Virtue Ethics

The Greek View of Ethics

As you can tell from the title of this unit, the Greek philosopher Aristotle is the primary author of the ethical theory called Virtue Ethics. Aristotle did not create this theory in a vacuum however since the fundamental concepts of his system were prevalent in ancient Greek society. It is worth considering this cultural context because Aristotle's theory of Virtue Ethics is very different in many fundamental ways from any modern ethical system. On the one hand, considering that Aristotle lived 2300 years ago, this might not seem so surprising. On the other hand, the power many other ancient Greek ideas have had in molding our modern Western worldview makes these stark differences worth looking at.

Telos and the Good Life

The core of Greek ethics, and perhaps ancient Geek life itself, was the concept of the Good Life. Consider all the sorts of things you do over the course of a normal week. You get up every morning, eat, go to work or school, watch television, talk to friends, do the laundry, etc. Why do you do these things? Are they ends in themselves (recall our discussion of means and ends from the deontology unit)? Or are these things means to an end?

Why go to work? So you can get a paycheck. Why do you desire a paycheck? So you can pay the rent. Why pay the rent? So you can have a warm safe place to sleep and store all of your stuff. Why is this important? You can see that this sort of means - ends questioning could go on for a long time. Aristotle believed that if you continued to trace the chain of means and ends you would eventually realize that the ultimate reason for your actions is the belief that they will make you happy. Money, after-all is just green paper and the material goods that money can buy are just hunks of plastic and metal. The reason you want these things is to achieve happiness.

"If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that rate the process would be empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good."

From Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (1094a 17-20)

Aristotle believed that all humans (and all living things for that matter) strive both consciously and unconsciously to attain happiness. The Greek word Eudaemonia is often translated as "happiness," but more literally means, "The Good for Man." Another way to translate the Greek work Eudaemonia is “flourishing.” The ideal plant is not just one that is alive, but one that flourishes, that maximizes all its potential. If it makes sense to talk about a plant being happy, then a flourishing plant is a happy plant in the fullest sense of the word. So, what does it mean for a human to flourish?

This notion of the Good Life is the ultimate end we seek. Thus, the Good Life describes the life human beings were intended to live, the life that will make them happy. It is important to note that the Greek concept of the Good Life is capitalized. This is intended to denote that the Greeks were not relativists on this matter. While they did not believe that the exact same life would make every person happy, they did think that all humans were basically alike in important ways and that because of this, the same sort of life defined true happiness for everyone.

Telos

Aristotle was more than an important philosopher; he was also one of the most influential scientists of all time. More or less, Aristotle's ideas about physics, chemistry, and biology defined the scope of scientific understanding in the Western world until the European Renaissance. Aristotle invented the concept of species as way to describe and differentiate types of living things. Aristotle believed that each individual species of animal or plant had one characteristic that set it apart from all others. Certainly all animals (and all living things for that matter) have lots of characteristics in common. All need water and nourishment, all need to reproduce, and so forth. The specific traits and abilities that living things possess are defined by the role or function that living things plays in the ecosystem. Predators have sharp teeth so they can bite and kill their prey. Birds have wings so they can fly. Flowers have bright colors and sweet smells so they can attract insects. This concept is called Teleology.

A thing's Telos, then, describes its proper function or purpose. A cheetah is a top predator among many fast running prey species. Accordingly, a cheetah exhibits the ability to run very fast, the agility to chase its prey, and the strength to kill the prey. Each of these abilities are aspects of the cheetah’s Telos. A horse exhibits stamina, running speed, ability to carry a rider, and so forth in accordance with its Telos as a beast of burden and means of human transportation. I use this horse example to point out that Aristotle's notion of Telos was very anthropomorphic (human centered). This is one reason why Christianity adopted Aristotelian philosophy so readily.

This Teleological understanding of nature lets us make value judgments about the quality of individual animals. For instance, a slow running cheetah is clearly defective since this individual animal does not live up to its Telos. A horse that is too weak to carry a rider is similarly defective. A thing’s Telos, then, is an objective state. For another example it is instructive to note that the concept of Telos applies to inanimate object too. The Telos of a knife, for instance, is to cut. Thus, a Good knife will exhibit traits that allow it to excel at this Telos, it will have a strong, sharp blade, a handle that makes it easy to hold and manipulate, and so forth. A knife that doesn't live up to its Telos is a poor example of a knife. A knife that does live up to its intended function is an excellent knife.

