A-LEVEL PHILOSOPHY · AQA 7172 · PAPER 1Harlington School · Philosophy · Moral Philosophy

Aristotelian virtue ethics

Not 'what should I do?' but 'what should I be?'. Part one: character. Part two: judgement. Both for one goal: a life that goes well.

The
big
question

Is living well a matter of character rather than rules — and can 'what the virtuous person would do' guide action?

How it is examined: five questions — 3 · 5 · 5 · 12 · 25 marks. The Year 12 December test is Q01–Q04; the 25-mark essay is the Year 13 stretch. This unit's ladder ↓
02

The virtue-ethics line

The unit's positions, lined up. Tap a position to see what it claims and where it is strong or weak. If you can order them, you understand them.

The good LIFE · what a human is forThe good ACT · what to do right now

Tap a circle — or use Tab and Enter — to explore each position.

The thread that ties it together

Moral philosophy runs on one question in three sizes: what makes an act right, what to do in this case, and what 'right' means. Aristotle answers the first with a kind of life rather than a rule.

◀ Refer back · Kantian ethics
Is an act right because of the will behind it, whatever happens next?

Kant's two fathers: the one who did his duty AGAINST his feelings got the credit. Aristotle flips it: the good person feels rightly, no struggle.

Retrieve: Write Kant's verdict on the loving father in one sentence. Underline the one word Aristotle would change.
The big idea

Going from left to right, the theory moves from the shape of a whole life down to the choice in front of you. The objections gather at the right-hand end — exactly where Kant and Mill were strongest. In the essay, you decide whether a theory about LIVES can be a theory about ACTS.

Look ahead · Meta-ethics ▶
Are moral judgements true or false at all?

Three theories have said what is good. Meta-ethics asks what you MEAN by it — is 'the tyrant is not flourishing' a fact about people, or a preference?

Prime: Write down whether you think 'the tyrant is not flourishing' is TRUE, or just your view. Next lesson asks what the difference is.
01

The lessons in this unit

5 lessons, taught in this order. The first is the map of the whole unit — this page mirrors it — and each lesson after it takes one part deeper. Timetabled for Track B · Autumn 2 – Spring 1 · weeks 14–19. See the whole year plan ↗

Lesson 1 · week 14

The map: is the right act what the virtuous person would do?

Eudaimonia, the virtues, practical wisdom, the issues.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 2 · week 14–15

Eudaimonia and the function argument

The final end; the function argument; external goods.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 3 · week 16

Virtue, habituation and the mean

Dispositions; habituation; the doctrine of the mean; acts with no mean.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 4 · week 17–18

Voluntary action and practical wisdom

Voluntary, involuntary, non-voluntary; choice; phronesis.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
Lesson 5 · week 19

The issues; applied

Guidance, clashing virtues, circularity, the good for me; the four applied issues; the ladder.

Lesson deck ↗ Booklet ↗ Podcast ♪
03

Four parts of the theory, side by side

Why ask about the person, not the act? But he denies that the ACT is the place to start. Judge the act on its own and you miss the person: the hero who does the brave thing and hates every second, the captain who throws the cargo away and says 'I was forced'. For Aristotle the first question is not 'what should I do?' but 'what kind of person should I be?' So the theory has two parts. Part one is CHARACTER: a virtue is a settled way of feeling and acting, built by practice, that hits the mean. Part two is JUDGEMENT: only acts that start in you show your character, and it takes practical wisdom to see what each situation needs. Both serve one goal: a life that goes well.

