Virtue Ethics: A Very Brief Introduction

Introduction

Virtue ethics has become increasingly popular in recent years, largely as a result of the 1958 essay Modern Moral Philosophy by Elizabeth Anscombe, and more recently the 1981 book After Virtue by Alasdair MacIntyre. However, variations on the 'virtues' theme have also been explored in the work of Plato (427-347 BCE), through the relationship between knowledge and the Form of the Good, and also Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 CE), with his concept of primary moral qualities. In terms of the history of western moral philosophy, the origins of virtue ethics are often traced back to Aristotle (384-322 BCE), and his concept of eudaimonia.

The word eudaimonia is sometimes mistakenly understood to mean simply "happiness", but it is, in fact, more to do with the idea of being content with life (leading one to become successful and happy). Aristotle believed eudaimonia could also be a means for working out what to do (or not). For instance, 'virtues' such as always telling the truth (or never lying) can be considered to be 'good' or not insofar as they lead one towards eudaimonia.

What virtue ethics is

Virtue ethics is often focused on how adopting certain attitudes and behaviour may lead to the fulfillment of x, rather than attempting to reason what it is ‘good’ to do (or not) using abstract rational arguments and principles. In this respect, one might consider the various forms of it to be teleological* and pragmatic.

Virtue Ethics is also more concerned with understanding what makes a person 'good', rather than whether specific actions are good or not (although the two are clearly linked). For instance, rather than saying we should never lie, we should instead consider whether people can attain eudaimonia if they live in a world where lying is treated as a virtue.

Right attitude; right actions

Students of moral philosophy might see some similarities between virtue ethics and Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Although Kant believed people should only act out of a sense of (reasoned) dispassionate 'duty', so that they do not confuse what is 'right' with what they want to do or what will simply make them happy, a vital part of this process is the need to set one's actions into a wider moral context (the 'universalisation principle' - 'Act as if the maxim of your action was  become through your will a universal law of nature'). Although he never discusses it, Kant seems unable to avoid the suggestion that having the 'right' sort of character (or virtues) is vital, if someone is to be seen to act 'rightly' (or do 'good').

To illustrate this, consider the possibility that behaviour often considered to be non-virtuous is sometimes something we should do. For example, if person y wanted to kill person x, and we knew where person x was, we might lie to person y in order to prevent person x being killed. Legalistic approaches to this matter (such as Kant's), try to, but cannot comfortably accommodate these 'exceptions to the rule'. On the other hand, virtue ethics suggests that it is not so much about working out if lying is a 'good' or 'bad' thing to do in these situations, but that the virtuous person would know what to do when faced with such a situation. This is because in this situation and as a 'virtuous' person, they have the innate ability to perceive the 'middle (right) way' between the extremes of never lying, and always telling the truth. Therefore, it is not so much that we trust that their actions are 'good', but that we trust them because they are a 'good' person.

Some issues

In the end a significant part of working out how we should live depends on understanding what constitutes the purpose of human life, and in light of this developing the ‘right’ kind of character (or attitude/virtues) in order to achieve it. This is something virtue theorists have been particularly critical of other 'ethical schools' for neglecting, as well as ignoring the influence a person's character has on their moral outlook and actions. However, a major challenge for virtue theorists is to set out exactly what the core virtues are (if indeed there are any), and what the purpose (or goal) of life is (towards which the virtues are directed). This is clearly not an easy thing to do, as people inevitably differ as to what they think the purpose of life is, and what the key virtues (or attitudes/qualities) 'good' people have.

Notes

* In Greek the word telos means end/purpose. 'Teleological' approaches in ethics judge the rightness of moral actions based on how much they lead one to achieve a particular end or fulfill a purpose.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

To read part 1 of this article click here

Cosmological arguments

As with those based on the notion of design, cosmological arguments seek to argue for the existence of God based on what we experience of the world and universe we live in. The central aim of cosmological arguments is to establish what CAUSED everything to be here, or how the world and the universe began.

Cosmological arguments are attempting to address the problem of an infinite regress. This occurs when we have no starting-point for something. For example, in terms of the origin of the world we might ask where everything came from. If we are told that everything came from x, we would then ask where x came from. If x came from y, then we would logically ask where y came from, and so on and so on. Therefore, in order to stop this never-ending sequence we need an uncaused-cause of everything.

The Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas (1225-74 CE) is known for examining two versions of the cosmological argument. In one he argued that every event has a cause, and this leads us to posit a first cause of everything. In another version he argued that things only move because they are moved by something else; leading us to seek the first mover of everything. Aquinas' cosmological arguments were basically intended to show that in order for anything to be here, it requires the presence of something existing before anything else did, and being a Christian he believed the world is only be here because God created it.

