Comparing Virtue Ethics and Utilitarianism

Across the history of moral philosophy, two of the most influential approaches have been virtue ethics and utilitarianism.

Virtue ethics were born in ancient Greece, during the fourth and fifth centuries B.C. At first, virtue ethics were proposed by Socrates and Plato (both through Plato’s writings) and later supported by Aristotle. Despite that each of these philosophers had certain disagreements and differences among them, they all had a quite similar view of ethics- of what it means to be good (Palmer, 2013).

According to Plato and especially Aristotle, in order to live a good life one should experience happiness, toward which all of our actions are oriented, and which has a value of its own as a concept. What happiness means for each of us may vary but one could think (or ‘philosophize’) about it and manage to comprehend what it means and how it can be achieved for himself/ herself, so it is a construct that can be both philosophically understood and practically attained (Palmer, 2013, 81).

In order for happiness to be achieved, one should live their life with virtues (categorized into intellectual and moral, according to Aristotle), which are at the center of ‘what it means to be good’.

Virtue ethics focus on the virtue, or ‘arete’ in Greek, which means excellence: it is ‘that quality of any act, endeavor, or object that makes them successful acts, endeavors, or objects. It is, therefore, a functional excellence’ (Palmer, 2013, 82).

Virtues help a person live a fulfilled life, that can lead to the goal, happiness. Virtues- or what leads a person to a fulfilled and happy life- may also vary according to time and place, and even across situations. For example, bravery was an important virtue for the ancient Greeks whereas humility was a central virtue to later Christian Medieval societies. Virtues are qualities that are learnt throughout a person’s life, through trial and error and exercise. Specifically, one can detect a virtue through education, or practical experience, and can continue to ‘push’ himself/ herself to behave in the virtuous way from that point on; in the case of virtues, practice makes perfect, until the virtuous action becomes an automatic habit (Rachels, 1999).

Virtue ethics, therefore, are a person- centered approach, which focuses on the goal of life (happiness) and the ways to achieve it (virtues). For happiness to be attained, one should be a good person, by being virtuous. Still, this approach lacks specificity. It may provide suggestions on ‘how to be good’ but it does not provide us with any guidance on how to actually do so. Therefore, despite that in the long- term, one can achieve happiness by being virtuous (for example being brave) but how can one do so in the everyday living and in particular situations (for example when facing a street fight, or a challenging and confusing occasion).

The next influential approach to ethics is utilitarianism (or consequentialism). It was cultivated in the second half of the 18^th century by Jeremy Bentham and further improved in the 19^th century by John Stuart Mill, both English, although it is influenced by several already existing lines of thinking. Currently, utilitarianism is a quite influential approach to many issues, such as public policies or scientific research.

Bentham drew from previous philosophical approaches and supported hedonism,  which is the desire to gain pleasure while at the same time avoid pain, and saw this as the key motive that drives humans. At a first glance, hedonism seems as a selfish kind of thinking, since the person acts only in order to experience pleasure and avoid pain, but Bentham argued this does not have to be the case: hedonism can have a social aspect, especially if combined with empiricism. One can behave based on what will bring forth the maximum possible amount of pleasure, and the minimum possible amount of paint for the maximum possible number of people; or as Bentham stated ‘It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong’ (Palmer, 2013, 288). Therefore an action is good when it leads to the hedonistic principle, just not for the person alone, but for as many as possible.

In order for one to decide that, Bentham proposed the ‘calculus of felicity’ which is seven categories (intensity, duration, certainty, proximity, fecundity, purity, extent) according to which one can judge which action will lead to more pleasure and less pain. This is a quantitative view of pleasure (Palmer, 2013).

Mill on the other hand, proposed a more qualitative view of pleasures: he divided them into higher and lower ones; for example philosophic thinking is a higher pleasure whereas watching a funny video is a lower one. In this way the pleasures can be measured depending on their actual quality. Mill argued that only a person who had experienced both high and low pleasures could make an accurate judgment (Mill, 1871).

Overall, utilitarianism suggests that the goal of the person’s living is to achieve more pleasure while avoiding pain, in the social level, and not simply in the personal sphere. Still, this approach has been characterized as elitist and non- personal, because of the way that pleasures are being defined. Also, it leads to some questioning about how can we be certain of the outcome of a situation, in order to act before hand? (Rachels, 1999, Mill, 1871)

These two approaches, virtue ethics and utilitarianism, have certain similarities as well as differences. They both focus on the consequences of the actions upon judging whether an act or a person is good: the first claims that a virtuous action, if repeated, will lead to happiness and to a person being ‘good’, and the second argues that if the pleasure is maximized and pain minimized for all parties involved in a situation, then the outcome will be ‘good’. So both not only focus on the outcome, but also treat it as a certainty and not as a possibility. Another core similarity of the approaches is that they both see ‘goodness’ as a value that can be cultivated, and grow with practice. Virtue ethics argue that experience and education may allow a person to learn what is good and what is not, and utilitarianism claims that after consideration (or calculation) can one detect the outcome, and practice in doing the right thing.

Still, the approaches have some fundamental differences as well. To begin with, each uses different definitions: virtue ethics suggest that the goal of life of people is happiness and utilitarianism suggests it is pleasure. Despite that the two concepts appear similar, the terminology leads to crucial differences, which lie at the core of the theories as a whole (Palmer, 2013). Moreover, virtue ethics is a highly person- centered approach, meaning that it translates the world based on the individual and his/ her experience. On the other hand, utilitarianism does not focus on the person, but on the sum of people. For example, if a person one cares about is in danger and there is a chance to save them, but this could mean that many others would get hurt, virtue ethics would suggest that the ‘good’ action would be to be brave (virtuous) and save the loved one, whereas utilitarianism would argue that the ‘good’ action would be to not risk the majority, and not save the one person (even if he/ she is so loved). Drawn from this comes another difference of the approaches: virtue ethics, since they are so personalized, do not provide us with guidelines on what to do on specific situations that provoke moral dilemmas, whereas utilitarianism offers some guidelines, by giving us a way to calculate the ‘good’ versus the damage done (Rachels, 1999).

Both approaches have a solid ground, and both have inadequacies as well. Virtue ethics is more personal, and seems to be ‘speaking’ to us, but lacks the specificity that we need to proceed, and utilitarianism is a more solution- oriented approach, but can be harsh and distant in reality. The approach that one may choose to follow should be situation- specific: in choices that revolve around the self (for example cheating the spouse) one could follow virtue ethics (by being loyal), and in choices that may include a large number of individuals, perhaps in the social or even global sphere (for example environmental policies), one could undertake the utilitarian approach (and lose monetary gains to protect the health of others) (Rachels, 1999). 

Bibliography

Mill, J., S. (1871). Utilitarianism, London, UK, Fraser’s Magazine (reprinted)

Palmer, D (2013). Looking at Philosophy, New York, US: McGraw Hill

Rachels, J (1999). The Elements of Moral Philosophy, Singapore: McGraw Hill