Philosophy of Humanity

Ethics (Moral Philosophy)

Virtues

Ethics is a practical discipline that not only examines moral principles and the mechanisms of human behavior but also stimulates individuals to become better, to change, and to perfect themselves, that is, to act. Every action has a purpose. This implies that a person does nothing without a goal. Consequently, morality itself has a purpose. The aim of moral activity is to achieve perfection. The state to which a person is called is termed virtue. In scholarly terminology, the Greek word (ἀρετή, areté) and the Latin term (virtus) are often used with the same meaning.

Virtues have been a relevant topic in moral philosophy throughout its history. Socrates was the first to justify this concept, placing the theme of morality at the center of his philosophy. Socrates explained virtue as the state of moral perfection that a person should attain, without delving into a detailed explanation of the nature of virtue. His reasoning was continued by his disciple Plato. Plato asserted that the human soul is composed of three parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. Plato’s philosophy was not merely an attempt to describe human nature but also to stimulate its improvement. A person is perfect when all parts of their soul are perfected. Therefore, the task of moral activity is to achieve virtues in accordance with the nature of each part of the soul, meaning each part must reach its respective virtue. The virtue of the rational part of the soul is wisdom. The virtue of the spirited part of the soul is courage. Plato believed that the rational part of the soul stimulates a person towards rational and good deeds. The spirited part drives them towards passions, that is, actions motivated by the soul’s connection to the body, such as eating and sleeping. Moderation does not imply a complete renunciation of these needs because, as long as a person lives in a material body, they cannot live without fulfilling these needs. However, the impulses of the appetitive part of the soul must be realized to a moderate extent; hence, the virtue is called moderation. Renouncing the needs of this part of the soul is as undesirable as its complete realization. For instance, a person who entirely ceases to eat will die of starvation, but someone who lacks moderation in eating will also die from overeating and related illnesses. The virtue of the spirited part of the soul is courage. Even if the rational part of the soul makes wise decisions regarding the management of human life, and the spirited part moderately demands the satisfaction of bodily needs, their impulses will be meaningless if the spirited part, the instance responsible for implementing these decisions, is not sufficiently courageous to realize them.

Thus, Plato understood virtue as what each part of the soul should be. This means that each part of the soul has its purpose, and the realization of this purpose is virtue. The aim of morality is not to endow a person with traits they previously lacked but to actualize those attributes that are implicitly present in them as their true essence. Morality makes a person truly human, that is, it realizes in a person everything that is genuinely human. If a person achieves the three virtues within their soul, then they will also become perfect outwardly, that is, attain social virtue—justice. The four virtues described by Plato are commonly referred to as cardinal or moral virtues.

Aristotle, Plato’s disciple, also developed the doctrine of virtues. His approach to virtues differed from Plato's. While Plato treated virtue as a trait of a person or their soul, Aristotle defined virtue as a trait of human action. Virtue is what makes human actions good. Aristotle is known for his doctrine of the mean. He argued that virtue is a golden mean between two extremes, which are sins. For example, stinginess and extravagance are extremes and thus sins. In contrast, thriftiness is the golden mean between them and therefore a virtue.

Aristotle witnessed cardinal changes in the world. His pupil Alexander the Great conquered Persia, becoming the ruler of the most populous part of the planet at that time. After Alexander, Greek city-states never restored democracy and became part of the Roman Empire. New circumstances also influenced moral philosophy. Philosophers, both before and after Alexander, urged people to improve themselves. Before Alexander's wars, the means of improvement was seen in building a good state, where people could collectively attain common happiness. To this end, they developed political philosophy. After Alexander's wars, contemplating the state structure became both unnecessary and impossible. Firstly, citizens had no effective means to influence politics since the final decision rested with the emperor, who could neither hear nor wish to hear everyone; secondly, a thinker’s position might not align with that of the authorities, which exposed them to danger. All this led the philosophers of the Hellenistic era to shift the focus of their philosophy: they concentrated not on improving the external world but on constructing an inner world of the person that could not be influenced by external circumstances, isolating oneself from the external world.

The Stoics made the greatest contribution to this discussion—a philosophical school that emerged and developed during the Hellenistic era. Unlike Plato, who taught about four virtues, and Aristotle, who taught about many virtues, the Stoics taught that virtue is the state of a person who has attained moral perfection. A person who achieves virtue is called a sage. Later Stoics observed that virtue is such a high moral ideal that no one can fully attain it, but everyone should strive for it. The closer a person gets to this ideal, the more morally perfect they are, and to that extent, they are a sage. For the Stoics, virtue is apathy (ἀπάθεια). At that time, apathy did not denote a clinical syndrome of indifference to the environment, as it is interpreted today, but a state of high spiritual-moral perfection, absolute impassivity. The Greek word "ἀπάθεια" consists of the negating prefix "α-" (not, without) and the word "πάθος" (pathos, experience). The etymology of this word indicates its meaning—lack of feelings. This state is also called Stoic calm or philosophical tranquility. Hence, the expression "to take something philosophically" means to perceive something absolutely calmly. The Stoics believed that a sage who has achieved apathy has developed ideal moral resilience. Nothing external can move them. They respond calmly to both good and bad events.

There was a prolonged debate between the Peripatetics (followers of Aristotle) and the Stoics regarding the conditions for happiness. Aristotle believed that morality is based on the inherent human pursuit of happiness. In the context of the debate on virtues, the question arose as to what a person needs to be happy. The responses of the Peripatetics and the Stoics to this question differed. The Stoics claimed that achieving apathy is sufficient for happiness. If a sage has attained perfect impassivity, nothing can disturb their happiness. The Peripatetics, on the other hand, asserted that for happiness, people also need basic satisfaction of physical needs. A sage cannot be happy when they are hungry, cold, or ill.

In the Middle Ages, the topic of virtues held an important place in moral philosophy. Saint Thomas Aquinas adopted Plato’s doctrine of cardinal virtues but expanded upon it. He believed that cardinal virtues are good traits that a person can acquire through their own spiritual-moral efforts. If a person makes sufficient effort to acquire cardinal virtues, then God also bestows upon them three theological virtues, which he counted as faith, hope, and charity, as written by the Apostle Paul. Cardinal and theological virtues are included in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.