Here are the two cosmological arguments Aquinas set out in more detail:

• The argument from FIRST CAUSES: Whatever exists is here because something else has caused it to be here (for example, children are here because of their parents). Things cannot cause themselves to exist (for example, children cannot give birth to themselves). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of causes. God is the first cause of everything here.
• The argument from MOTION: Things move (or become something else), because something causes it to do this. It is impossible for motion in the universe to have always been happening, so it must have begun somewhere (and somehow). There cannot be a never-ending (infinite) chain of events. God is the first mover (cause) of everything.

Naturalistic evolution works from the premise that the world and the universe had a first cause, this being known as a Singularity (aka ‘Big Bang’); We should also note that logically for naturalistic evolution to work, this present world and universe cannot always have existed.

Summary: Key features of cosmological arguments

• Nothing happens in the world without a reason.
• Events in the world have been caused by something else.
• Things in the world and the universe did not cause themselves to come into existence.
• To deal with the problem of an infinite regress the world and the universe must have a first cause.
• The reason why the world and the universe are here is because of God.
• Cosmological arguments are based on comparing the way things work in the world, to the way things must be in the universe (analogy).

Evidence in support of cosmological arguments

• We can see from our own experience that things happen in the world because something else has caused them to happen.
• That we are here because of our parents, and they are here because of theirs etc., is an example of something which cannot have an infinite regress. Life has not always been here. Something must have caused humans to be here.
• Science tells us that the world had a starting point (The 'Big-bang').
• Modern cosmology posits that stars are moving out and that the universe is expanding. This suggests it had a starting point.

Debates about cosmological arguments

One of the biggest problems with cosmological arguments is that they appear to be self-defeating. If we say that EVERYTHING must have a cause, and that nothing can exist without having been caused by something else, then what about God who is said to be an uncaused causer? This seems to leave the question begging: 'If God caused everything, then who caused God?' In order words, why construct an argument on the basis that everything needs a cause, and then argue that the answer to how the world and universe got here is an uncaused cause (i.e. God)? This is contrary to the logic of the argument. If we say that God is uncaused, then why not the world and universe too?

Another problem for cosmological argument is that scientific explanations for the origins of life do not require the existence of God to explain why anything is here. In fact, it seems the more 'science' works to explain the world around us, the less we need of God. For example, in the past God has often been used to bridge gaps in our scientific knowledge (aka God of the gaps) such as praying and offering gifts to God to ensure a good harvest, or to get pregnant. However now 'science' has shown us that it is good soil and the right fertilizer that will maximise our crop yield, and ovulation tests and IVF now help women to get pregnant.

Yet for all that science informs us about the world and universe we live in, it cannot tell us everything about it. For instance, modern cosmological theories of the origins of life argue that the Singularity which caused the 'Big-bang' was the product of events we can know nothing about. This is because we are unable to 'see' them because they happened prior to anything else coming into existence. So if in reality we are speculating (or making a best-guess) about events prior to the 'Big-bang', this means the possibility of God's existence must remain open, and as such this is why some theologians say science tells us how life began, but God’s existence explains why it did.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 3): Morality and Religion

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 1): Introduction and Design

Introduction

Arguments for the existence of God are an attempt to prove (or justify) God's existence by rational means. They are usually expressed in the form of 'If... then' statements. For example:

• If there is evidence for design in the world... then this is evidence for a designer (who is God).

Arguments for the existence of God are based on what in Christian theology is known as general revelation. This is the belief that there is evidence for God's existence from the way things are in the world. Arguments for the existence of God based on general revelation are also called natural theology.

General revelation is contrasted with special revelation. Special revelation consists of knowledge that God has specifically revealed, such as who God is, what God has done (or will do), and how God wants us to live (E.g. The Ten Commandments). Special Revelation can be found in the various holy books of the World Faiths (E.g. The Bible, Qur'an, Guru Granth Sahib).

Although natural theology (based on reason) is said to be capable of demonstrating God's existence, many theologians believe it is incapable of telling us anything about who God is, or how God wants us to live. For example, Muslims would not have known from the way the world is that Allah wanted them to pray five times a day (Salah). This is something Allah specifically revealed to them through the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH*). Furthermore, some say that in relying on our own thoughts and reasoning skills that there is a danger people might confuse their own ideas about who God is, with who God truly is.

Well known arguments for the existence of God

Some of the most widely studied arguments for the existence of God are:

• Design arguments (the way the world is structured and organised)
• Cosmological arguments (considering the ultimate origin of life)
• Moral arguments (the origin of Goodness and why people do good things)
• Logical arguments (making a rational case for God’s existence - E.g. The Ontological Argument)

Some might say that a proof for God’s existence is the phenomena (or existence) of religion. In other words, why do people claim God exists and worship God, if there is no God to believe in or worship in the first place?

