 everyone. Today, we are going to talk about something called virtue ethics. Now, virtue ethics as I write over here, it says that attitudes over actions, he is virtuous, his moral actions only flow from him. Now, let us recapitulate. Now, we have been doing a few kinds of ethics before. We have talked about deontological ethics, we have talked about consequentialism as an ethical theory. Consequentialism said that well, the consequences of an action determine what a right action is. Deontological theories claim that there was a rule or a formula to determine the right action. Basically, the question that we have been tackling is whether what is the means of determining the right action. This question of course, assumes the answer to the earlier more fundamental metaethical question is that can there be an objective right and wrong. If there is an objective, if there can be an objective right and wrong, how do we determine this objective right and wrong? So, basically there are two questions. First is can there be a right or a wrong and two, if yes. So, basically we are associated with two questions. Now, the first question talks about can there be an objective right and wrong. Now, this is the metaethical question that we have talked about. Now, if the answer to this question is yes, which we have seen earlier that the answer to this question has been yes and we will be revisiting this question again and again. But if we assume this as yes, now from the metaethical theory, we come to the theory of to the level of moral theory. How do we determine the right and wrong? Now, one answer to this was consequentialism. The second answer to this was deontology and what we are going to talk today about is virtue ethics. Now, if you would remember the earlier classifications that we have made is that well, this is a foundational metaethical question that debating the possibility of the moral domain. This is the deepest question above which is the question of moral theory that if there is an objective right and wrong, how do we determine what is the theory about determining the objective right and wrong and this is the third level, which we talked about was applied ethics. So, these applied ethics talks questions about applications of these moral theories, moral theories such as consequentialism, deontology and virtue ethics as we talked about. Applied ethical questions could be like well, is it morally right to about a fetus, is software piracy morally justified. Now, these are applied questions. Now, in our exploration of moral theories, we have talked about consequentialism, deontology and today we will talk about the third major theory, which is called virtue ethics. Now, what does virtue strike us as? Does it mean, does it give us a notion of a medieval puritan social norm or what does virtue do? Now well, the catch line here says attitudes over actions, he is virtuous, his moral actions only flow from him. Now, let us take a look at the slide. Now, till now we have been exploring moral theories that are in the form of rules, principles and formulae to predict the right course of action. Is this how we actually reason? Are we missing some component of the moral domain? Virtue ethicists claim the importance of virtues and vices in moral theorizing. The question to ask is what sort of person ought we to be rather than how do we decide on which act is to be chosen. Virtue ethicists claim that the former is more basic than the later. Now, if this is broadly the layout of the entire domain of moral philosophy, we are now trying to understand moral theories of the three major moral theories, we have talked about consequentialism and deontology, today we talk about virtue ethics. Now, what is virtue ethics? Now, the claim of virtue ethics starts with, we have talked about principles, rules and consequences. Are these enough to explain the moral domain or is there something lacking? Now, there have been many philosophers who have found it insufficient. Now, let us introspectively look, how do we an instance of moral reasoning that we may go through in life. Let us say I have found a gold coin on the road, do I pick it up or do I not pick it up? Now, how do we actually decide whether we are going to, whether I am going to pick up that gold coin that I see lying on the road or I am not going to pick up? There can be various combinations. First combination is, well first I see that there are people seeing me. So, if I pick it up and they would know that well it does not belong to me. So, perhaps I would be known as a thief, but the value of the gold coin is enormous for me to jump that taboo. Maybe another situation where there are, there is nobody looking and I can quietly pick it up. Thirdly, I think of the consequences. If I am a consequentialist, I think that well if anybody who people stop returning lost and found items, well the trust level comes down in a collective and that is harmful in the long term. So, I should not pick up the coin. Let us make this example simpler. Let us say I see the coin and I do not pick it up. What can be the reasons for it? First, consequences. Let us say that well I see, picking up the coin erodes the general trust factor among the collective, say the society or the collective I belong to and therefore I do not pick it up. Another factor could be well deontology or I do not pick up the coin because I have been told by my religion to follow a rule that you shall not take what does not belong to you. Say I am deontological. Say if I am the Kantian deontological, then I would say that well if I had lost a coin, would I expect somebody would I expect the finder to return it to me. If I would expect so, then I would return pick up the coin and return it to or try to have a look out for who the owner of the coin is or if I do not just pick up the coin, I would function as a principle that well what I do not what does not belong to me, I shall not take it. Now, these are the same actions under two perspectives that well I do not pick up the coin. Now, there is a third perspective that people have talked about that is called because of my virtue or more easily my character, character traits. Now, I could also not pick it up not