Part one

Character: virtue and the mean

A virtue is a settled way of feeling and acting, built by practice, that hits the mean — the right amount, not the middle amount.
1A virtue is a settled way of acting and feeling. The kind person is reliably kind. One kind act does not make you kind.
2You get a virtue by practice: we become fair by doing fair things, as we become builders by building. Early training matters most.
3Each virtue is a mean: between too much and too little, relative to you, as the wise person would judge. Courage sits between rashness and cowardice.
4Feelings are part of it. The brave person feels the right amount of fear. The hero who fights his fear has self-control — not yet courage.
Strength It fits how people really become good — by upbringing and practice, not by learning a formula. And it gives feelings their due: the good person ENJOYS doing good, and does not have to fight herself.
Weakness Practice looks circular: how do you do fair acts before you are fair? And the mean is no help where there is no scale (theft) and vague where there is one: how much anger is exactly right?
Part two

Judgement: voluntary acts and wisdom

Only acts that start in you earn praise or blame; choice needs thinking; practical wisdom finds the mean in each case.
1Voluntary: the act starts in you and you know the facts. Involuntary: forced, or done in ignorance and regretted. Non-voluntary: in ignorance, no regret — that shows you.
2Mixed acts (the captain) are still voluntary: he chose, here and now. Acting from anger or desire is voluntary too — those wants are yours.
3Choice means thinking it through: the goal is set by your character, the way to get there by reasoning. Wish, then think, then choose, then act.
4Practical wisdom sees what the situation needs. Without it, good character is blind. Without good character, it is only cleverness.
Strength It is realistic about blame — the forced, the drunk, the ignorant, the sorry. And it explains why good people need no rulebook: they look at the situation and SEE what it needs.
Weakness If only the wise can find the mean, the theory guides only those who already know. 'The wise person would see' tells the rest of us nothing we can act on.
The goal

Flourishing and the function argument

The goal of a life is to go well — and for a human that means living by reason, well, with a good character. Both parts serve this.
1Flourishing is the final goal: wanted for itself, and complete — nothing added makes it better. Pleasure, money and fame each fail one test.
2The function argument: a flute-player is good by playing well. If humans have a job, a good human does it well. Our job is to live by reason.
3So the human good is living by reason, well, over a whole life. One swallow does not make a summer.
4It needs outside goods too — friends, health, some luck. A good person on the rack is not flourishing: Plato was wrong about that.
Strength It explains why the contented consumer and the tyrant are not living well though each has what he wants. And it gives morality a point — a life going well — rather than a bare rule.
Weakness Do humans have a function at all, or only tools and organs? Even if reason is what makes us different, why is what is DIFFERENT what is GOOD? And 'flourishing' may be one culture's picture of a good life.
The challenge

The issues: can it guide you?

Can the theory tell you what to DO — or does it only describe the person who would know?
1Guidance: 'do what the good person would do' is either empty (who is that?) or needs rules after all. Hursthouse: the v-rules — be honest, be kind — are rules enough.
2Clashing virtues: honesty and kindness pull apart at the bedside. Aristotle: the wise person sees which is needed — but that names the problem, not the answer.
3The circle: a right act is what the good person does; a good person does right acts. Reply: flourishing breaks the circle — if it can be defined on its own.
4My good or the moral good? Flourishing is MY life going well. Why must it include fairness to others? Aristotle: we are social — justice is part of living well.
Strength Each issue is a real gap. The theory is thin exactly where the other two are thick: telling you what to do when it matters. And 'we are social' does not by itself answer the selfishness worry.
Weakness The replies have force too. Rules never settled hard cases either. The circle breaks if flourishing can be described on its own. And asking 'why should justice help ME?' may be the wrong question — a good person does not ask it.
04

Six lives — which is going well?

Every position in this unit is tested on cases. Read each one, decide what you would say, then tap for the question the examiners would ask.

05

Talk it through — four moves

Say it before you write it. Four moves, with the sentence stems the examiners are listening for in your essay — connect, challenge, weigh, reason from cases.