Arguments for the existence of God based on the appearance of design in the world

Design arguments suggest that the world has been set up and ordered in such a precise way that this could not have happened by chance, but must have been done by some higher reality. In theistic religions this 'higher reality' is known as God**. Design arguments are also known as teleological arguments. The word telos in Greek means 'purpose', and so teleological arguments suggest that there is evidence of purpose (or intentional design), in the way the world is. For example, eyes and ears are said to have been precisely 'designed' for seeing and hearing, the seasons ordered so as to cause plants to grow year after year, and the ozone layer set up at the correct distance from the earth so as to protect us from harmful U.V. rays.

Inherent in all design arguments is the notion that the world and the universe are complex yet everything seems to fit together in a precise and ordered way, and that this must have been planned in some way.

Those who believe God created the world are called Creationists. Sometimes the notion of Creationism is also linked to a specific idea of how God created the world. For example, because in the Bible it says God created things on the First Day, Second Day, Third Day etc. (Genesis 1), the assumption is made that the world was created within a week. Some Christians also believe that by using the various dates and ages of people we find in the Bible, we can prove that the world was created around 6,000 years ago. People who believe this are known as Young Earth Creationists***.

William Paley (1743-1805) set out what many people consider to be the classic form of the design argument.

The Watch Analogy

“If you came across a watch in an uninhabited place, you could not say it had been put there by chance. The complexity of its mechanism would make you say that it had a designer. Now the universe is far more complex than a watch, and so if a watch needs a watchmaker, the universe needs a universe-maker, and that could only be God.”

Paley's analogy suggests that complex and ordered things do not occur by chance. Instead, complex things (like watches) have been made by someone (watchmaker) and for a specific reason (to tell the time). In the passage above, Paley is suggesting that because the world is complex and ordered then this could not have come about by chance, but must be the product of intelligent design.

Summary: Key features of design arguments

• The world and the universe are ordered.
• The world and the universe have things in them which are 'designed' to do specific 'jobs' (they have a purpose).
• Complex things do not come about by chance, but have been made by someone.
• The world and the universe are complex and ordered places, so these must have been designed and made by some higher reality.
• Theists believe the 'designer' and creator of the world and universe is God.
• The design argument is based on an analogy with the way humans produce complex things (such as watches), to the way things must be in the universe.

Evidence of design in the world and the universe

• The way the seasons are ordered into a 'cycle of life'
• The way the ozone layer protects people from the harmful rays of the sun.
• The way gravity on earth is strong enough so as to keep us flying off it into space, yet also weak enough to prevent other planets from crashing into us.
• The complexity of eyes and ears, whose purpose is to see and hear.

Some issues

Objectors to design arguments say we do not need a God-hypothesis to explain why things are as they are in the world and the universe (i.e. complex and ordered). For these people, science tells them everything they need to know about the world and the universe they inhabit. For instance, they would say that life was 'created' from the 'Big-bang', and that everything has come about as a result of natural evolutionary processes. Of course, rather than arguing against God’s existence it might be said that science explains how God created everything. In other words, maybe God initiated the 'Big-bang' and the process of evolution as a means to forming and filling the world as we know it? The idea that God worked through the Big-bang and evolution to bring about life is known as theistic evolution.

One of the biggest objections to design arguments is the presence of evil and suffering. The argument goes that if the world has been designed and made by God, then why do bad things happen in it, or why did God create one where bad things happen? We should note that this argument does not necessarily disprove God’s existence, just the ability for God to create a good world. God can still exist but stand accused of not having done a very good job creating the world we live in today.

A Brief Review of Arguments for the Existence of God (Part 2): Cosmological Arguments

Notes

* PBUH is an abbreviation of the phrase “Peace Be Upon Him”, which is said after uttering the name of Muhammad (Prophet of Islam), as a sign of respect.

** A theist is someone who believes God exists, and theism is the term we use to describe this belief. Therefore, a theistic religion is one which has as a central idea the belief that God exists.

*** List of Creationist websites: http://ncse.com/creationism/general/creationist-websites.

Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics (or the Non-God Moral Argument): Part 2

To read part 1 of this article click here

The new Christian ethic

In removing the old (objective/realist) view of God, Cupitt has cleared a path towards religious and moral freedom:

1. Morality can (and must) be creative: Defining what is moral (and what morality is), is our new task. We accept that we never had a morality given to us by God (despite what people might believe), nor will we ever have one given to us. Instead, it is up to us to discover what is right and wrong for ourselves, within the context of our different societies/communities. As we are not bound by any fixed or limited/limiting divine moral codes, we are essentially starting again; creating our values literally 'out-of-nothing' (ex nihilo).

2. Morality can (and must) inject value into life: Morality cannot be self-seeking. We are all unique creatures, and as such we should respect and value everyone equally. The old moral order was life and person denying. Now it can (and must) seek to embrace the fullness of the human experience, which includes everyone (and everything) living in the world.