as a matter of habit or tendency, but as a matter of my choice of how I have decided to be as a person to not suppose take in to not take in the to not acquire what does not belong to me and that is a character trait not acquire others property covertly. Now, if this is a character that I have that I am just not comfortable or I have decided that it is not right for me to steal, I consider this as stealing or if I just do not have internalized it that well it is my predisposition, it is my character that I do not want to acquire somebody else's property when it is lost and I do not am I am not earning it. Now, isn't this closer to the virtue ethicists would say that this is the way it is closer to the reasoning that takes place in our mind. Now, look at it this way in such a model predicament are we thinking by rules are we thinking by deontology are we thinking by consequentialism well the virtue ethicists say that well we act out of our character again not to be confused with tendency or behavioral patterns, but our thought through and decided choices. Virtue ethicists claim the importance of virtues and vices in moral theory. So, there is something called virtue which has not been accounted for when we go in for moral theorizing we have talked about consequences we have talked about rules, but isn't there something left out of the moral domain which is essential to make full sense of the moral domain it is about being human it is about having character traits. Now, it is not that a brave person or a person who exhibits the courage of virtue of courage or bravery is always brave, but it is that it is a part of his character trait of his moral makeup that he chooses to be a brave person. So, when confronted with the situation and if he finds the odds of or the risks of courage less than the drive of the character trait then he should then he would straight go ahead with the courageous act. So, what taking a look at the slide what the virtue ethicists are talking about in the last bullet is that the question to ask is what sort of a person ought we to be rather than how to decide on which act is to be chosen. Virtue ethicists claim that the former is more basic than the later. Now, what sort of a person ought we to be is that is a question and the other question is how to decide on which act is to be chosen. Now, the various theories that we have come across right now are answering the second question that is how to decide on which act is to be chosen. Virtue ethicists claim that the former is more basic than the later. Now, this is a question what sort of person ought we to be this is a question of the various moral theories, but how to decide what act is to be chosen. Now, these are two crucial questions which would determine are stand on moral theory. Now, virtue ethicists claim that the former is more basic than the later that what sort of a person ought we to be that is the crucial question are we going to be what kind of a character trait. So, when we say what kind of a person we actually mean what character trait or disposition that we exhibit. Now, whereas on the second one we either rule governed rule or consequence governed. Now, coming to the next slide why do we talk about virtue ethics at all. Well, we as moral agents do not need a theory to give us the right course of action or a subset of principles formulae to arrive with the right action. This is quite evident when we talked of the agent finding a coin example. Well, we really do not go through moral reasoning in the form of theories or principles and formulae to arrive at the right action. We simply reflect or it is our character that determines the choice we make. Now, a person thief would perhaps pick it up instinctively he has internalized it into his character is respect for property rights is negligible. Now, what we need to know what we need is to know about what kind of a person we ought to be and the answer to this question will also determine the actions we do the choices we make. Now, this is interesting now what kind of a person will we be now that determines our actions. Now, let us say we have law enforcement agencies putting forth claims that well these if you would remember if you have been through any of the railway stations in India it has a rogues gallery a picture put up of rogues gallery and these are photos of habitual criminals who have been caught to alert passengers. Now, what is a rogue a rogue is one well as per virtue ethicists understanding and as put forth by the policeman in the gallery of rogues on various stations is that well these are people of who are of a character pattern or who have character traits which are which do not respect the general moral ethos of the time of then and there. So, a thief is somebody who is of a character that we does not or she does not respect property rights. So, well given an opportunity the thief would go ahead for and steal whatever is available any any as once policeman once told me that well for any crime to occur there are two factors required the first is temptation and the second is opportunity. Now, if one is not stealing or one is not succumbing to or one is not involved in an act of crime because one does not have an opportunity well that is only one factor taken away. Now, in this two factor analysis of the policeman where it talked about temptation and opportunity temptation is the one that stands for the virtue of the agent. Now, taking a look at the slide if I put the policeman's interpretation plus opportunity tends to give the act right in this case the criminal act. Now, it is this temptation which is the domain of virtue whether to be tempted or not that is an example of virtue to be tempted or not. Now, many of us find the gold coin lying on the road how and if any of us find it there is the opportunity, but whether we are tempted or not. Now, if now let us let us thread bear analyze what is it to have the virtue of honesty or non-covetuousness to unearned property. Now, if let me write that down for your clarification. Now, suppose this is the attitude that I display that not coveting or acquiring the property that one has not earned. Now, giving into this temptation is displaying your