation, and ecclesial life.

12. Modern Decline and the Rise of Duty and Consequence Ethics

From the 17th to 19th centuries, virtue-centered ethics gradually loses its dominant status in Western moral philosophy, as alternative frameworks emphasizing duty and consequences gain prominence.

Scientific Revolution and Skepticism about Teleology

The Scientific Revolution and the rise of mechanistic physics undermine traditional teleological explanations in nature. Without widely accepted notions of intrinsic ends, virtue theories grounded in human nature and purpose face new challenges. Many philosophers seek foundations for morality in:

• universal laws of reason (e.g., rationalist natural law);
• divine will conceived more voluntaristically;
• human sentiments of approval and disapproval.

Emergence of Deontological Ethics

In early modern thought, there is an increasing focus on moral rules and obligations:

• Proponents of natural law (e.g., Grotius, Pufendorf) codify duties binding on all rational agents.
• Kant later articulates a fully deontological system, grounding morality in the categorical imperative and the autonomy of rational will. Virtue remains important but is conceived as a disposition to fulfill duty, rather than as the basic unit of moral explanation.

This development marginalizes eudaimonistic and character-based frameworks in many philosophical circles.

Rise of Consequentialism and Utilitarianism

Simultaneously, consequentialist theories, particularly utilitarianism, emerge:

• Thinkers such as Bentham and Mill propose that right actions are those that maximize overall happiness or utility.
• Virtues are often reinterpreted as dispositions to promote good consequences, but they are secondary to the principle of utility.

The focus thus shifts from the quality of agents to the calculus of outcomes and the design of institutions and policies that optimize aggregate welfare.

Changing Social and Religious Contexts

Broader cultural changes contribute to virtue ethics’ relative decline:

• Religious pluralism and the Reformation fragment unified moral traditions, complicating shared conceptions of virtue and the good life.
• Emerging commercial societies and individualistic political theories (e.g., social contract models) emphasize rights, interests, and impartial rules over substantive ideals of character.
• Some Christian moral theologies, influenced by nominalism and voluntarism, accentuate obedience to divine commands more than classical virtue cultivation.

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, mainstream Anglophone ethics is largely framed as a debate between deontology and consequentialism, with virtue language persisting mainly in non-systematic, pastoral, or literary contexts. This setting prompts later 20th-century philosophers to explicitly call for a revival of virtue ethics as an alternative or corrective.

13. Twentieth-Century Revival and Neo-Aristotelianism

The late 20th century witnesses a significant revival of virtue ethics, often described as neo-Aristotelian, within analytic philosophy and moral theology.

Anscombe’s Critique of Modern Moral Philosophy

A key turning point is G. E. M. Anscombe’s 1958 article “Modern Moral Philosophy,” which:

• criticizes reliance on concepts like “moral obligation” and “moral law” outside a theistic framework that once gave them sense;
• argues that modern moral theories lack an adequate philosophy of psychology and neglect the importance of virtue;
• recommends a return to Aristotle as a more promising starting point.

This essay is often cited as inaugurating the contemporary virtue ethics movement.

Neo-Aristotelian Ethical Theory

Following Anscombe, philosophers such as Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, Julia Annas, and Michael Thompson develop secular Aristotelian accounts:

• They revive the concepts of virtue, eudaimonia, and practical wisdom;
• seek to ground virtues in a naturalistic understanding of human life-forms, needs, and flourishing;
• offer action-guiding formulations (e.g., Hursthouse’s proposal that right action is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do).

These thinkers debate how strongly to commit to Aristotelian metaphysics, how to relate virtues to modern liberal values, and how to address issues like moral luck and pluralism.

MacIntyre and Practice-Based Virtue Ethics

Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981) provides another influential strand. He:

• offers a genealogical critique of modern moral discourse as fragmented and emotivist;
• portrays virtues as qualities enabling individuals to achieve goods internal to practices and to sustain a narrative unity of life within traditions;
• emphasizes the dependence of virtues on historically extended communities.

MacIntyre’s work inspires communitarian and practice-centered approaches, often more critical of liberal individualism and modern bureaucratic institutions.

