Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T05:25:22.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing Habits and Knowing What Habits to Develop: A Look at the Role of Virtue in Ethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2009

Erich H. Loewy
Erich H. Loewy
Affiliation:
Endowed Alumni Association Chair of Bioethics and Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Virtue ethics attempts to identify certain commonly agreed-upon dispositions to act in certain ways, dispositions that would be accepted as ‘good’ by those affected, and to locate the goodness or badness of an act internal to the agent. Basically, virtue ethics is said to date back to Aristotle, but as Alisdair MacIntyre has pointed out, the whole idea of ‘virtue ethics’ would have been unintelligible in Greek philosophy for “a virtue (arete) was an excellence and ethics concerned excellence of character; all ethics was virtue ethics.” Virtue ethics as a method to approach problems in medical ethics is said by some to lend itself to working through cases at the bedside or, at least, is better than the conventional method of handling ethical problems. In this paper I want to explore some of the shortcomings of this approach, examine other traditional approaches, indicate some of their limitations, and suggest a different conceptualization of the approach.

Type
Bioethics Education
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , Summer 1997 , pp. 347 - 355
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Among the more recent defenders of this approach to ethics the work of Pellegrino and Thomasma deserves particular attention.

2. In: Becker, LC, Becker, CB, eds. Encyclopedia of Ethics vol. II. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc. 1992.Google Scholar

3. Gauthier, CC. Teaching the virtues: justifications and recommendations. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1997;6(3):335–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

4. See note 3. Gauthier, 1997:336.Google Scholar

5. Todorov, T. Facing the Extreme: Moral Life in the Concentration Camps. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1996.Google Scholar

6. Ginzburg, ES. Journey into the Whirlwind. Trans: P, Stevenson, M, Hayword. New York: Harcourt, 1967.Google Scholar

7. Pellegrino, ED. Towards a reconstruction of medical morality: the primacy of the act of profession and the fact of illness. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1979;4(1):32–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Engelhardt, HT. The Foundations of Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google ScholarPubMed

9. Engelhardt, HT. Bioethics and Secular Humanism. Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1991.Google Scholar

10. Engelhardt, HT. Morality for the medical industrial complex: a code of ethics for the mass marketing of health care. New England Journal of Medicine 1988;319(16):1086–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

11. Pellegrino, ED, Thomasma, DC. For the Patient's Good: The Return of Beneficence to Health-Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.Google Scholar

12. Loewy, EH. Freedom and Community: The Ethics of Interdependence. Albany: SUNY Press, 1993.Google Scholar

13. While the differences among persons and ethicists concerning euthanasia are given as an example, there are many others. The virtue of truth-telling itself is one that—when it comes to defining what exactly is meant—would not by any means be agreed upon by most. For the example given, see Gaylin, W et al. Doctors must not kill (letter). JAMA 1988;259:2139–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Contrast it with Rachels, J. The End of Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Google Scholar

15. Loewy, PH. Healing and killing, harming and not-harming: physician participation in euthanasia and capital punishment. journal of Clinical Ethics 1992;3(1):29–34.Google ScholarPubMed

16. Kant, I. Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals. Trans. LW, Beck. Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1980:20.Google Scholar

17. See note 16. Beck, 1980:4–5.Google Scholar

18. Dewey, J. Theory of the Moral Life. New York: Irvington Publishers, Inc., 1980:113.Google Scholar

19. See note 18. Dewey, 1980:115.Google Scholar

20. Murphey, MG. Introduction. In: Boydston, JA, Baysinger, P, eds. The Middle Works of John Dewey 1899–1924, Vol. 14, Human Nature and Conduct. Carbondale, Illinois. Southern Illinois University Press, 1988:xvi.Google Scholar

21. See note 20. Boydston, , Baysinger, 1988:34.Google Scholar

22. Rousseau, JJ. The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right. In: GDH, Cole, trans. J-J Rousseau: The Social Contract and the Discourses. New York: Everyrnan's Library, 1993:140.Google ScholarPubMed

23. Pincoffs, EL. Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism in Ethics. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1986.Google Scholar

24. 1 do not wish to make a wrong accusation. Kant seemed very much aware of the importance of forming character: after all character is essential if one is to be obedient to rules. But while forming character was important it was secondary to the rationally formulated rules that govern, or ought to govern, our lives. There is a paradox: undoubtedly a morally more correct world would result from having our inclinations shaped so as to accord with our duties. But the more we act from (mere) inclinations, it seems, the less do we become praiseworthy for our actions. Some may argue then that in the first place praise worthiness, white it may diminish when we act in accordance with our inclinations, increases as we seek to shape our inclinations so as to form habits and create virtues.

25. Throughout John Dewey's work he is at pains to show that the strict division we make between things like means and ends or theory and praxis is a largely artificial one. To Dewey virtues are formed in community, must eventuate in action and are ultimately deemed ‘good’ or ‘bad’ according to the ends they serve. Proper ends are those that allow us to effectively deal with problems at hand and allow us to learn from praxis. They are good insofar as they promote the development of all, not merely some, within a community. Ultimately such learning, growth, and vigorous communal interaction are only possible when the democratic ideal is conserved and when political democracy is underwritten by mutual respect, as well as by economic and educational democracy. For an analysis of a Deweyan method of decision-making applied to the healthcare context see Loewy, Springer R. Integrity and Personhood: Looking at Patients from a Bio-Psycho-Social Perspective. Thesis submitted for PhD, Loyola University of Chicago, 1996.Google Scholar

26. Loewy, Springer R. A critique of traditional relationship models. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 1994;3(1):27–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

27. For my analysis examination of Dewey in the social and political sense the reader is referred to Loewy, EH. Moral Strangers, Moral Acquaintance and Moral Friends: interconnectedness and its conditions. Albany: SUNY Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar