Is Aristotle a Foundation — or a Limit? critique of Aristotelian Logic

There is hardly an introduction to philosophy that doesn't begin with Aristotle. At times, it seems he doesn't merely represent the origins of rational thought but stands as the very foundation upon which Western culture rests. The Aristotelian syllogism—a structure in which a conclusion necessarily follows from two premises—became the prototype for valid reasoning. For centuries, Aristotle served as the model of "common sense" and clear thinking, and few dared to challenge his status.

But what if the Aristotelian foundation is also a restriction on philosophical imagination? What if this logic is not a starting point but a low ceiling?

Thinking as Cataloguing: Aristotle’s Order of Reality

Aristotle’s achievements are undeniably impressive. He was among the first to systematically classify, conceptualize, and formulate internal laws for every field of knowledge—from ethics and politics to biology and poetry. Yet many modern critics see this not only as a development but also a narrowing of thought.

Aristotelian thinking is built on rigid categories: everything must belong to a defined type, and every attribute is either-or (e.g., good or bad, just or unjust). This logic excludes ambiguity, nuance, contradiction, and paradox—the very spaces where groundbreaking thinking often emerges.

Other Readings of Aristotle

Some of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century—particularly within postmodern and poststructuralist traditions—offered strong critiques of Aristotelian heritage. Jacques Derrida, for instance, challenged logocentrism—the privileging of rational, structured language that presents itself as “truth” while marginalizing whatever lies outside its bounds. Michel Foucault pointed out that classifications, definitions, and categories—Aristotle’s essential tools—are also tools of power, reinforcing cultural and social hierarchies.

Feminist philosophers like Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva proposed alternative modes of thinking—often emotional, embodied, and non-dualistic—that resist what they saw as the male-centered logic rooted in Aristotelian structure.

These critiques don’t reject Aristotle or logic entirely. They acknowledge his influence but seek to uncover its limits—and to open space for other possibilities. From entirely different directions, Buddhist philosophy, for example, offers a different logic: one of paradoxes, non-binary insight, and the understanding of emptiness as the basis of reality. Thinkers like Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl, central to the phenomenological tradition, described consciousness and intentionality in ways that go beyond formal logical structures.

Aristotelian Logic: Foundation or Boundary?

Aristotle may have laid the groundwork for what we call the "language of thought." But is it the only language we can speak? Perhaps it is time not only to use it—but also to listen to what it silences. Aristotelian logic can be a powerful tool, but it should not be the only one. Not every question can be answered by syllogism, and not every truth fits neatly into binary categories.

Doxa and Episteme in Greek Philosophy

In Greek philosophy, the term "doxa" refers to belief or opinion. It is often contrasted with "episteme," which refers to knowledge or understanding based on logical reasoning and empirical evidence. The distinction between doxa and episteme is central to the philosophy of Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers who were concerned with the nature of truth and knowledge.

Doxa represents the realm of subjective beliefs that people hold, often influenced by social norms, rhetoric, or personal biases. These beliefs are not necessarily supported by rigorous proof or empirical observation. Episteme, on the other hand, denotes true knowledge that is justified through logical deduction and empirical methods. This knowledge is considered objective and reliable, contrasting with the more unstable and subjective nature of doxa.

This distinction emphasizes the philosophical attempt to differentiate between what appears to be true and what is actually true, aiming for a deeper understanding of reality through reasoned and empirical investigation.

Plato on Doxa and Episteme

Plato's views on doxa and episteme are fundamental to his theory of knowledge and reality, particularly as described in his famous work, "The Republic." Plato sharply distinguished between these two forms of cognition, arguing that they correspond to different levels of reality and understanding. For Plato, doxa includes the beliefs or opinions held by individuals that are not based on the rigorous and rational understanding necessary for true knowledge. These beliefs are often influenced by sensory experiences, which Plato considered deceptive and unreliable. In his allegory of the cave, for example, the shadows on the wall represent doxa; they are the perceptions of those who are not exposed to the true form of things. These shadows are mere reflections of reality and not reality itself, leading those who see them to hold false beliefs about what is true.

Episteme, in Plato's view, is the true knowledge that comes from intellectual understanding and reasoning, particularly concerning the Forms, which are the abstract, unchanging realities that Plato saw as the basis of the visible world of change. According to Plato, knowledge of the Forms is not accessible through sensory experience but through philosophical thinking and intellectual insight. In the allegory of the cave, the journey out of the cave into the sunlight and the ability to see objects in the real world—and ultimately the sun itself, symbolizing the Form of the Good—represent the path to episteme.