Human Telos

So, what trait or characteristic sets the human species apart from other animals? Aristotle identified human Telos quite clearly in his famous quote,

"Man is the rational animal."

The ability to reason is what defines the human species. This does not mean, necessarily, that no other animals can reason at all (clearly they can to some degree), but that reasoning is what makes a human a human. Similarly, identifying reason as the defining characteristic does not mean that it is the only important human characteristic. But, just as fast running was the quality that defines a cheetah, reason defines the human species. Following from the discussion about Telos, it is probably clear that Aristotle thinks that a person's quality can be measured by how well he exercises his ability to reason. Just as a sharp knife is an excellent knife, a reasonable person is an excellent person.

Ethics of Doing

Before we move on to a more thorough consideration of Aristotle's concept of Telos as it applies specifically to ethics and the search for the Good Life, it is worth taking a moment to differentiate between the sort of ethical theory that Aristotle proposed and the theories we've looked at already. Utilitarianism and Deontology can be classified as Ethics of Doing. That is, each is concerned with specific actions or inactions when determining ethical behavior. For a utilitarian, morality is defined by actions, beliefs, and behaviors that produce the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. A deontologist is first concerned with never doing things that break the Categorical Imperative and never treating a person as only a means to an end. While the deontologist is concerned with the motivations a person has, the theory is still based on hard-and-fast rules that determine proper and improper actions. Such rule-based ethical systems lead people to think about morality as, in some important ways, external behavior modification systems.

Morality can be achieved by living a life according to a set of rules or fundamental principles. This sort of rule-based system is common to most ethical theories. Consider, for another example, ethical systems based on religions. Being a moral Jew or Catholic or Christian depends to some degree on following the tenets of the 10 Commandments. Following Commandments is good, breaking them is bad.

What makes a good person?

Consider It!

Imagine a discussion on morality between a child and a parent.

"Mom, what makes a person good?"

"Well, doing the right things makes a person good. Considering the happiness of other people and how they will be affected by what you do, that makes a person good. Always doing the thing that is the best for everyone is what makes a person a good person"

Clearly this parent is a utilitarian. Note how moral goodness can be defined according to an analysis of a person's actions. With a bit of thought, I hope you can see how a parent who was a deontologist would give a similar answer to her child's question.

Any sophisticated analysis of utilitarianism, deontology, or religious based ethical systems will conclude that being a moral person depends on more than merely following rules (a person's motives, intentions, and so forth do matter). But, classifying these sorts of theories as Ethics of Doing does seem appropriate to a large degree.

An Ethics of Being

As we have seen, theories based on an Ethics of Doing model are primarily concerned with prescribing a person's external actions. You become good or bad by doing good or bad things. The Greek notion of Ethics was very different. Aristotle's concept of Virtue Ethics can be thought of as the inverse of these other theories. Instead of working from the outside in, Aristotle's theory works from the inside out. The focus, then, is not on defining and prescribing good and bad actions, but instead on the inherent goodness or badness of the person. Where the Utilitarian would say a good person is one who does the right things, Aristotle would say that good actions are those performed by good people. The focus of Aristotle's conception of ethics is on becoming a good person instead of on doing good things. Of course, Aristotle is concerned with right action, but thinks that the only way to assure that people will do good things is to make them the kind of people who do good things. According to Aristotle, memorizing fundamental principles (The Principle of Utility, The Categorical Imperative, The Ten Commandments) and robotically applying them does not make a person good. If the distinction between an Ethics of Doing and an Ethics of Being is not yet clear, don't worry too much. Hopefully the themes introduced here will make more sense after you've finished the reading. But, this is a crucial point so make sure to come back here and ask questions if you don't understand.

What Are Virtues?

