What is virtue ethics and how might it be applied to matters of life and death? Virtue ethics forms one of the three major branches of normative ethics along with deontological and consequentialist approaches. While other normative theories such as Natural Moral Law do consider the importance of the virtues, they are uniquely centred in Virtue Ethics. The theory was first popularized by Aristotle and, while it fell out of favour during the enlightenment as other normative theories gained in popularity, it has had a resurgence in recent years as it has seemed more able to deal with the complex moral questions of modern society.

Aristotle's starting point is that all humans share a final end and that is achieving eudaimonia or human flourishing. Through the function argument Aristotle sets out his claim that, for humans, the telos, or purpose, of their lives is living in accordance with reason. If one is to live in accordance with reason then a person will exercise virtue. We can exercise the virtues well by applying what Aristotle refers to as the Doctrine of the Mean. He claims that virtues lie somewhere between the two vices of excess and deficiency, courage for example being found between cowardice and foolhardiness. Where a virtue lies will be relative to each individual and the situation. We can use practical wisdom to help us understand where the mean lies in each situation.

When applied to abortion Aristotle is not always consistent in his views. In Politics he says ‘if children are then conceived in excess of the limit so fixed, to have miscarriage induced before sense and life have begun in the embryo’ (Politics 1335b19). This would suggest that if a woman has too many children then it would be better for her to have an abortion earlier in the pregnancy and this would seem to chime with modern sensibilities about earlier abortions being a preferable option. He also points out that a virtuous person learns to be virtuous through habit and a person who habitually chooses to have terminations as opposed to using contraception may well not be developing a virtuous character and flourishing.

The issue of abortion has been considered in more depth by modern virtue ethicists. The usual considerations within ethical discussions of abortion about whether it should be banned due to the rights of the foetus or allowed on the basis that a woman has rights over her own body are set aside. There is no hard and fast rule on abortion. Some abortions would be considered morally wrong as they are the result of vices such as selfishness, heartlessness and impetuous decision-making. Other abortions may be morally correct as they are the results of exercising virtues such as prudence, if you are unable to care for or afford another child, compassion or loyalty to your existing children.

Again when considering euthanasia or assisted suicide the virtue ethicist will look at the action of the character. As medical technology advances real questions arise about whether we should continue to extend life when the quality of life falls. If a person is no longer capable of achieving eudaimonia then for Aristotle an extension of life may well not be worthwhile. There is, again, no universal rule. Some acts of euthanasia could demonstrate compassion for a person who is suffering terrible pain, or the virtue of charity. However other acts could be the result of vices such as selfishness to relieve oneself of the burden of caring. A further issue to consider in virtue ethics is that Aristotle spoke of some acts to which a deontological rule applies.

This would suggest that if euthanasia were to be classed as murder then Aristotle would not consider it acceptable. A question for Aristotle would be: is justice being served in cases of euthanasia? Justice requires us to consider the good of others and is not a virtue which operates on a mean. Acts are simply just or they are not. However, most modern virtue ethicists would not say whether euthanasia is wrong, rather they would look at what was involved in a particular case to decide if an act was virtuous or not.

Aristotle's ideas of justice are also relevant in debates about capital punishment. He has different conceptions of justice. One view of justice is about rectification: if a person has suffered a loss that was not their fault then there should be rectification. In terms of capital punishment that may be seen as rectification for the loss of a life in a murder. Also, Aristotle would have accepted capital punishment as part of the actions of the state. He was concerned with the good of the community as a whole and felt this was more important than the good of the individual. If capital punishment is beneficial for society then he would have seen this was valuable.

There is the question for Aristotle if those we are punishing had committed voluntary actions. A voluntary action is one a person intended to carry out, was in full knowledge of the facts about the situation, was not forced to carry out and does not regret their action. Only in these cases do we have full moral responsibility for our actions. When looking at the circumstances of people who have been charged with capital crimes we may not always be able to say that their actions were fully voluntary. This ties into modern ideas about mitigating circumstances and as such perhaps makes the times when we could enact capital punishment virtuously much rarer.

The very qualities that make Virtue Ethics able to tackle some complex modern ethical questions also leave it open to accusations that it is vague and unable to give the clear direction to our actions that is required by ethical theories. Still, argued Aristotle, if we have practical wisdom then we will be able to ‘see’ what a virtuous person would do in any situation.