Plato argued that most people live in a state of doxa, guided by false beliefs derived from their limited and misleading sensory experiences. Only through philosophical inquiry and the education of the soul can one ascend from doxa to episteme, gaining a true understanding of the Forms and, consequently, the nature of reality itself.

Plato's distinction between doxa and episteme is also critical to his views on governance and society. He argued that philosophers, who are capable of reaching episteme, are the most suitable to lead, as they can understand the true Forms and thus discern the best ways of acting for society (the idea of the Philosopher King).

Aristotle on Doxa and Episteme

Aristotle's view of doxa and episteme differs notably from Plato's and reflects his more empirical approach to philosophy. While Plato emphasized the realm of ideas and the rational understanding of immutable ideals, Aristotle focused on the tangible world and the importance of empirical observation combined with rational analysis.

Aristotle also recognized the concept of doxa but did not dismiss it as entirely misleading or useless as Plato sometimes did. Instead, Aristotle acknowledged that doxa can serve as a starting point in the search for truth. He realized that opinions often contain some truth or stem from experiences that, while not entirely reliable or complete, contribute to the inquiry process that can lead to more certain knowledge. In his view, opinions are important for practical decision-making and are often all that is available in domains that do not lend themselves to rigorous scientific or philosophical investigation.

Episteme, for Aristotle, refers to demonstrable knowledge that can be logically proven and is universally true. This type of knowledge stems from first principles that are certain and self-evident, leading to necessary conclusions. Aristotle's method for gaining episteme involved both empirical evidence and rational inference, applicable in fields like mathematics and the natural sciences.

Aristotle also introduced other forms of knowledge, such as techne (art or craft) and phronesis (practical wisdom). Techne is knowledge about creating objects, while phronesis is socio-political ability. This distinction is critical because it shows that Aristotle valued different types of knowledge for different purposes, extending beyond the Platonic focus on episteme as the highest form of knowledge.

Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 10: Happines

Aristotle - Ethics - Book Ten - Pleasure and the Life of Happiness.

In the tenth book of Nicomachean Ethics    , Aristotle discusses pleasure and happiness. All his life man wonders what he should rejoice in and what he should hate, and these questions carry great weight regarding the good virtue and the happy longevity.

Some argue that pleasure is good, that all animals aspire to it and also that sorrow is not desirable at all. Plus when it connects to another good action then it increases the nature of the action. But therefore pleasure is not good, because the good to know Aristotle should be good for himself, and even from the fact that sorrow is bad one should not conclude that pleasure is good. Pleasure does not apply to everything equally, and in the same way (the more one learns, the pleasure is not necessarily greater) does not fulfill any need, and has sources that are not good. Pleasure according to Aristotle is not the good, and not every pleasure is desirable. But there are some desirable pleasures per se according to their image and origin.

The pleasure of knowing Aristotle belongs to the same things that are whole and whole, because in one moment the whole is revealed. Pleasure completes actions according to its own purpose. Therefore the pleasure is not continuous, since it accompanies the activity and complements it. And thus Aristotle argues that there are also different kinds of pleasure, depending on the activity it complements. The activities that accompany it are different for each person according to his nature, and even contribute to the success of the activity and perseverance in it. The pleasures foreign to the action, but accompanying it, harm the nature of the action and even cancel it out. Because there are actions that are good, bad, and that are not so and not so, so too with pleasures. Good pleasure, like good learning, is at the discretion of the decent man.

After discussing good virtue , friendship , and pleasure, Aristotle discusses happiness, which is the purpose for human actions. In Aristotle's opinion everything in the world is done for the purpose of happiness . Happiness derives from a lifestyle that is according to the good virtue, and is expressed in activity according to the good in essence, which is the theoretical action. The mind is the finest of powers, and recognition through it is the finest, and the most continuous. Also, the enjoyment of the theoretical activity is the best. Knowledge, philosophy, combine t with the basic needs of life is happiness. Strong on a person who lives a life of studyThey will leave him free time in life - "this activity is a person's perfect happiness". Such a way of life is superior to what is given to a person, so every person should live according to his life, in accordance with the superiority of its foundations, but at the same time take care of the life according to the mind - which is the person himself. The perfect happiness for Aristotle is a theoretical activity, since it is an activity close to the activity of the gods.

A second-rate lifestyle for Aristotle is a lifestyle according to the other good qualities which are of one man towards another. According to Aristotle acts that include character traits, which have a parallel in the virtues of the brain. But such a lifestyle needs greater external resources, in order to achieve greater happiness. Perfect good virtue is not possible without good intention.