The Greek conception of ethics, as exemplified by Aristotle, strives to describe the Good Life for humans and to inform people how to achieve this Good Life by perfecting their character. This idea of a person's character is probably something you have an understanding of already. One's character is the 'real them,' the sum total of their attitudes, beliefs, desires, goals, etc. Consider the difference between a person's character and their personality. One's personality might be described as the external presentation of their character. The difference is that, to some degree anyway, a person can intentionally manipulate their personality to suit the occasion. One can 'act' cooperative even when they are actually competitive. Thus, the person can mask their true character. Of course, while you can fool other people about your character (at least some of the time) by altering your personality, you can't fool yourself. Aristotle thought that the key to happiness (Eudaemonia) and the Good Life was to perfect one's character. Describing how to do this was the goal of Aristotle's ethics.
Character counts

Consider It!

Imagine a person with a poor character (they are bitter, closed-minded, and arrogant) who fools everyone into thinking that she is a good person by altering her personality and 'acting' happy, open-minded, and humble. Even if this person did all the right things to make people think that she was happy and moral, the truth is, according to Aristotle, that this person is unhappy and immoral. Because it is possible and even easy to fool others into thinking you are a 'good' person, the focus of ethics must necessarily be internal. The real reason to perfect your character is not to make other people think you are happy or moral, but to actually become happy and moral.

The Moral Virtues

So how do you go about perfecting your character? The key, according to Aristotle, was to realize that your character is comprised of many interrelated traits. Perfecting one's character is a life-long process of attending to these individual traits and in understanding how they fit together and lead to the Good Life. These traits, of course, are virtues (or at least potential virtues).

Consider It!

Recall the example of the virtuous knife. Based on the knife's Telos (proper function), we defined a set of traits that the knife must possess: a sharp blade, a strong blade, an ergonomic handle, etc. These are, in a sense, the knife's character traits (potential virtues). The knife achieves excellence (the Good Life) when these traits are perfected.

What then are the specific traits that a person must possess and excel at in order to be a virtuous person? Aristotle's list is quite long but you can get an idea of the sorts of traits by considering this short list: benevolence, compassion, courage, dependability, fairness, friendliness, honesty, loyalty, and tactfulness. In order to be a virtuous person, then, Aristotle thought that your character must exhibit each of these individual virtues. Attaining true happiness, the Good Life, is an inner struggle to perfect one's character.

While Aristotle's view of Ethics is focused inward, you should not think that he is espousing simple egoism. While perfecting your character is the key to your own happiness, it is also the key to social happiness. A virtuous person will necessarily be a good friend, a good citizen, a good mother (or father or brother or sister). Achieving The Good Life in any meaningful sense requires living among other virtuous people in a virtuous community. For Aristotle, friendship was one of the most important things in life; having good friends and being a good friend were necessary aspects of the Good Life.

Reason, the Golden Mean, and Virtue

The reason a virtuous knife must have a strong blade, a sharp blade and have a useful handle is that its Telos (proper function) is to cut. Each of the individual virtues is measured and defined by the knife's ultimate Telos. Similarly, since the Telos of a human is to reason, each of the individual human virtues is defined and measured by our ability to reason.

Aristotle described a virtue as the rational middle between two extremes -- extreme excess and an extreme deficit. Again, consider the virtuous knife. We know it must have a strong blade, but how strong? The virtue of strength is somewhere between a very weak blade and a very strong blade. Think about it, if the blade is too weak it will either break or it will become dull too fast. But if the blade is too hard it will be impossible to sharpen it at all. The virtuous blade is just hard enough -- perfectly strong. Again, realize that the state of perfection is defined by the knife's Telos. Consider, for instance, that the perfect sharpness of a butter knife is very different than that of a surgeon's scalpel -- different purposes, different perfections.

Let's consider a human virtue. Aristotle believed that courage was a virtue and that attaining this virtue was a necessary component of the perfected character. How is courage defined? The virtue of courage lies between the extreme lack of courage and the extreme excess of courage.

Cowardice <----------------------Courage---------------------->Foolhardiness

Courage is the Golden Mean between the extremes of Cowardice and Foolhardiness. The Golden Mean is not, literally, halfway between these extremes. The Golden Mean is the rational mean, that point of perfection defined by reason. One of the beauties of Virtue Ethics is that it does not depend on rigid rules or definitions. The virtue of courage can only be defined in a specific context with a specific person in mind. What is courageous for one person might be cowardly for another and foolish for a third. Being courageous requires a person to apply their reasoning abilities to their specific situation and to make hard choices. There are not absolute rules to fall back on here.

