Summary
Virtue ethics is the tradition in moral philosophy that locates the foundation of ethical life not in rules, duties, or consequences but in the character of the moral agent. For most of Western ethical history, this was simply what ethics meant. Aristotle defined virtue as a habitual disposition to act well under the guidance of reason. Aquinas enriched this with Christian theological virtues. The tradition receded during the Enlightenment as duty-based and consequentialist ethics rose to dominance, only to be revived in the late twentieth century by philosophers who argued that modern moral theory had lost the capacity to address the question that matters most: what kind of person should I be? In medicine, the revival has carried particular force, because clinical practice requires not just knowing the right rules but having the character to apply them under conditions of uncertainty and power.
Classical Foundations
The history of virtue theory divides, as Pellegrino and Thomasma mapped it, into four periods: classical-medieval centrality, postmedieval reshaping, positivist-analytical decline, and contemporary resuscitation (Pellegrino, 1993).
Aristotle defined virtue as a habitual disposition to act well, linking character to moral action (Pellegrino, 1993). Virtue for Aristotle is not a feeling about what is good or merely a capacity to make a good choice; it is a stable trait of character developed through practice and expressed in action. The virtuous person aims at the mean between excess and deficiency — courage between cowardice and rashness, temperance between indulgence and asceticism — but the mean is not an arithmetic midpoint; it is relative to the person and the situation, discoverable only through practical wisdom (phronesis). Pellegrino and Thomasma adopted this Aristotelian-Thomist definition for medical ethics, arguing that subsequent definitions had not improved on the essential notion (Pellegrino, 1993).
Stoic ethics shaped Hellenistic medical writers by adding compassion and humanism to Hippocratic ethos; Panaetius and Cicero introduced the concept of role-specific duties that would become important for professional ethics (Pellegrino, 1993). Aquinas synthesized Aristotelian natural virtues with Christian theological virtues, giving special prominence to prudence as the bridge between moral and intellectual virtues (Pellegrino, 1993). For Aquinas, prudence was recta ratio agibilium — a right way of acting — and it occupied the architectonic position among the virtues, ordering all others toward their proper exercise.
Decline and Revival
The postmedieval erosion of virtue ethics was driven by empiricism, rights-based individualism, moral sentiment theory, and deontology, shifting emphasis from agent character to acts and principles (Pellegrino, 1993). Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Mill — for different reasons and by different routes — all contributed to an ethics that asked “What should I do?” rather than “What kind of person should I be?”
The contemporary revival was initiated by Elizabeth Anscombe’s 1958 essay “Modern Moral Philosophy” and gained momentum through Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue (1981), the most influential work in reviving virtue ethics. MacIntyre defined virtues as dispositions necessary to attain goods internal to communal practices (Pellegrino, 1993). Anscombe and MacIntyre together initiated a renaissance of virtue ethics that extended into bioethics, driven in part by the successes of the revival and in part by the perceived deficiencies of principle-based ethics (Pellegrino, 1993). Philippa Foot, Stanley Hauerwas, and Carol Gilligan contributed from different angles — Gilligan’s “ethic of care” identified a mode of moral thinking centered on empathic association and responsibility rather than on rights and justice (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013).
Virtue Ethics in Medicine
The ancient codes of medical ethics — Greek, Indian, and Chinese — were virtue-based, looking to the character of the physician as the final guarantee of patient well-being (Pellegrino, 1993). The revival of virtue ethics in biomedical ethics responded to a growing sense that the dominant principle-based approach, while useful, could not by itself ensure good medical practice. Until very recently, Pellegrino and Thomasma observed, biomedical ethics had been largely principle-based, with virtue-based ethics given scant attention (Pellegrino, 1993).
The AMA’s own codes illustrated the trajectory. Its 1847 code endorsed Hippocratic virtues: modesty, sobriety, patience, promptness, piety. By 1980, the code had eliminated virtually all virtue language except an admonition to expose physicians deficient in character (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013). Pellegrino and Thomasma’s program aimed to reverse this trend, arguing that no matter what ethical theory one espouses, the moral agent is a constant factor in the implementation of the moral act — virtue, the virtues, and the virtuous person are unavoidable conceptions (Pellegrino, 1993).
