Virtue Ethics And Deontology

It is not uncommon to find two philosophical ideas treated as if one must displace the other when both fit together conceptually with perfect ease.  Virtue ethics and deontological ethics are often described alongside each other as alternative ethical systems (alongside utilitarianism), yet the former is merely a subset of the latter. To hold them up as having anything other than this relationship misrepresents virtue ethics, mistaking it for something other than what it is.

Virtue ethics emphasizes internalized attitudes and habits which build up character over time, making one generally virtuous.  An example is the development of a firm orientation towards honesty so that, when confronted with an opportunity to lie for gain, one does not practice deception.  Deontological ethics emphasizes the rigid, universal nature of moral obligations--for instance, if stealing is itself wrong, no circumstance or desire can alter this fact.  Deontology is the ideological opponent of utilitarianism, which holds that the results of an action determine its morality.  It is logically obvious that a thing, if wrong, is wrong because of its nature, not because of its outcome.  If kidnapping is wrong, then it is simply wrong because of what it is.

As a cursory examination of both reveals, virtue ethics is nothing but an application of deontological ethics into the realm of one's habits.  Virtue ethics can only be sound if moral truths are inflexible and constant, rendering virtue ethics nothing but applied deontology.  Virtue ethics requires moral absolutism.  Moral absolutism, as explained above, is the heart of deontology.  Thus, there is nothing contradictory about these two general concepts.  If moral truths exist, they do not hinge on consequences, and we should therefore do what is right not only in our outward deeds, but also in our minds.

Just like some people pretend like rationalism and empiricism (experience-based empiricism, not sense-based empiricism) are exclusive, so, too, do some pretend like virtue ethics and deontology are exclusive.  It takes only a few seconds of contemplation to see that nothing about cultivating positive moral habits conflicts with admitting that the rightness or wrongness of an act (or attitude) depends on the nature of the act, not on its results.

It is only ignorance that preserves the notion that virtue ethics and deontology displace each other.  Logic itself makes this clear, with reason dispelling the myth in full.  Anyone who seriously contrasts virtue ethics with deontological ethics as if they are two entirely separate things has an incomplete grasp of both.  Rightly understood, the key elements of both interlock--but knowing what things actually are right and wrong requires knowledge beyond what the two frameworks alone can provide.