character. Now, there are when we let us take the same example that there are so many agents X Y and Z all who find the gold coin and who did not pick it up. Now, X did not pick up the gold coin because he is afraid that he would be punished he would get caught and be punished. X does not display virtue ethics the reason the moral reasoning is definitely not virtue ethics. Why does not pick up the gold coin because he is afraid that others might see him and call him a thief again why does not display virtue ethics. Z does not pick it up because he says that my religion bans me to do it again that is not an example of virtue ethics, but let us say another person say A. A does not pick it up because he thinks that well it is a part of his character trait that well I should just should not take what does not belong to me not coveting or acquiring unearned property. Now, if this is the sentence that we look at not coveting or acquiring unearned property. Now, here A is displaying an example of a virtue that well given the opportunity also he finds it wrong it is his law abiding by the norm or the law is only because he does not have the temptation to do it. In fact, he has the desire to concur with the law rather than break it. Now, so here we talk about the preliminary thing is if you take a look at the slide it is the character of the agent is prior to the actions of the agent. Now, this is a crucial distinction which virtue ethics talks about the character of the agent is prior or more fundamental than the actions of the agent. Now, actions flow from the character this character is the cornerstone of moral theorizing. Now, if I say that character is more fundamental than actions this would include that well it is not that well somebody who has been not stealing all his life becomes a good person or displays the virtue of honesty. Well there could be various reasons for that person not to steal it could be the lack of opportunity it could be the lack of courage it could be a fear of punishment in the other world, but if the person does not steal because he finds stealing unworthy of him of this being a internalized thought through character trait a decision that one will not covet others property or unearned or found property that is an example of virtue ethics. Now, let us take a look at the next slide. Well Aristotle in the western tradition was the first one to talk of Plato and Aristotle both to give example of virtue ethics. Aristotle's notion of ethics has been claimed as one of the earliest examples of virtue ethics. Aristotle claims eudaimonia or human flourishing or happiness as the goal of life and actions ought to be performed with this goal in mind. This has been variously critiqued one perspective is that functionality the goal is a result of reason or rationality in the human agent not the other way round. Another perspective is why the goal of the moral agent or man is unique to him or her modern virtue ethics do not have to take the neo Aristotelian approach. Now, well let us take a look at this. Now Aristotle has claimed that well Aristotelian ethics was about virtues we talked about he did not talk about principles, he did not talk about consequences, but he has talked about characters or qualities that need to be developed and why do they need to be developed? They need to be developed for what he termed as eudaimonia or human flourishing. And as the second bullet reads Aristotle claims eudaimonia or human flourishing or happiness as the goal of life and actions ought to be performed with this goal in mind. This has of course been variously critiqued that why is the goal or a result of reason or rationality in the human agent and not the other way round that well it is our rationality that brings us forth that gives us reasons to act or that makes us develop our character traits. Another perspective is why the goal of the moral agent is unique to him or her the Aristotelian way of thinking is making flourishing most important. So, it brings uniqueness to each individual, each individual is moral for his own reason and that reason is eudaimonia. Modern virtue ethics of course do not take this neo Aristotelian approach. Now what about modern virtue ethics? Well there have been many ancient strains of virtue ethics both in the Indian and the Chinese traditions too. Modern virtue ethics was given a new start or originates in the 1950s with Anscombe's seminal paper titled Modern Moral Philosophy. Since then Alistair McIntyre and many other contemporary philosophers have carried forward virtue ethics in its modern avatar. Now let us look at this, what is a virtue? Because this distinction or this clarity is important if you want to know proceed further about virtue ethics. Because we would constantly be facing this question that perhaps a virtue is nothing over and above principles or rules but we leave that for later. Right now well what is a virtue? A virtue is not a habit or tendency to act in a certain manner. So, suppose we have instincts, suppose you have been trained to stand up when a lady arrives or enters the room that is a part of your training, it has become a part of your habit. Well a virtue is more of a decided or thought through disposition, it is just a thought through disposition, not a predisposition, also a predisposition can be said. It is a thought through disposition to orient one's actions for the simple reason that it is that kind of an action. That means, we have decided to be honest only because our love for honesty. Honesty for its own sake, so when we are valuing honesty for its own sake that is the kind of a virtue and not for the consequences it brings along. For example, being truthful is a virtue only when one decides to be truthful, not for any other reason but only because one values and wants to be truthful. The truthful agent is not amused by tales of chicandry, pities or despises dishonesty and is not surprised by the triumph of honesty. So, let us look at what is meant by a virtue. As we talked about a virtue is not a habit or a tendency, say I have the tendency to overeat, now that is not a vice or a virtue per se but if I have over years cultivated my attitude to say self-aggrandizement or