Theological and Religious Revivals

In parallel, Christian ethicists (e.g., Stanley Hauerwas) and Thomists renew interest in virtue-based moral theology, integrating Aquinas with contemporary concerns. They explore the role of ecclesial communities, liturgy, and spiritual disciplines in forming virtues.

Other religious traditions, including Jewish and Islamic thought, see analogous revivals, retrieving classical virtue themes for modern ethical reflection.

Expansion and Diversification

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, virtue ethics has diversified:

• Feminist and care-ethical thinkers draw on virtue concepts to challenge abstract, impartialist moral theories;
• applied fields (bioethics, business ethics, environmental ethics) adopt virtue frameworks;
• scholars explore intersections with virtue epistemology, positive psychology, and virtue politics.

Despite internal disagreements, this revival re-establishes virtue ethics as a major contemporary alternative—and complement—to duty- and consequence-focused moral theories.

14. Variants: Secular, Thomistic, and Care-Based Virtue Ethics

Contemporary virtue ethics encompasses several influential variants that differ in metaphysical commitments, sources, and emphases.

Secular Neo-Aristotelian Virtue Ethics

Secular or naturalistic neo-Aristotelian theories retain Aristotelian structures (virtue, eudaimonia, practical wisdom) while eschewing theological assumptions. Key features include:

• grounding virtues in human nature, understood through biology, psychology, and social practice;
• treating eudaimonia as a this-worldly flourishing compatible with plural life-plans;
• defending objective but naturalistic accounts of human goods (e.g., Foot’s “natural goodness”).

These accounts often engage directly with contemporary debates about moral realism, reasons, and well-being.

Thomistic and Theological Virtue Ethics

Thomistic virtue ethics reinterprets Aristotle in light of Christian doctrine. It typically:

• affirms a hierarchical structure of virtues, with theological virtues (faith, hope, charity) orienting natural virtues to a supernatural end;
• incorporates notions of grace, sin, and redemption into accounts of character formation;
• situates moral life within ecclesial and sacramental practices.

Beyond Thomism, other theological traditions (Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish, Islamic) develop virtue ethics that integrate scriptural narratives, religious rituals, and community norms as sources of virtue and conceptions of flourishing.

Care-Based and Feminist Virtue Ethics

Care ethics, initially focused on relational responsiveness and dependency, has developed virtue-based strands. Care-based virtue ethics:

• identifies care, empathy, attentiveness, and responsibility as central virtues;
• emphasizes the moral significance of relationships, vulnerability, and context;
• critiques traditional virtue lists for androcentric biases (e.g., valorizing independence over interdependence).

Feminist virtue ethicists also revisit classical virtues (e.g., courage, justice) in light of gendered social structures, asking how virtues can both recognize and transform conditions of oppression.

Comparative Overview

These variants sometimes converge on practical recommendations but diverge on foundational issues such as the role of religion, the nature of flourishing, and how to conceptualize and prioritize specific virtues.

15. Critiques and Debates with Rival Theories

Virtue ethics has been both a critic of, and a target for criticism from, other major moral theories, notably deontology, consequentialism, and emotivism/noncognitivism.

Virtue Ethics versus Deontology

Virtue ethicists often argue that deontological theories:

• overemphasize rules and duties, neglecting the importance of motives, emotions, and moral development;
• struggle to provide action guidance in complex, particular situations without background judgment shaped by virtue.

Kantian and other deontologists respond that virtue ethics:

• may lack clear decision procedures and risks moral relativism if virtues are defined by local traditions;
• can be accommodated within a deontological framework as dispositions to fulfill moral law (e.g., Kant’s doctrine of virtue).

Debates focus on whether virtues or duties are conceptually primary and whether they are ultimately compatible or rival explanatory strategies.

Virtue Ethics versus Consequentialism

Critiques of consequentialism from virtue ethicists include:

• the claim that exclusive focus on aggregate outcomes can sanction intuitively wrong acts if they maximize utility;
• worries that consequentialism undervalues integrity, friendship, and personal commitments, treating them as mere instruments.

Consequentialists counter that:

• virtues can be understood as traits that promote good consequences in the long run;
• virtue ethics may offer attractive descriptions of character but needs integration with outcome-based evaluation for policy and large-scale decision-making.

Some hybrid theories attempt to combine virtue concepts with consequentialist criteria.

Response to Emotivism and Noncognitivism

Virtue ethicists like MacIntyre criticize emotivism, which views moral judgments as expressions of preference or attitude, for failing to account for the rational structure of virtue discourse and the historical continuity of ethical traditions. They argue that virtues presuppose shared standards of excellence and narratives that are more than mere projections.

Noncognitivists reply that virtue language may function primarily to shape attitudes rather than to state facts, and that this does not diminish its practical importance.

Internal Critiques of Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics itself faces several internal and external criticisms:

• Action-guidance objection: Critics claim virtue ethics offers insufficient guidance in novel or tragic dilemmas. Defenders reply that practical wisdom and exemplar-based reasoning can address this, though not algorithmically.
• Cultural relativity: Some argue that virtue lists are culture-bound. Responses vary, from relativist virtue theories to universalist claims about basic human needs and capacities.
• Situationist challenge: Psychological studies (e.g., in social psychology) suggest behavior is heavily influenced by situations rather than stable traits. Virtue ethicists dispute interpretations of this evidence, revise conceptions of traits, or emphasize the need for supportive environments for virtue.

These debates shape ongoing refinements of virtue theories and their relationship to rival approaches.

16. Comparative Perspectives and Global Virtue Traditions

Virtue ethics is not confined to the Aristotelian-Western lineage; comparable frameworks arise in multiple global traditions, inviting comparative study.

Confucian Ethics

Confucianism presents a rich virtue tradition centered on ren (humaneness), li (ritual propriety), yi (rightness), and xiao (filial piety). Key features include:

• emphasis on role-embedded virtues (e.g., as parent, child, ruler, subject);
• importance of ritual practice and self-cultivation for moral development;
• conception of the junzi (exemplary person) as moral ideal.

Comparisons with Aristotelian ethics highlight shared concerns with character and habituation, but also differences in metaphysics, social hierarchy, and the weight given to family and ritual.

Buddhist Virtue Traditions

Buddhist ethics includes virtue-like concepts such as the pāramitās (perfections) in Mahāyāna Buddhism:

• generosity, morality, patience, effort, concentration, wisdom (often expanded with others like compassion and equanimity).

These are cultivated to overcome suffering and ignorance, aiming at enlightenment. Ethical focus often falls on mental states and intentions, with virtues understood in the context of no-self (anātman) and interdependence, which differs from Aristotelian notions of stable personal character.

Islamic and Jewish Virtue Thought

As noted earlier, Islamic and Jewish philosophers (e.g., Miskawayh, Maimonides) adapt Aristotelian virtue theory within monotheistic frameworks, but there are also non-Aristotelian strands:

• Sufi traditions emphasize virtues like humility, trust in God, and love, cultivated through spiritual practices.
• Musar literature in Judaism focuses on ethical character refinement, often integrating scriptural injunctions with virtue concepts.

African and Indigenous Perspectives

Some interpreters identify virtue-ethical elements in African philosophies, such as Ubuntu, which values qualities like compassion, communal responsibility, and harmony (“a person is a person through other persons”). Indigenous traditions in various cultures emphasize virtues associated with respect for nature, courage, generosity, and reciprocity within kinship and ecological systems.

Comparative Themes and Debates

Comparative work explores:

Some scholars argue for convergences suggesting a near-universal role for virtues in moral thought; others stress incommensurabilities, warning against imposing Aristotelian categories on distinct traditions. Comparative virtue ethics thus serves as a site for intercultural dialogue about the nature of character, community, and the good life.

17. Applications in Contemporary Ethics and Policy

Virtue ethics has been applied across a wide range of contemporary domains, often complementing rule- and outcome-based approaches.

Professional and Business Ethics

In business ethics, virtue frameworks highlight traits such as integrity, fairness, trustworthiness, and practical wisdom in leaders and organizations. Rather than relying solely on compliance with codes, virtue-based approaches:

• focus on corporate culture and institutional character;
• stress long-term relational goods (trust, reputation) over short-term profit;
• analyze how organizational structures foster or undermine virtues (e.g., incentives that reward greed).