Considering Courage

Consider It!

Imagine a military camp guarded by observation posts to the North and South. Each post has a lone solider on duty watching for approaching enemies. One guard is a new recruit, fresh from basic training and the other is a seasoned veteran. Suppose each soldier spots an enemy patrol coming toward camp and must decide what to do. Each wants to be courageous and must act. According to Aristotle, each soldier must use reason to find the answer.

Each guard considers three courses of action: ambushing the enemy patrol, remaining silent in their guard post, and firing some warning shots with their rifle to alert the camp. The new recruit realizes that he is simply not skilled or confident enough to attack the enemy on his own -- most likely it would be suicidal; such an act would mark him as stupid instead of courageous. He also realizes that hiding would be cowardly. He knows that firing his rifle will warn his camp and also allow the enemy to locate and possibly kill him; but with the protection of the guard-shack he might be able to hold the enemy off until help arrives. So, he fires some warning shots.

The hardened veteran, being courageous, sneaks out of the guard-shack and ambushes the enemy herself. Her honed skills and confidence giving her the edge necessary to single-handedly kill all 5 members of the enemy patrol.

Both guards should be praised for their courage. Both found the Golden Mean by applying reason to their particular context.

Virtue and the Golden Mean

This process of applying reason to find the virtuous Golden Mean can be applied to each of the individual human virtues. Consider honesty for instance. The virtue of honesty must be the rational middle between an extreme deficit and an extreme excess. While it is not always easy to find a name to describe these extremes, it is generally pretty easy to characterize them. The extreme deficit of honesty would be a person who lies all the time and the extreme excess of honesty would be the person who always tells the truth. The rational middle depends on context. It is probably easy to see why lying all the time is a vice, but is telling the truth too much also a vice?

Consider the Axe Murdered example from Kant. Clearly, Aristotle would argue that this scenario is an example where a rational person would realize that telling the truth was not a virtue. The situation demands that the axe murderer be lied to. Similarly, there might be times when lying to protect a friend’s feelings is rationally appropriate (not as a general rule of course, but depending on the situation). There are lots of other cases where it is not rationally appropriate to tell the whole truth. People often need to protect loyalties by keeping secrets (prisoners of war must withhold truths even through torture, virtuous workers should protect trade secrets from their competition). Aristotle also felt that the honest person would often refrain from truth telling to remain humble; someone who continually espouses all of his or her accomplishments, even if true, is not a virtuous person. Only by carefully applying one's reasoning ability can one determine where the virtue of honesty lies in each context.

Role models, Friends, and Impartiality

Clearly, According to Aristotle, we can't rely on general principles or lists of rules to define virtues. Applying reason to find the Golden Mean provides some guidance but how does one know what the 'reasonable' thing to do in a given situation is? Virtue ethics relies in a considerable way on role models. How do we know what a virtue looks like in practice? By finding a person who exemplifies that particular virtue and watching them in action. A virtuous person acts virtuously.

When striving to become virtuous, having good examples handy is essential. The point, of course, is not to model your actions on theirs identically, but instead to model the spirit of their actions. To return to the military example we used earlier, the new recruit learns to be courageous by having lots of courageous leaders and trainers around. The new recruit is not expected to act identically to these seasoned role models since he doesn't have their skills or experience, but by seeing courage in action, he can come to exemplify this virtue in his own contexts. Because the recruit respects the courage of his leaders, he is motivated to practice and exhibit courage. Humans naturally seek to acquire and display the behaviors and attitudes of people they respect and to avoid displaying behaviors and attitudes of people they don't respect. Good leaders will praise the recruit when he exemplifies the virtue of courage and correct him when he exemplifies cowardice or foolhardiness. Slowly, over time and with practice, the virtue of courage will become a part of the recruit's character.