Connect
“This connects to … because …”
“That is the same move as … made in …”
This unit · Put the reluctant hero next to Kant's two fathers. Kant gives the credit to the one who fights his feelings. Aristotle says the fully good person does not fight. Who is right about the hero?
Challenge
“The weakest step is … because …”
“That only follows if … — and it might not.”
This unit · Take the function argument. Find the step where 'humans live by reason' turns into 'the good life is living by reason WELL'. What would have to be true for that step to hold?
Weigh
“Even granting …, … — so on balance …”
“The cost of that reply is …”
This unit · Say the theory cannot give a rule for the kind lie. Now say what it gives instead. Is that a failure to guide — or a refusal to give a fake kind of guidance?
Reason from cases
“In case A …; in B …; so in general …”
“The case that breaks the pattern is …”
This unit · Run the six lives. Which are going well? Say the rule you used. Then find the life your rule gets wrong.
Protocol Pairs 2 min → fours 3 min → two speakers to the front. Roles: Proposer · Challenger · Judge · Reporter. Rule: every reply begins by restating what you heard. · 8 min
06

The exam ladder — this unit's mock

Five rungs, one per question type. Open a rung for the shape a full answer takes and this unit's plan, then write. Everyone climbs Q01–Q04; Q05 is the stretch.

Q013 marks · Define
What is meant by 'eudaimonia'?SHAPE One precise sentence a philosopher would accept
The shape of a full answer
  1. One precise sentence
  2. A contrast or example if it earns clarity
  3. No evaluation, no history — stop
Your plan — this unit
  1. Flourishing / living well
  2. The final end sought for its own sake
  3. Not a feeling but an activity over a life.
Write it — about 2 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q025 marks · Outline
Outline Aristotle's doctrine of the mean.SHAPE Every part the specification names, in order
The shape of a full answer
  1. State the view or distinction in full
  2. Use the technical vocabulary exactly
  3. Order it: claim → the parts → what follows
Your plan — this unit
  1. Virtue between excess and deficiency
  2. Relative to us
  3. Determined by reason / the practically wise
  4. One example with both vices
  5. Not moderation.
Write it — about 4 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q035 marks · Explain
Explain Aristotle's function argument.SHAPE Set-up → premises → conclusion
The shape of a full answer
  1. Set-up: name the target — which view, which claim
  2. Premises: state them in order, numbered
  3. Conclusion: show it follows, and what it costs
Your plan — this unit
  1. Goodness relative to function
  2. The human function is rational activity
  3. A good human performs it well
  4. So the human good is virtuous rational activity.
Write it — about 5 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0412 marks · Explain
Explain the issue that virtue ethics cannot give clear guidance about how to act, and one response to it.SHAPE Two linked explanations, both full
The shape of a full answer
  1. Part A: the view or argument, in full
  2. Part B: the issue or reply, with its own premises and conclusion
  3. The link: one sentence on what B does to A
  4. Mostly AO1 — explain, do not judge; the verdict waits for the essay
Your plan — this unit
  1. 'What the virtuous person would do' — empty or needs rules
  2. Clashing virtues as the sharpest case
  3. Hursthouse's v-rules and practical wisdom as the reply
  4. What the reply concedes.
Write it — about 8 lines
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Q0525 marks · Evaluate
Is Aristotelian virtue ethics the correct account of what makes an action right?SHAPE A sustained argument to a judgement
The shape of a full answer
  1. Introduction: define the term, state your thesis, name the positions you will test
  2. Each paragraph: state the argument · test it with the strongest objection · reply · WEIGH
  3. One shared case, run through every position
  4. Judgement: what survives, and what the losing views cannot explain
Your plan — this unit
  1. Thesis
  2. The theory stated
  3. The function argument tested
  4. Guidance tested on one case against Kant and utilitarianism
  5. Judgement that names what a theory of character can and cannot do.
Write it — about 10 lines to plan, then the essay in your book
0 words · nothing here is saved — copy it into your book
Beyond the ladder: Apply virtue ethics to all four AQA issues. Find the one where 'what the virtuous person would do' gives no answer. Say whether that is the theory's failure or the question's.
07

Your resources

Everything for the unit, in one place. The lesson, the booklet and the podcast belong to this unit; the Moral Philosophy Companion runs across the whole series.