For Aristotle the recognition of the good virtue is not enough, there is a need for deeds, to become excellent people. The person should be able to distinguish between what is proper and what is obscene, and since emotion is subject only to power, it is desirable to adapt the character from a young age to the good virtue. In adulthood they were subject to the laws of the state which in punitive threats, would be directed to the right way of life. Yet, Aristotle states, the good man should indulge in a decent life of his own free will and not coercion, and this should be instilled through education and state intervention in the lives of its citizens, a public concern. Those who have the knowledge, knowledge of the rules and experience, should take care of the public and refer it to a normal life.

Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 8: Friendship

Aristotle - Ethics Book Eight - Friendship.

Friendship for Aristotle is a good virtue , and it is necessary for our lives. It binds citizens of the state together, as it is similar to unity. In a country where citizens are friends there is no need for justice.

In book 8 of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle lists three types of friendships:

Beneficial friendship - liking each other because of the benefit they give each other - for what is good for themselves, and not for who they are.

Friendship for pleasure - for what pleases themselves.

According to Aristotle these are types of friendships which are random, temporary, and premature when there is a change in the situation. Friendship for pleasure is better than friendship for good. Because happy people do not need helpful friends, but pleasant ones do.

Perfect friendship - friendship of good and similar people in terms of good virtue. Liking each other in and of themselves. And just want to get on well with each other. This friendship is rare and eternal, which is built over time.

According to Aristotle, perfect friendship is the property of good people. And she's also a good friend. Perfect friendship is true, by choice and it helps to achieve happiness. Friendship for Aristotle is equality because of the desire to do good and show affection. It is impossible to be friends of a large number of people at the same time.

Those in power will choose for themselves friends who are helpful and friends who are pleasant, but not good people who are both, since a good virtue should be in a proper status, and those in power do not have a good virtue. Aristotle argues that equal friendship is not possible between people of different classes, but is based on right.

According to Aristotle the nature of equality in friendship is different from the nature of equality in justice. Rightly according to what a person deserves, and in friendship absolute equality. Love should be given and received according to the middle index, that is, the desire to learn a balance.

In every partnership there is justice and friendship. Aristotle believes that man avoids doing injustice to his friends and wants to do good to them. The political partnership was created out of benefit, with justice at the forefront of legislators' minds. In regimes, friendship involves the degree of justice that exists in the country. In proper regimes there is friendship to a degree that decreases according to the good of the regime. According to Aristotle in deviations from the proper regimes there is almost no friendship in existence, because there is really no justice. In a dictatorial regime there is no friendship between the ruler and his subjects, due to the inequality, and the action for the benefit of the dictator and not of the people, as in slavery and lordship. Relationship between ruler and controlled as body to mind. The degree of friendship in the country increases in relation to the nature of the regime.

Great Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 2

Aristotle: Ethics: Book Two - The Good Virtue, and the Middle Path .

The good virtue according to Aristotle is divided into two types:

The virtues of the mind - wisdom, knowledge and understanding. A virtue acquired through teaching, and in need of experience and time.

Character qualities (ethical virtues) - generosity and common sense. They are bought out of habit, and are not innate.

Aristotle knows virtues which are innate cannot be changed, like the stone that will never move upwards. Everything given by nature is 'by force', and evolves into 'practice'. Aristotle argues that good virtue and omniscience are acquired as they are made. From doing so we will receive. If the actions are done badly so are the qualities we receive were bad, and if they are done well, so we are made good in them. The same is true of the virtues of character. Righteous versus wicked, brave versus cowards, etc. Habit is what determines everything.

Regarding the virtues of character, Aristotle claims that it is agreed that the person must act 'according to the correct pattern'. Acts become corrupt because of those who exaggerate in action and those who underestimate in action, and exist by virtue of the middle measure. Out of habit and experience in the virtue of good character, so it is bought. In addition, Aristotle believes that anyone who enjoys the actions done in accordance with the good virtue, he holds the same virtue of character. Therefore one needs proper education and habituation from a young age.

For Aristotle in order for deeds which according to the good virtue were truly out of justice and common sense need some conditions:

Action out of knowing - knowledge that comes from habit.

Action out of desire, desire for the name of the action.

Action from a stable and unshakable opinion.

As for the essence of the good virtue. Aristotle states that everything that comes from the soul falls into one of three categories:

Emotions - anything that is accompanied by pleasure or sorrow. They do not define a person, and they are not related to desire, but to tendencies.