Virtue and Habit

Aristotle thought of virtues as acquired skills. Consider a piano player. Becoming a good piano player takes years of practice. Initially, a person pecks the keys like a robot, rigidly reading music and consciously moving each finger. Later the person is able to play a few songs wired-in by memorization. At some much later point, the person actually becomes a piano player; the skills becoming part of the person's nature. Or think about learning to ride a bike or to ski. Once you've really become a bike rider or a skier, these skills are part of who you are.

An example that makes sense to many people is learning to drive a car. The actual skills necessary to drive a car are quite simple -- turning the steering wheel, pressing the brake, accelerator, and clutch, moving the gearshift. Most 15-year-old kids can manage these operations after a few hours of practice. Becoming a good driver, however, takes much longer. Where an inexperienced driver must think through each gearshift, the expert does it automatically. While an experienced driver can easily judge how soon she needs to begin slowing down to round a tight corner and how fast the corner can be driven, the novice often goes much too slow or too fast. It is not surprising then that driving accidents are so common among teenagers. Most teenagers are not suicidal, they don’t intend to crash, but even though they have better eyesight and reflexes than older drivers, they lack experience.

Virtues, then, must become habits, integral parts of a person's character in order for the person to achieve Eudaemonia and live the Good Life. A virtuous character is something constructed over a lifetime. One courageous act does not make someone courageous.

Education and Training

Habits, as we all know come in two varieties, good and bad. As great as it is to acquire good habits, it is even worst to learn bad ones. Habits are hard to break and it is much harder to unlearn a bad habit than it is to learn it right the first time. Consider the person who learned bad typing habits and who then tries to learn how to type correctly. The best time to teach good habits is before bad habits have had a chance to accumulate, when people are young. Aristotle thought that it was imperative to teach virtues to children. Similarly, Aristotle thought that extended virtue training for adults was one of the most important roles of government.

Virtue and Happiness

At this point, having spent some time investigating Aristotle's conception of Virtue Ethics, you are in a position to make an initial evaluation. According to Aristotle, the end all humans seek is happiness. Aristotle sees the job of Ethics as figuring out what happiness is and how a person can achieve it. In this sense, Ethics is the most important thing a person can study. Using his understanding of the natural world, Aristotle reasons that human happiness must be tied to whatever purpose a person is intended for. Since the one thing that sets humans apart from other forms of life is our ability to reason, Aristotle concludes that reasoning is our Telos, what we were designed to do.

Achieving happiness, then, means becoming perfectly reasonable. This does not mean that everyone should try to emulate Mr. Spock or Data from Star Trek. Being perfectly rational means that one will apply reason to the myriad of traits that make a person a good person. Being happy means living your life according to the Golden Mean, being exactly courageous enough, compassionate enough, honest enough, and so forth. The Good Life is the life of a person who has integrated all the individual virtues into their character so that their first inclination is to do the right thing.
An Editorial: Diversity Culture vs. Zero Tolerance Culture

Aristotle argued that every virtue could be described as the rational mean between an extreme deficit and an extreme excess. This idea of the Golden Mean is central to Aristotle's Virtue Ethics and consequently to his conception of the Good Life for humanity. Aristotle thought that humans were defined by their ability to reason. By saying, "man is the rational animal," Aristotle articulated one of most widely accepted ideas in the Western World. Our ability to reason is what makes us human because it is what enables us to do all of the things that no other species can: art, science, philosophy, religion, etc.

Aristotle believed that the Good Life, the life humans were intended to live, was the life of reason. Aristotle was not calling for a robotic life of cold calculation and logic however. Instead, he saw the Good Life as applying reason at the practical level to perfect all of the activities that make life worth living for people.

Virtues, then, are characteristics that make a human being a good human being and, thus, those that make for a fulfilling human existence. Virtues lie somewhere between an extreme deficit and an extreme excess. It is important to note that the virtue is not the literal middle point between these extremes, nor is it a balanced mix of the vices on either side. To locate the virtue, we must apply our reasoning abilities.

