Skip to content
Coordinates of ThoughtHome of Philosophy
Join
Question · Open

Question of the day: should ethics ask what to do, or who to be?

The Editors Editors
· 5 replies
Moral theoriesGreek & RomanChineseVirtue ethics (modern)ConfucianismAristotleConfuciusElizabeth AnscombeImmanuel Kant#character#moral-theory#question-of-the-day#virtue-ethics
Follow

Its coordinates: 3.2 Normative Ethics · 3.2.1 Consequence-Based Approaches · 3.2.2 Duty-Based Approaches +3 more

Today's question comes from the card on character-based approaches: should ethics ask what to do, or who to be?

When most people face a hard choice, they ask "what should I do?" But a great deal of moral thought, in many traditions, starts somewhere else: with the kind of person you are becoming, and the life that your choices add up to.

The main positions:

  • What to do comes first. The great modern theories give a principle that picks out right acts: maximise good outcomes, or act only on maxims you could will as universal law. Character matters, but as a reliable disposition to do what the principle requires.
  • Who to be comes first. For Aristotle, a right action is what a person of practical wisdom would do, and ethics is about a whole life well lived. Confucius describes the junzi, the exemplary person, more often than he states rules. In 1958 Elizabeth Anscombe argued that modern moral philosophy should drop the notion of a "moral ought" and return to concepts like virtue and flourishing.
  • The guidance objection. Critics say "be virtuous" is no help in a hard case. Defenders such as Rosalind Hursthouse reply that the virtue words themselves guide: be honest, don't be cruel, don't be cowardly.
  • The contrast is false. Kant wrote a whole Doctrine of Virtue, and Confucians cared intensely about getting particular ritual acts right.

The card sets out these approaches and their histories: 3.2.3 Character-Based Approaches.

Which question do you actually ask yourself when it matters?

LikeAnswer
SaveFollow5 answers

Join the conversation: members reply here, and joining is free. Reading is always free.

Join free to reply Sign in

5 answers

  1. Henrike Vogel

    Fellow

    As the resident Kantian, I have to object to the first bullet a little. Kant's Doctrine of Virtue, the second part of the Metaphysics of Morals (1797), defines virtue as the strength of a person's maxims in fulfilling duty. He knew perfectly well that knowing the right act is the easy part. The hard part is being someone who does it when inclination pulls the other way, and that is a question of who you are.

    So for Kant the two questions are not rivals. "What to do" tells you where to go. Character is the strength to get there.

  2. Ethan Mercer

    Contributor

    I'll defend "what to do", at least for one kind of decision. When my group decides where to donate, "be generous" is no help at all. Generous to whom? The question is which charity does the most good per dollar, and that's an empirical and moral question about acts and their outcomes.

    Maybe virtue ethics is better for the inside of a life, how to treat your friends, and worse for choices between strangers at a distance.

  3. Giulia Ferrante

    Fellow

    Aristotle himself refuses the choice. In Book II of the Ethics he says we become just by doing just acts, as builders become builders by building. So "who to be" is made out of "what to do".

    But he adds a twist in II.4. An act done the way a just person would do it isn't yet a just act of yours unless you know what you're doing, choose it for its own sake, and act from a firm and settled character. The same deed can be the beginning of a virtue or the expression of one. That, I think, is the real difference between the two questions.

  4. Rowena Abellana

    Fellow

    My sixteen-year-olds always ask "what should I do?" about a specific situation, usually a friend who cheated or a parent who lies. After a few weeks I can usually get them to see that what they're really asking is "who am I going to be about this?"

    The Filipino idea of loob, the inner self, helps here. A decision is not just a choice between options; it shows and shapes your loob. That's the closest my students come to Aristotle without reading him.

  5. Nirmala Jayasekara

    Fellow

    The early Buddhist precepts are an interesting middle case. They look like rules: abstain from killing, stealing, false speech and so on. But the traditional formula is "I undertake the training rule (sikkhāpada) to abstain from…". They are rules adopted for the sake of becoming a certain kind of person, not commands to be obeyed for their own sake.

    So the Buddhist answer is: ask what to do, as training in who to be.