Similar themes appear in legal, engineering, and journalistic ethics, where professional virtues guide practice in situations not fully covered by rules.

Medical and Bioethics

In medical ethics, virtue approaches emphasize:

• virtues of clinicians (compassion, honesty, courage, humility, practical wisdom);
• the doctor–patient relationship as a site of trust and mutual respect;
• the role of clinical judgment in applying principles to individual cases.

Some frameworks integrate virtues with principlism (autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice), arguing that virtues are needed to interpret and balance principles responsibly.

Environmental and Animal Ethics

Environmental virtue ethics focuses on traits such as respect for nature, temperance in consumption, stewardship, and wonder. Proponents argue that:

• sustainable policies require citizens and leaders with appropriate ecological character;
• virtues can counteract vices like greed, shortsightedness, and domination over nature.

In animal ethics, virtue theorists explore attitudes of compassion, mercy, and respect toward non-human animals, sometimes critiquing purely rights- or utility-based accounts for missing the significance of character.

Public Policy and Governance

Virtue ethics also informs discussions of public service and governance:

• ideals of public-spiritedness, justice, and courage in officeholders;
• concerns about systemic vices such as corruption, cowardice, and careerism;
• proposals for civic education that cultivates virtues necessary for democratic deliberation.

Policy debates on issues like whistleblowing, lobbying, and regulatory design sometimes invoke virtue language to assess institutional integrity.

Technology and AI Ethics

In emerging fields, virtue-based approaches assess how technologies shape character:

• discussions of digital virtues (e.g., online civility, intellectual humility, attentiveness);
• concerns about how social media may encourage vices like vanity, envy, or polarization;
• proposals for designing “virtue-supportive” technologies, including AI systems that foster rather than erode human moral capacities.

Across these domains, virtue ethics often operates in tandem with deontological and consequentialist analyses, providing a lens on long-term character formation, institutional ethos, and the cultivation of responsible agents rather than focusing solely on isolated decisions.

18. Legacy and Historical Significance

Virtue ethics has played a central and recurring role in the history of moral thought, leaving a lasting legacy on philosophy, religion, and culture.

Enduring Influence in Western Philosophy

From Aristotle through Aquinas to contemporary neo-Aristotelians, virtue-based frameworks have shaped conceptions of:

• the good life and human flourishing;
• the relationship between reason, emotion, and desire;
• the nature of moral education and the formation of character.

Even during periods when duty- and consequence-focused theories dominated academic ethics, virtue language persisted in literature, education, and everyday moral discourse.

Impact on Religious and Cultural Traditions

Virtue lists and ideals—such as the cardinal and theological virtues, or various monastic and devotional virtues—have structured:

• religious catechesis and spiritual direction;
• liturgical practices and communal disciplines;
• artistic and literary representations of saints, heroes, and anti-heroes.

These traditions have, in turn, influenced broader cultural understandings of traits like courage, humility, justice, and charity.

Contributions to Contemporary Moral Theory

The 20th-century revival of virtue ethics has:

• expanded the conceptual toolkit of moral philosophy beyond rules and outcomes;
• spurred re-examination of moral psychology, emphasizing motives, emotions, and narrative;
• inspired hybrid theories that integrate virtues with principles, rights, or consequentialist reasoning.

Debates about the situationist challenge, moral luck, pluralism, and the role of tradition have been enriched by virtue-ethical perspectives.

Cross-Cultural and Interdisciplinary Significance

Comparative work on Confucian, Buddhist, Islamic, African, and indigenous traditions reveals that virtue-centered thinking is a widespread human resource for articulating moral ideals. Interdisciplinary collaborations with psychology (e.g., positive psychology), education, political theory, and organizational studies have further highlighted the practical significance of character and virtues.

Continuing Relevance

Virtue ethics continues to shape discussions about how individuals and societies can respond to contemporary challenges—technological transformation, environmental crisis, political polarization—by asking not only what actions are permissible or efficient, but what kinds of people and communities we should strive to become. Its historical trajectory illustrates both changing and enduring answers to these questions, ensuring its ongoing significance in ethical reflection.