Is Virtue Ethics Selfish?

I'm a student – and teacher – of virtue ethics. I follow that trend in moral philosophy that reaches back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, who taught that the purpose of ethics is to foster human happiness and well-being by developing human excellence. Virtue ethics isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of actions. Rather, it's focused on the improvement of the character of the actor.

This school has had a major revival over the last few decades, partly because it is seen as offering a valuable alternative to the previously dominant ethical schools of deontology (“I must do this act because it’s intrinsically right.”) and consequentialism (“I must do this act because it will have better consequences than any alternative.”) However, virtue ethics does have its detractors, and one of the critiques is that it’s egoistic and selfish.

Anyway, I once had an interesting conversation about virtue ethics and its perceived “selfishness.”

A student and I discussed how a follower of each of the three ethical schools might behave the same way but for different reasons. A utilitarian consequentialist would “help the less fortunate” because to do so would contribute to “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” A deontologist would do so because “Doing unto others” is a moral duty, regardless of consequence. The virtue ethics thinker, on the other hand, would do so because performing generous actions would foster the virtue of generosity, improve his character, and increase his eudaimonia.

My student was bothered by that, and definitely did see such a motive as selfish. She wanted an ethic that was oriented towards others, and not towards improving herself.

So I asked her why she, herself, was moved to help the less fortunate. She said that her experience as a health care worker showed her the suffering people go through, and that she wanted to alleviate it. “So,” I replied, “can you imagine another person seeing that same suffering and not wanting to do anything about it?” “Yes,” she said. “Then,” I asked, “what’s the difference between you and that other person?” She had no answer. I replied for her, “Doesn’t it come down to the difference in your characters? You see suffering and want to help. The other person sees it and doesn’t. Isn’t that because of the kind of persons you two are?” She said, “I guess so.” “So a society filled with people of good character is going to be better – more humane, more kind, more honest – than a society filled with people of bad character, right?”

She agreed.

It seems to me that no action is more socially beneficial than the improvement of one’s own character.