Lecture Supplement on Bernard Mayo’s
“Virtues and the Moral Life”[1]
[1958]
Copyright © 2013 Bruce W. Hauptli
Bernard Mayo provides an excellent introductory survey
discussion of Aristotle’s “virtue ethics” and its central differences from the
theories we have discussed thus far.
441 Aristotle’s ethics
vs. Kant’s:
-virtue-oriented
vs. deontological.
Mayo says there has been “...a radical one-sidedness in the philosophers’ account of morality in terms of principles: it takes little or no account of qualities, of what people are. It is just here that the old fashioned word Virtue used to have a place; and it is just here that the work of Plato and Aristotle can be instructive.”
“If we wish to enquire about
Aristotle’s moral views, it is no use looking for a set of principles.
Of course we can find some principles to which he must have
subscribed....The basic
question for Aristotle, is not What shall I do? but, What shall I be?
Being
vs.
doing.
442 “...according to the
philosophy of moral character [that is the sort of virtue ethic we are looking
at], there is another way of answering the fundamental question “What ought I to
do?” Instead of quoting a rule, we
quote a quality of character, a virtue: we say “Be brave,” or Be patient” or “Be
lenient.” We may even say “Be a
man”; if I am in doubt, say, whether to take a risk and someone says “Be a man,”
meaning a morally sound man, in this case a man of sufficient courage.”
442-443 He asks “Why should we expect that all rules of
conduct should be ultimately reducible to a few?”
443 “A person’s character is not
merely a list of dispositions; it has the organic unity of something that
is more than the sum of its parts.”
-Examples: Plato’s “just
man,” Aristotle’s “man of practical wisdom,” Augustine’s “citizen of the city of
God,” the “good communist,” Socrates, Christ, Buddha, and St. Francis.
“Heroes and saints are not merely
people who did things. They are
people whom we are expected, and expect ourselves, to imitate.
And imitating them means not merely doing what they did, it means
being like them.
Their status is not in the least like that of legislators whose laws we
admire, for the character of a legislator is irrelevant to our judgment about
his legislation. The heroes and
saints did not merely give us principles to live by (though some of them did
that as well), they gave us examples to
follow.”[2]
-“It is precisely because
it is impossible for ordinary human beings to achieve the same qualities as the
saints, and in the same degree, that we do set them apart from the rest of
humanity. It is enough if we try to
be a little like them....”
(end)
[1] Lecture
supplement is to selection in
Ethical
Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings
(sixth edition), eds. Louis Pojman and James
Fieser (Boston: Wadsworth, 2011), pp. 440-443.
The essay originally appeared in Mayo’s
Ethics
and the Moral Life (London: Macmillan,
1958).
[2] In her
“Moral Saints,” Susan Wolf argues that moral
saints do not constitute a proper model of human
well-being.
The essay appears in
Ethical
Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings, op.
cit., pp. 471-483.
The essay originally appeared
in The
Journal of Philosophy v. 79 (1982), pp.
419-439.
Louis Pojman criticizes Wolf’s view in
his “In Defense of Moral Saints,” in
Ethical
Theory: Classic and Contemporary Readings, op.
cit., pp. 483-491.
The essay was originally published in the
first edition of the anthology (1988) and
revised in the 2001 edition.
Last revised on: 11/21/2013.