3. Morality must be prophetic (not passive): Prophets speak out against the static, fixed and (wrongly) accepted norms of society. The new Christian ethic must speak out against the old prejudices (E.g. homophobia, patriarchy, lack of respect and care for the world). We must not accept moral codes simply because they are 'moral codes'. We must decide for ourselves what is right and wrong for us in each age. In doing so, we will make morality practical, rather than theoretical.

Re-grounding morality in religion

It is a mistake to accuse Cupitt of being anti-God, and anti-religion. Although he is clearly a revisionist when it comes to what has been traditionally believed about God (and morality), he still believes it is vital to retain religious symbolism when it comes to ethics, as this has been proven to be capable of developing good and moral people in the past:

“The human being acquires a dignity and status that is directly derived from the ancient holiness and worshipfulness of God. God indeed just was such a symbol of the goal towards which our moral development is heading and of the dignity to which we should ultimately attain.” (Don Cupitt)

Cupitt believes non-realist ethics should be religiously-based, because (at present) secular humanism has not got the proven and necessary symbols of value in it. For example, through Jesus Christ the Christian message is that God is fully human, and therefore knows and understands us intimately. For Cupitt, this is a powerful image and one which can give hope to those who are feeling hemmed in by an oppressive (realist) Christian morality. If God understands our humanity, then it follows that God will be more understanding (and less judgmental) of us.

Realist ethics was always about pursuing the Ideal; about learning who God is in order to understand what we should become like ('Be holy, because I am Holy' - 1 Peter 1:16). Such a morality was also largely built on contemplation and avoidance behaviour, as exemplified in the lives of monks and nuns. As a result of this the body became viewed as something which was easily swayed by sin. For example, people were encouraged to avoid relying on their feelings, as they could distract them from doing what God wants, or to avoid certain places and activities which were deemed sinful, potentially leading them into sin. All this is a rather negative view of things, and offered little incentive for considering oneself and others in a positive light.

The new world

“Our task, then, is to redeem people from the old masochistic 'orthodox' Christianity by curing them of the sense of sin, restoring their self-esteem and vindicating Christian action.” (Don Cupitt)

So what would a world built non-realist ethics (or new Christian ethics), look like? Firstly, life would be seen as an endless striving of activity, or endeavour. As there are no moral absolutes, so there is no expected outcome to life. We are not expected to become something, but simply to live our life. Secondly there is also no 'final success' or Ideal. This means there is no ultimate standard against which we can be judged or feel condemned by, because there is nothing to achieve or fall-short of. We simply 'fight until we drop'. Thirdly, no-one can claim perfection. We cannot look at others and judge their actions to be less-than perfect on the basis that we alone are living the moral life. No-one can make such a claim! Rather, we will simply acknowledge the choices some people have made and those others may not have made. Ultimately we should be aiming to remove the notions of 'sin' and guilt' from our thinking.

Finally, we are to be artists! Our life is to be one of moral creativity and imagination. We are to become absorbed into our work. We are no longer to have one eye on the 'clock' of life, against which we might feel the pressure to change things 'before it is too late'. We are simply to live our life to the full in each moment, and be content for it to end whenever that may be. We are to become like the sun, burning brightly, expending our energy ceaselessly until we are finally spent.

Some issues

In his book World Views and Perceiving God (1993), Joseph Runzo offers the following critiques of Don Cupitt's non-realist ethics:

Non-realist ethics encourages us to engage in self-deception

If you do not believe in the objective reality of God, why bother to continue with any form of religious belief, or revise the content of religious language to make it more palatable?

“Whilst acknowledging that God does not exist, we are to continue to use traditional language about God.” (Joseph Runzo)

Why be a Christian humanist? Why not simply be a secular humanist?

“Religion, [Cupitt] says, provides a supportive symbolic and institutional context for ethics… [however, this] appeal to a known fiction; [is] to encourage self-deception.' (Joseph Runzo [Brackets mine])

Non-realist ethics provide little check against moral anarchy and 'isolated idiosyncratic views’

If there are no moral absolutes, on what basis can others tell the Nazi or the Klansman that their moral take on things is wrong?

“If worldviews are incommensurate and there are no shared objective cross-schema moral standards, relying on 'one's own vocabulary' would count the Klansman right and allow for moral anarchy.” (Joseph Runzo)

God's existence does not imply 'blind obedience'

Runzo also argues that Cupitt is wrong to suggest that God's (objective) existence is morally oppressive. He argues that we often follow a person's advice because we trust them, and because we believe they are wise.

Non-realism fails to say why we should take the moral position

Cupitt claims it is rational to act morally. Runzo points out that it is also possible to be both rational and to act immorally! Cupitt's arguments appears to be unable to give any reason why someone should not be logically immoral, for if he did, he might be verging onto the territory of moral absolutes (which he resolutely denies the existence of).