Vice of Deficit <---------- Virtue ----------> Vice of Excess

Thus, our reason can allow us to locate this Golden Mean. I say "can" allow because, while humans have the innate ability to reason, we are not rational by nature. Aristotle believed that virtues were defined necessarily as habits, which could be acquired only by practice. So, while finding the Golden Mean may be what we are intended to do, it happens only with considerable and ongoing effort. Imagine a virtue as the summit of a steep ridge with the extreme deficit and the extreme excess being the valley floors on either side. Only the persistent climber, strong and dedicated, will reach the summit. Those unwilling or unable to put their reasoning abilities to work will end up exercising one of the bounding vices instead of the virtue. Where consistently exercising virtue is hard work, exercising vice is relatively easy.

Philosophers, as we’ve seen, often use thought experiments to illustrate their theories. Immanuel Kant, you’ll recall, used the case of the Inquiring Axe Murderer to demonstrate the importance of following absolute moral rules even when doing so leads to terrible consequences. Similarly, Jeremy Bentham contrasted the pleasure of drinking a bottle of gin with that of attending the opera to make his point about the relativistic nature of happiness. While it is certainly possible to use thought experiments to describe Aristotle’s theory of Virtue Ethics, it is especially enlightening to rely on real life examples. Analyzing the virtue of tolerance in the context of contemporary American culture is a great way for us to better understand Aristotle’s concept of a virtue as a rational mean between extremes. And, as we’ll see, if Aristotle is correct, this analysis will force us to recognize that we are not living up to the rigors of this virtue.

To begin the analysis of the virtue of tolerance, I will offer descriptions of the extreme excess and the extreme deficit of this virtue.

“What is so great about diversity?” Asking this question in public, or especially at a corporate board meeting or college faculty gathering will get you in real trouble. Diversity, multiculturalism, and tolerance are virtues well entrenched in our contemporary culture. Practicing these virtues requires the characteristic of uncritical amiability; accepting every person, idea, behavior, attitude, and argument as equally good. Someone arrogant enough to pronounce something as ‘better than’ something else is seen as a bigot, anthropocentrist, imperialist, chauvinist, elitist, or the like. Thus, according to the dictates of Diversity Culture, people should be completely open-minded and realize that all viewpoints deserve equal respect. Discrimination is the antithesis of diversity and is consequently a vice. Note that the grounds for such discrimination are irrelevant in this context; it is simply unethical to make quality distinctions of any kind.

The consequences of Diversity Culture are widespread. Since adherents must tolerate (and even respect) all ideas and behaviors, they can’t legitimately criticize such cultural practices as female genital mutilation. Or consider this anecdote related to me by a middle school teacher. The female teacher challenged a group of students who consistently made verbal comments toward her in Spanish as she passed them in the hall. Since the teacher did not speak Spanish, she didn’t know what the students were saying, but their tone made her suspect something disrespectful or vulgar. The teacher’s suspicions proved correct and the matter was taken to the principle and then to the district superintendent. The teacher was astonished when the decision was made not to discipline the students for their vulgar commentary since such heckling was deemed an accepted practice in the students’ Hispanic culture. Whether such commentary is or isn’t an accepted practice in some specific cultures is not the point, though it is worth considering how “culture” is defined or who, within that culture, decides what sort of practices are accepted.

In the immediate aftermath of the September 11th attacks, President Bush declared to the nations of the world that, "you're either with us or with the terrorists," in doing so he exemplified Zero Tolerance Culture. Defining the world in terms of absolutes is a cultural theme that mirrors the tenets of Diversity Culture. Instead of uncritical amiability there is a hypercritical myopia where all ideas except one's own are wrong. Ideas, behaviors, attitudes, and arguments are either "right or wrong," "good or bad," or otherwise subject to clear, diatomic categorization. Zero Tolerance Culture rejects the "shades of gray" analysis in favor of a "black or white" outlook on the world.

Examples are easy to find. As a way to reduce crime, Zero Tolerance Culture led to the institution of strict sentencing guidelines, mandatory minimum prison terms, and policies such as the Three Strikes Law. Consequently, judges often have little if any discretion when sentencing convicted criminals. For instance, anyone caught with X amount of an illegal drug is considered a drug trafficker and all drug traffickers serve a minimum of 30 years in prison. Or, any third felony conviction sends a person to prison for life without the possibility of parole, even when that third felony is stealing a pizza. Another prime example of Zero Tolerance Culture can be seen in the move to ban weapons and drugs from public schools. Since any student caught bringing any drug or weapon to school is subject to a mandatory suspension, students are suspended when cough drops or fingernail clippers are found in their backpacks.