self-aggrandizement to courage or I think that well a courageous act is a good act because it is courageous not because it yields something or leads to something. Now, something which is intrinsically valuable so an act of bravery is flows from the virtue of courage but that courage or when a decision is taken let us again put this forth in an example that would perhaps make it very clear what is meant by virtue. Now, if I let us say an agent let us use the familiar x, y and z. Now, x, y and z find a girl drowning in the sea, they are at the seashore and they would like to go and each one of them chooses to rescue the girl in their respective scenario. Now, if x or y or z all three of them do the same action of rescuing the drowning girl but they do it for various reasons what is their reasoning that takes place. Now, the virtuous or virtue ethicists claim is that well when one does an act of courage well when one is evaluating the risks consciously or subconsciously voluntarily or involuntary of taking the plunge into the sea to save the girl say on the cons it is that well it is a risky operation it I might be pulled and drowned by the drowning girl I am not very good in swimming there is perhaps nobody to help around and whatever the list of cons are pros are well I can save the girl's life it will perhaps get me an award it will get me recognition from people around it will get me a new friend if I am able to save the girl. So, there are various dimensions that go on but if just that this is an act of courage to take a risk to save a person if that is in one of the pros that is an example of virtue. So, just as I am courage is a virtue whereas, habitual trainings like etiquettes are not strictly examples of virtue say if I am trained to eat with my lips shut it will not strictly be an example of a virtue it will be an example of etiquette of a particular culture right now if I am however if I feel like sharing my food even if I have little with somebody who has none and is starving that is an example of generosity and I do this only because I value generosity and I would like to be generous and with no other example. So, notice virtue is a very interesting notion it makes our fundamental attitudes as the source of our actions now what would be the other way round of reasoning well we would say that somebody who does a lot of generous acts is a generous person but the virtue ethicist way of saying is that a generous person does generous acts. So, generosity is first as a virtue or a character trait and the acts follow from it not the other way round. So, whether I am to be generous or not depends on whether I value generosity intrinsically per se. So, I will be hungry if I spare my food for the starving person but I feel I value generosity more than what I value this now of course now in such a situation there can be degrees of virtues right we will talk about that in our next slide well one or a group of actions does not determine the virtue of an agent. So, again this shows the example that virtue is more fundamental than actions because just one or a group of actions cannot be the source for inferring and the virtue of an agent a virtue as the strength transfer encyclopedia of philosophy puts it is a multi track disposition this is a multi track disposition that is it is a part of our character trait. Now, there are degrees of virtue there can be degrees of courage exhibited by an agent but courage is a virtue only if it is lived and valued for its own sake it is about having an impulse a generous honest courageous or any such virtuous impulse. So, now let us think over it now what is virtue and when we talk so much about virtue let us talk about the degrees of virtue. So, when we gave this example of generosity as a virtue where you would where the agent would like to part with his or her resource or food at the cost of his or her own hunger yet give it to somebody who is starving or perhaps is in more need of it. Now, why does one do such an act? Why does that moral agent do such an act? If she or he does that act because it he values generosity then he has or she has a character of a character trait of generosity. So, being doing generous actions how do generous actions come along or how does courageous actions come along? How does one decide whether one wants to be courageous or not? Whether one wants to be generous or not and to which degree? Now, how much of your food will you sacrifice and how often would you sacrifice it for the other that depends. So, this clearly indicates that the virtue classification also has degrees. So, now if let us talk about the drowning example now, if all the three agents x, y and z find that well the girl drowning is very deep into the sea and it has it is shark infested waters would x, y or z do the definitely the decisions would be revised well x may consider in this second situation the act of saving the girl as foolhardiness or almost stupidity if it is a shark infested zone or the water is too deep or x is not very good at swimming. So, consider this that virtues that well the act of working out of courage or valuing courage for it is own sake can also have degrees valuing generosity or any other virtue for it is own sake can have degrees. So, I can be a generous to a certain extent I can be more generous. So, we need to keep in mind that well generosity is about having an impulse, an impulse to be generous honest courageous or any such virtue. So, this impulse or it is the thrust from the character or from oneself with no other reason and when what particularly who is the person who is we mean by no other reason is no consequences or rule governance. So, this is the example of virtue ethics. Now, why live a life of virtue now that comes out to be a question a very standard question that why does one live a life of virtue well the Aristotelian answer has been briefly talked earlier that life virtuously lived is necessary for eudaimonia or loosely human flourishing. Now, for the initial understanding we did mention eudaimonia as both flourishing slash happiness, but strictly speaking flourishing may not be understood as happiness, but closer to what could be called a good life or a meaningful