Pellegrino and Thomasma articulated their project through seven theses: that virtue is irreducible in medical ethics; that virtue ethics must incorporate analytical ethics; that physician virtues fuse general and special virtue; that medical virtues derive from medicine’s nature; that deriving virtues from medicine’s ends avoids the problems of free-standing virtue theory; that principle and virtue ethics must be linked; and that moral philosophy must connect with moral psychology (Pellegrino, 1993). Their approach was teleological: relating the virtues of medicine as a practice to the ends of medicine, and requiring a philosophy of medicine to define those ends (Pellegrino, 1993). The virtues they identified — compassion, prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance, integrity, self-effacement — were not drawn from a generic list but derived from the nature of the healing relationship.
The Relationship to Principles
The relationship between virtue ethics and principle-based ethics is contested but, in the strongest accounts, complementary rather than competitive. Virtue-based ethics alone is insufficient because without agreed-upon philosophical anthropology, the telos toward which virtues dispose the agent becomes vague (Pellegrino, 1993). Neither mastery of moral analysis techniques nor possession of good character alone suffices — skilled ethicists may have dubious character while good people may lack articulate principles (Pellegrino, 1993).
Moral character and the virtues are as essential to health care as principles and rules, because virtues shape the motivations and emotional responsiveness that underlie ethical action (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013). Pellegrino and Thomasma linked virtues, principles, and duties through the ends of medicine: principles state what is right, duties are obligations assumed by those entering the profession, and virtues dispose the agent to choices attaining those ends (Pellegrino, 1993). Three methods have been proposed for linking virtues to principles: the first “tacks on” motivation after determining what is right by other means; the second uses the virtuous agent as a mediator who resolves conflicts between principles; the third holds that internalized virtue renders explicit rules unnecessary because the virtuous person simply acts well (Pellegrino, 1993). The virtue of phronesis (practical wisdom) bridges abstract principle and concrete situation, enabling the physician to order principles and particulars correctly in each unique clinical case (Pellegrino, 1993).
Beauchamp and Childress attempted to combine virtue with principled ethics but largely concentrated on principles; they proposed a correspondence between principles and virtues, mapping autonomy to respectfulness, nonmaleficence to nonmalevolence, and so on. Pellegrino criticized this as merely renaming action guides as subjective states (Pellegrino, 1993). Charles Bosk’s ethnographic study of surgical error found empirical support for the importance of character: surgeons regard moral errors (failures of conscientiousness) as more serious than technical or judgmental errors, because conscientious practitioners accumulate goodwill that protects them from blame (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013).
Beauchamp and Childress themselves identified five focal virtues for health professionals — compassion, discernment, trustworthiness, integrity, and conscientiousness — as supporting and promoting the fundamental orienting virtue of caring (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013). But they also warned that compassion can cloud clinical judgment and proposed that medical education inculcate “detached concern” or “compassionate detachment” alongside compassion (Tom L. Beauchamp, James F. Childress, 2013). Pellegrino and Thomasma were sharper: compassion is not merely a desirable quality but a virtue necessary to the ends of medicine, because without it only the lowest order of patient good is obtainable (Pellegrino, 1993).
Antivirtue Traditions
Virtue ethics has never lacked challengers. From Callicles through Machiavelli, Mandeville, Nietzsche, and Rand, a persistent counter-tradition has asserted self-interest or power as the true basis of morality (Pellegrino, 1993). The Nazi physician atrocities demonstrated that virtue training alone cannot guarantee moral outcomes; virtues must be coupled with principle-based ethics and self-critical examination (Pellegrino, 1993). This is not an argument against virtue but against the sufficiency of virtue alone — a point Pellegrino himself insisted upon.
The Moral Margin
Pellegrino introduced the concept of the moral margin — those situations where right and wrong are not starkly obvious and where mere compliance with rules is insufficient. The virtuous person, he argued, has internalized principle into character and is habitually disposed to pursue the good with perfection-seeking diligence, especially at the moral margin (Pellegrino, 1993). This is where virtue ethics does its most distinctive work: not in the clear cases where any competent application of principles yields the right answer, but in the gray areas where character determines whether the physician reaches for the morally better option or settles for the minimally acceptable one.
See Also
-
Phronesis
-
Compassion
-
Alasdair MacIntyre
Sources
- Pellegrino, E. D. & Thomasma, D. C. (1993). The Virtues in Medical Practice. Oxford University Press. [pellegrino-thomasma-virtues-1993] — Lead authority
- Beauchamp, T. L. & Childress, J. F. (2013). Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. Oxford University Press. [beauchamp-childress-principles-of-biomedical-2013]