Of course, Zero Tolerance Culture is also well represented in more blatant ways by racist groups who don't realize that the "black or white" way of viewing the world is a metaphor and, instead, takes it to its absurd literal conclusion. Similarly many religious sects divide all people into two groups, the True Believers and the Damned.

Having outlined these characterizations of Diversity Culture and Zero Tolerance Culture as extremes of excess and deficit bounding the Virtue of Tolerance, we can return to Aristotle's idea of virtue as the reasoned mean between these poles.

Zero Tolerance Culture <------------- Tolerance -------------> Diversity Culture

According to Aristotle, both extremes exemplify a lack of reason. Proponents of either Zero Tolerance Culture or Diversity Culture are taking the easy way out by adopting a worldview that requires no thinking at all. It is exceedingly easy to follow the dogmatic dictates of either camp. While thinking about things in terms of diametrically opposed absolutes can lead to absurdity, it is much easier than doing all the mental work required reason through each thing on a case-by-case basis.

This point has become abundantly clear as we try to implement what has become known as the Bush Doctrine --All terrorists are evil and anyone who supports or harboring terrorists is to be considered a terrorists too. Such plainspoken White Hat - Black Hat rhetoric may be what we Americans want to hear, but the complexities of the real world make implementing such a policy exceedingly difficult. On one level we have the problem of defining "terrorist," a term which so obviously depends on context (the Zero Tolerance devote can try to solve this by proclaiming that "anyone working to oppose American interests is a terrorist," but such moves merely obscure the problem instead of solving it). The Bush Doctrine is problematic in a more practical way as well. By most definitions, Palestinian suicide bombers who kill Israeli civilians are terrorists and the Palestinian leaders, by condoning or promoting these terrorists are also terrorists. Clearly, however, we need to be able to treat the elected leaders of Palestine as diplomats and terrorists if we are to help broker peace in the Middle East. Similarly, it is clear that the royal family ruling Saudi Arabia condones and supports militant Islamic groups who are involved in terrorism. According to the Bush Doctrine, the leaders of Saudi Arabia must be branded as terrorists as well. But since we need the support of these leaders (their oil, access to their lands for our military bases, etc), we don't really want to call them terrorists.

It is equally clear how taking Diversity Culture seriously in the extreme is an easy way out requiring no reason or real thinking at all. Saying that every person deserves equal treatment (not a guarantee of minimally decent treatment, but completely equal treatment), or that every idea is equally valid, or that every attitude or practice is equally good, requires no thought at all. Making quality distinctions between things and arguing for these distinctions is, on the other hand, very difficult. Isn't it more likely that a few ideas are great, some are mediocre, and some are lousy? Aren't there some really great people who deserve to be treated extremely well and also some really lousy people who don't deserve to be treated as well? In each case, figuring out which are which is the hard part.

The virtue of tolerance, according to Aristotle, is the reasoned mean between the extremes we've been considering. The person exhibiting excellence in this virtue knows just how open their mind should be, they know what to accept and what to reject, what to praise and what to blame. The tolerant person strikes the perfect balance between being arrogant and humble, knowing when to stand by their principles and also knowing when their principles need to be changed. The tolerant person realizes that there is nothing inherently wrong with discrimination, but also realizes that the reasons for discrimination must be relevant to the situation (discrimination against blind fighter pilots is acceptable since vision is a relevant criteria for being a good pilot. Discrimination against female fighter pilots, on the other hand, is not acceptable since gender is not a relevant criterion for being a good pilot).

The person who exhibits the virtue of tolerance relies on her ability to reason to make all of these tough choices. Reason serves as the basis of the decision when it is originally made and also dictates the rules used when someone wants to challenge this decision. Maybe someone will want to argue that gender is a criterion relevant to being a good fighter pilot, or maybe someone will want to argue that vision is not relevant. In either case, the virtuous person will assess these arguments, evaluate them on their merits, and then decide whether or not the change their stance.