Teacher setup: links aren't set yet. Open this file, find the LINKS list near the bottom, and paste each SharePoint share link once. Buttons with no link show as "Link not set".
✓Revise & mock — per lesson: the episode, three games, and every past-paper question with the shape of a full answer↗🎮The Arena — six games on the words, positions, arguments and verdicts of this unit: Bronze, Silver, Gold; objective and evaluative tracks↗✓Your Companion — tick what you understand, see what you have done in the Arena, place yourself and choose your next move; print it for your teacher↗▲Intervention — E–D to C, C to B, B to A*: the four moves for your tier, with drills, model answers at every level and Coach Owl↗ ▣Lesson deck — the slides, with the four positions, the cases and the ladder↗ ✎Completion booklet — greyscale, mirrors the lesson — fill it as you go↗ ♪Lesson podcast — a teacher and a student argue the unit through to a judgement↗ ≡Podcast transcript — read along, or read instead↗ 🦉Moral Philosophy Companion — checklist, key words, review workbook and the Q01–Q05 planner↗ ♪Overview podcast — the whole series as one argument (team teach)↗ ◎NotebookLM pack — make your own podcast from the unit's sources↗ ▤Printable flashcards — fold-over cards to cut out↗ ▶Revision playlist — the YouTube playlist for the course↗
08

How to revise this unit

Use the resources in this order. The Moral Philosophy Companion is where you learn to plan all five question types.

Listen to the podcast, then read the transcript

A teacher and a student argue every position through to a judgement. Pause at each position and say what it claims before they do.

Complete the booklet

Given text on the left, your words on the right. Decide the strength and the weakness YOU would give each position.

Flip the flashcards until every term is one sentence

Key terms first, then the positions. A term you cannot define in one sentence is a Q01 you cannot yet answer.

Climb the ladder: Q01 to Q04 from a plan

Precision questions. Open each rung, plan from the shape, write, then check every part the specification names is there.

Plan Q05 with one shared case

In the Companion: Part 4, the Q05 planning frame. Plan 'Is virtue ethics the correct account of what makes an action right?' — thesis, one case through all three theories, judgement.

Q01–Q04 · 3, 5, 5 and 12 marks · precision
Q01 Define — one precise sentence a philosopher would accept. No evaluation, no history.
Q02 Outline — every part the specification names, in order, in the technical vocabulary.
Q03 Explain — set-up, premises in order, conclusion — and what it costs the target.
Q04 Explain … and … — two full explanations and the one sentence that links them. Still AO1: explain, do not judge.
Q05 · 25 marks · AO2 is 20 of them
What it is — a sustained argument to a judgement. Every paragraph states an argument, tests it, replies, and WEIGHS.
Aim — AO1 is saying each part of the theory clearly, with the three boxes. AO2 is running ONE case through it and the rivals, and reaching a judgement. Never just say 'so it is right' — show why.
09

Watch

Aristotle's ethical theory — watch for eudaimonia, virtue and the mean in one video — Philosophy Vibe, 13:29

▶Aristotle's ethical theory · 13 min
Watch for: eudaimonia, virtue and the mean in one video — Philosophy Vibe, 13:29↗▶Aristotle and virtue theory · 9 min
Watch for: virtue theory in ten minutes — CrashCourse, 9:22↗▶The course playlist (AQA)
Watch for: the whole course, episode by episode; use it when a lesson's own videos are not enough.↗
10

Flashcards — test yourself

Flip a card to check yourself. Switch between key terms (term → meaning) and positions (position → claim, strength & weakness).

Tap any card to flip ·
11

Exit ticket

Three things to recall, one to argue. Answer them in your book before you leave the unit.

Recall

  1. Say the function argument in three steps.
  2. Say the difference between an involuntary act and a non-voluntary act.
  3. Give one strength AND one weakness of the doctrine of the mean.

Challenge

Argue: Which theory — Mill's, Kant's or Aristotle's — would you defend in a 25-mark answer, and which ONE case would you use to test all three?

AO1 vs AO2 AO1 is saying each part of the theory clearly, with the three boxes. AO2 is running ONE case through it and the rivals, and reaching a judgement. Never just say 'so it is right' — show why.