Forces - an action by which we feel. A trait which is innate, and man has no control over it

Character Traits - What Determines Our Reaction to Emotions.

The best virtue according to Aristotle is a character trait.

The good virtue according to Aristotle is the character trait that is good to choose the middle way - what is neither excessive nor lacking. For Aristotle the middle is in relation to every man and every situation, defined by reason, and by a wise man. Aristotle's middle is exactly what is fine and successful, in everything. Another way to look at it, is easy to miss the target, and hard to hit, so add or subtract it is bad, and the middle - good. Of course there are actions that are fundamentally bad, so you will not find them through the middle. As actions that are proper, and therefore mediocre in nature, like common sense and courage. Even if on both sides of the sequence the features are bad the middle will be good. Aristotle believes that in order to find the middle one must find the edges of each feature, which are the features that are most in contrast to each other.

Aristotle emphasizes that it is not easy to grasp the middle, and that is where an expert is needed. So first of all one should stay away from the edges, and if already, then choose a tendency that is less bad. To get used to the middle Aristotle believes that we must first exaggerate and choose the side that gives the person less pleasure, and from this our ability to score in the middle will increase. Indecent is just the one who deviates often and much from the middle.

Great Summary: Aristotle / Nicomachean Ethics Book 1

Book One - The General Good and the Good Man 

Summary: The definition of good according to Aristotle in book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics is the same thing to which everything strives . But there is a need to distinguish between two different types of purpose for actions, the purpose of the action itself, and a purpose which is results which are different from the action itself, so the results of the action are more equal than the action itself. In addition, there are purposes which are for a particular purpose but also for a higher purpose, for which all the specific purposes are named. When we work for a lofty goal, it does not matter whether it is achieved by the action or by its results. The good is the same purpose to which we aspire, in itself and through other purposes . Therefore we must seek the same good. (It is clear that political science is the one whose good purpose is in the country, and therefore its way can be projected on personal good.)

According to Aristotle we are looking for what is the same thing which is fine and handsome. This requires knowledge of the subject of political science, which a young boy may not have, since knowledge is not the way to find the good, but the act . To find the good one needs experience in life, and the ability not to pursue the desires of life. Only people whose discretion directs their desires and they act accordingly will benefit from knowing about these issues.

There is a consensus among most human beings that the pinnacle of all fulfilling favors is happiness , and a life of happiness equals a good life. But there are disagreements about the nature of happiness, since it depends on the things that human beings desire. It is impossible to argue for universal good, for in every inquiry it is necessary to depart from the point which is already known to us, and not from the mere known. From this it can be understood that only the ‘well-educated’ person will understand the inquiry of happiness.

There are three types of life patterns associated with happiness:

A life of pleasure - to which the crowd is attracted.

Political life - which is the essence of gaining respect. But the good belongs to man per se and is not separate from him . The good virtue is superior to the honor. But even the good virtue is not happiness , for a man can have the good virtue but not do any deed all his life.

A life of thought - which will be discussed later.

The general good is the good in itself . Since everything can be said about it that there is a situation that is good, it is impossible for there to be a separate 'idea' for good, since it will be empty and meaningless. There is no good in anything that has one and only one idea embedded in it . In all actions the purpose is the good that can be actually achieved, and as the number of purposes, the types of good that can be achieved.

The best of all (the best good ) has perfection in it, and therefore there is only one purpose that is complete, a purpose to which one strives for oneself. For Aristotle the purpose of good is happiness , for only to happiness does man strive for himself. And even all of man's other actions are directed to happiness. A condition for a whole life, in which nothing is lacking, is happiness. Therefore, happiness is perfect and sufficient for itself, and the purpose of all human actions.

Man's activity is a mental activity done out of discretion, and the activity of the good man is an action done well in accordance with the good virtue of the action. Fine action over time will make the person happy. Benefits are the actions that belong to the soul, not external benefits. There should be enjoyment in actions which are done in the name of the good virtue, and should be done in the name of the good virtue and not for another external purpose. But inner happiness is also the result of external factors, such as pleasure, wisdom, beauty, familial pedigree, and decent children since man cannot do good deeds without inventions. Therefore, one can associate happiness with good luck and also with good virtue.

Happiness for Aristotle is among the most divine things, whether it is a gift from God or bought by study and habit. Humans who have not been happily blessed by luck, can acquire it by good virtue, learning and habit. Happiness requires perfect virtue as well as perfect longevity, and the role of the state is to impart to certain citizens certain qualities and to make them good and capable of good deeds. A person's life is measured by the actions he has performed during them , actions that are done according to the good virtue will lead to happiness. Stability is required in the actions he does, that only then will happiness depend only slightly on luck and man will be a really good person.