life. So, a virtuous life this is what Aristotle put forth that a virtuous life a life led according to virtues is necessary for us to flourish in life and what is to flourish is not just to prosper, but to lead a good life. A life of virtue enables the agent to live a good life or a meaningful life or a significant life it does not necessarily mean comfortable or prosperous life rather it would mean a deeper significant life. A life of virtue enables the agent to live a good life a life that would not be possible had the virtues been sacrificed. So, this was the Aristotelian justification for following the life of virtue that eudaimonia or flourishing is necessary. Now, let us just briefly look at what could be the problem with virtue ethics. Now, various critics have argued that does virtue ethics make any distinctive claim. What if I say that the virtuous person is merely predisposed to do the right action? The rightness of the action being arrived at from the principle or rule consequentialism deontology that the action emanates from, because this is a very tricky and difficult question that we come across. Now, what is more foundational? Is it the character trait or the action? Do I choose to be generous? Do I reason it from rules and principles or do I wish to be a generous person? Now, this crucial difference in conceptualizing the primacy of either the character trait or the virtue or the action would determine what moral theory innately appeals to you. Now, if you are concerned with every solution being derived from a principle or a theory, well a principle of course, virtue ethics is also theory, a principle or a rule or a format or an algorithm to come out of the answer, you are more likely to be a consequentialist or a deontologist. Let us take some real life examples of what could be problems with the deontological or the consequentialist claim and how does the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism come about? Now, the virtue say that other conditions being equal. Let us take the cliched example of a dam to be built in an area which would displace say 1000 people, but will benefit 50000 people. Now, the consequentialist would say that well this minority ought to sacrifice their own habitat and offer themselves to be relocated to equivalent or better habitat for the benefit of the goal. Now, this is a consequentialist argument, a content deontological argument could be that well if we were in the majority, if those 1000 people were in the part of the majority and there were some other 1000 people within or in that village itself, they require a relocation of 10 people for the welfare of those 1000 people, would they be comfortable or asking those 10 people to move. Likewise, they should offer, if they are happy with, if they expect the minority to move or the 1000 people to move for the sake of the majority, then anybody else in the majority when shifts to the minority should also be with that. Now, if the 50,000 people expect the 1000 people to move and the 1000 people expect the 10 people to move and the 10 people expect the 1 percent to move, these are examples of well content deontology that well do on to other say as you wish others would do to you, but the virtue perspective to this is that well let us say if I want to be a generous person, I am a kind person or those 1000 people are come from a culture where kindness is valued and they have chosen to be very sharing, sacrificing and kind to the needs of others. So, without going into the moral mathematics, they would write happily offer themselves, because these are those kinds of persons. So, very often this would make sense to people in the world out there trying to move things and having to make crucial sometimes ugly moral decisions that well it is easier to pursue or to ask virtuous, with virtuous I mean kindness as a virtue, with it is easier to ask kind people for sacrifices than to ask stubborn people. So, somebody who has committed to who wants to be kind or who has chosen to be kind will always be more sacrificing. So, let us say of the stickler for rules who would like to well shut shop at 5 o clock every day evening, because that is the end of the working hours suppose. Now, to strictly rule following person, he would shut the shop at exactly 5 o clock no matter what, but if longer queue people are waiting that particular day has a lot of demand or there is a certain requirement at his home which requires him to shut the shop earlier. Well, if he is very, very determined about rule governance, then he would not shut the shop one minute early, but he would also not shut the shop a minute late, whereas the virtuous one if the virtue to be followed is of generosity or any value such as kindness or helpfulness, then well he would perhaps extend the time a little bit on the days when the demand is much more, he would on the days when demands is a little less, he would be able to go back to the demand elsewhere and shut shop earlier. Now, the disadvantage of this kind of virtue thinking is it presumes or assumes it gives the, it assumes a very high level of trust on the agent by the system. Now, if imagine if we, if the system gives a lot of trust, puts a lot of trust in the virtues of the frontline employees. Now, without a strict rule based system, well it is likely that we fear or the distrustful part of us would fear that well there would be a collusion or a violation or a clear flouting of rules to the consumers disadvantage, but if virtue is to be believed well, then the person in the frontline no more becomes a blind follower of rules, but has some discretionary power which we can, he can exercise at that moment, because there cannot be a strict set of rules for every possible situation. So, well let us see other disadvantages with virtues, well they have claimed that virtues are nothing but the predisposition to act rightly and nothing more. Character is nothing but the predisposition to perform the right acts. Now, I leave you with this question that character is it central or foundational and actions flow from it or is it are actions chosen and character is an inference drawn from the various acts performed by an agent that would be all for now.