"… Happy as a person who acts according to a good and perfect virtue, and is sufficiently equipped with the external favors, and this not only in a period of time that happens at random, but in days of life in which there is some perfection." (Aristotle  / Nicomachean Ethics Book 1)

 

see also: 

Aristotle's Virtue Ethics summarized and explained

Aristotelian virtue ethics is based on the nature of man and on the circumstances relevant to the quality of actions. The goal is human happiness , which is why Immanuel Kant's Aristotelian ethics was cited as a prime example of a eudaemonistic ethic . Virtue ethics takes into account the fact that what is good depends on the circumstances and that there is therefore no uniform rule that can a priori determine each individual case. In principle, for Aristotle, ethics is a practical science that cannot do without examples and concrete studies. Because it depends on many concrete circumstances whether an action is good and increases happiness.

According to Aristotle, virtue is an excellent and sustainable attitude ( hexis ), which is determined by reason and which one must acquire through practice or education . To determine the virtues, according to Aristotle, one looks for a point of view between two extremes ( Mesotes doctrine), e.g. B. self-control (moderation), which lies between lust and dullness, or generosity as a value between prodigality and avarice, or bravery, which lies between recklessness and cowardice. These positions are not to be understood as mathematical mean values, but as the best that can be achieved in each case in the area of ​​a character trait. It is determined individually.

"Virtue is thus a behavior (an attitude) of decision, founded in the middle in relation to us, a middle that is determined by reason and according to how it would be determined by the understanding."( Aristotle : Nicomachean Ethics)

 

Since Aristotle was a realist, he knew about the difficulty and variety of the concrete circumstances. That is why he also added to his definition of virtue as the right center with the addition that an intelligent or virtuous person can serve as orientation. This addition also follows from other considerations of Virtue Ethics, which is of the conviction that one can and must learn to act correctly and ethically in order to act progressively correctly and well and to develop one's judgment in relation to it.

However, in addition to the many cases in which circumstances determine a good act, for Aristotle there are also acts that are inherently bad. With these there is no middle because there is no other extreme. These include murder , adultery, and other acts that are fundamentally contrary to human nature.

Aristotle differentiates on the one hand the intellectual or dianoetic virtues (prudence, craftsmanship, reason, wisdom, scientificity), on the other hand the character or ethical virtues. With the superior virtues of the understanding, people orient themselves towards practical reason in order to find the right ways and means for their actions and in order to choose the right one in the concrete situations in which their action is required. The practice of the ethical virtues helps to control the instincts and affects and makes those acting in this way more independent of a behavior that is only aimed at satisfying pleasure and avoiding pain. To ethical behavior on the good to align, it requires education that increases our moral sensitivity and thus influences the quality of our actions. When virtues are internalized, man acts for virtue's sake and likes to do so, i.e. with pleasure in the sense of enjoyment of the activity. For Aristotle, however, it is not the aim of the action, but an accompanying phenomenon that follows. What a virtue is depends on circumstances, including historical and social. A universal, i.e. H. Nevertheless, they have a universally valid core: perfecting human nature according to its disposition and for the purpose of human harmony with himself.

Important virtues according to Aristotle are prudence (phronesis), justice (dikaiosyne), bravery (andreia), moderation (sophrosyne), generosity (eleutheriotes), helpfulness (megaloprepeia), greatness of soul (megalopsychia), gentleness (praotes), truthfulness, Courtesy (eutrapelia) and empathy (philia). According to Aristotle, the highest happiness is achieved through the virtue of wisdom (sophia). Because wisdom, in the sense of contemplation or meditation on the first things and the meaning of life, is the highest activity of the highest faculty of the spirit. It is also the purest, most permanent and most uninterrupted activity possible for a person when he is practiced in it. It grants the greatest happiness and consequently the greatest pleasure.

Virtue Ethics Explained with Examples

Virtue Ethics is the  study of morality that starts from the fact that it arises from internal features of the person, the virtues, as opposed to the position of deontology - morality arises from rules - and consequentialism - morality. It depends on the result of the act. The difference between these three approaches to morality lies more in the way in which moral dilemmas are approached than in the conclusions reached.

The ethics of virtue is a theory that goes back to Plato and, in a more articulated way, to Aristotle's virtue ethics, according to which an action is ethically correct if doing it were proper to a virtuous person.  For example, if for utilitarianism have to help the needy because that increases the general welfare, and ethics must be done because it is our duty, to the ethics of virtues, we must help those in need because doing it would be charitable and benevolent. 

Virtue Ethics seeks to explain the nature of a moral agent as a driving force for ethical behavior, rather than rules (deontology) or consequentialism, which is derived as correct or incorrect from the result of the act itself.

For example, a consequentialist would argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying, although a consequentialist would allow certain foreseeable consequences to make lying acceptable in some cases. A deontologist would argue that lying is always bad, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from a lie. A supporter of the ethics of virtueHowever, it would focus less on lying on a particular occasion, instead considering what the decision to tell a lie or not tells us about one's character and moral conduct. As such, the morality of lying would be determined on a case-by-case basis, which would be based on factors such as personal gain, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent).

Although concern for virtue appears in various philosophical traditions, in Western Philosophy, virtue is present in the work of Plato and Aristotle , and even today the key concepts of the tradition are derived from ancient Greek philosophy . These concepts include areté (excellence or virtue), phronesis (practical or moral wisdom), and eudaimonia (happiness).

In the West Virtue Ethics was the predominant focus of ethical thought in the ancient and medieval periods. The tradition of virtue ethics was forgotten during the modern period, when Aristotelianism fell out of favor. The theory of virtue returned to prominence in western philosophical thought in the 20th century , and today it is one of the three dominant approaches to normative theories (the other two being Kant's deontology and consequentialism or teleologism; where we might include the utilitarianism ).

Virtue Ethics - definition and summary

 Central to virtue ethics is the idea that morality is not performing certain right actions but possessing a certain character.  Instead of asking, "What actions are right?" virtue ethics asks, "What kind of persons should we be?"  In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argued that ethics enables us to live the good life  and that the good life is possible only for virtuous persons.  Aristotle described particular virtues in illuminating detail.  After Aristotle, philosophical theory tended to focus more on right action and duties, but some contemporary philosophers argue for a return to virtue ethics.

What are virtues and how do they determine justice? 

Virtues are specifically those traits that everyone needs for the good life, regardless of their specific situation.  For example, courage is a virtue because it enables anyone to get what he or she wants.  The virtues are integrally related to what Aristotle called practical wisdom, which is what a person needs in order to live well.  Virtue is variously described as an excellence that is admired in a person, as a disposition to act in a certain way, and as a specific state of character.  Lists of the virtues generally include:  benevolence, compassion, courage, courtesy, dependability, friendliness, honesty, loyalty, moderation, self-control, and tolerance.  In developing a list of virtues, we must consider not only the contribution of a virtue to some end but also the end itself.  Aristotle considered happiness to be the end of life, and so the virtues must all contribute in some way to happiness.  Thus, the character traits that enable a despot or a criminal or a lecher to be successful are not virtues because they do not conduce to happiness.  Moreover, the virtues are not merely means to happiness but are themselves constitutive of it.  For example, a parent cannot experience the joy of parenting without actually possessing the traits that make one a good parent. 

Strengths and weaknesses of virtue ethics

  A strength of virtue ethics is that it fits with our everyday moral experience. The response of most people to a complex ethical dilemma is not to think about how universal principles can be applied but to decide what they feel comfortable with or what a person they admire would do.  Codes of professional ethics generally stress that a professional should be a person of integrity.  Unlike the impartiality stressed by utilitarianism and Kantianism, virtue ethics makes better sense of the role that personal relations play in morality.  Since business activity is based so heavily on roles and relationships in which such concepts as loyalty and trust figure prominently, virtue ethics is highly relevant to the workplace.  A weakness of virtue ethics is its incompleteness.  Virtue ethics can take us only so far in dealing with genuine ethical dilemmas.  Some dilemmas involve the limits of rules (such as when concealing information becomes a lie) or conflicts between rules (when telling the truth would harm an innocent person, for example).  Moreover, there are some difficult ethical dilemmas to which virtues do not readily apply.  Some virtue ethicists respond that the importance of dilemmas in ethics has been overstated and that ethics is concerned primarily with the problems of everyday life.  Another weakness is that virtue ethics does not address the problem of conflict.  According to Aristotle, happiness is possible for anyone who becomes a certain kind of person, but insofar as our goals in life include possessing limited goods, not everyone can be successful.  Virtue ethicists respond that morality is more a matter of living cooperatively than of moderating conflict.

See also: Aristotle's virtue ethics

Virtue ethics in business