Authored by: Brandon Archuleta.

When thinking about the best way to live our lives it is tempting to focus on what actions we need to do. Indeed, the actions that we actually take are the ultimate criteria for determining whether we are an ethical person. However, there is far more to morality than simple judgments of our actions. The theory of virtue ethics shifts the focus of ethical deliberation from actions to the character, motivations, and influences that lead us to act. Virtue ethics is the ethical theory that emphasizes the understanding of these concepts and thus this theory can provide us with practical guidance for living an ethical life. After a preliminary discussion on a few key virtue ethical concepts, this paper will use the professional dilemma known as whistle blowing to illustrate the applicability of virtue ethics and to show why this theory gives us the best guidance in our quest for understanding how to lead a good life. By portraying a hypothetical situation in which a true moral dilemma is present, while simultaneously exploring the nature of the virtue ethical approach, we will be able to see the practicality of the theory. This will provide us with a reasoned view of why the virtue ethical approach to morality is best.

Before we can gain an understanding of the practical application of virtue ethics by examining the theory within a whistle blowing situation, we must first explore a few concepts related to virtue. Rosalind Hursthouse provides a very basic structure for understanding how a virtue ethical approach to moral decision-making works. The first premise of this approach is that an action is right if it is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances. A virtuous agent is a person who has and exercises the virtues. In turn, a virtue is a character trait that is essential for a human being to flourish or live well, and the important point here is to recognize that the concept of right action cannot be explained without reference to the character of the agent who performs it. Also, Hursthouse is endorsing the Aristotelian contention that human flourishing is the ultimate end of our actions. According to Aristotle the nature and scope of character is directly related to living a flourishing life, so we will now turn our attention to an examination of character and character traits.

Robert Audi gives an exceptional account of character and the traits of which it is composed. Audi defines moral character specifically as a set of interconnected traits, which we can imagine as being analogous to a web where we cannot adjust one strand in the web without altering others. These traits are deeply held dispositions to act in a certain way. Importantly, a trait is not an inclination to act a certain way at one particular time; character traits exist within us over time. Even more importantly, these traits are changeable, and in my view, can even be overridden in the moment by the agent. However, the agent must have a motivation to override the vicious character trait. What this means is that a more deeply held conviction must exist, something even more essential to the personal identity of the agent. Later we will explore ways in which to shape our character into a more virtuous one, but now we must look at the virtue ethical concept of a regulative ideal to better understand the relation between character and action.

Justin Oakley and Dean Cocking introduce the concept of a regulative ideal in their book Virtue Ethics and Professional Roles. They define a regulative ideal as an internalized conception of correctness or excellence. Since the ultimate goal of all our actions is to flourish, then our regulative ideal is the internal standard that we believe will lead us to flourish. According to Oakley and Cocking, we have both a broad regulative ideal guiding our actions in a very general sense, and more specific regulative ideals that guide us in more precise areas of life. For example, a lawyer who has identified the end of her profession as the upholding of justice will believe that in order to achieve flourishing she must take actions in that particular domain (her profession) which she believes will conform to that end. Likewise, her colleague may hold the view that making money is what will facilitate flourishing, and thus making money is the end of the profession for him. For both of these professionals, their ideal lawyer has specific values, specific motivations, and would take specific actions in certain circumstances. It is my assertion that this ideal is the more deeply held conviction alluded to in the previous paragraph.

So, a regulative ideal is that deeply held standard which exists in various specific contexts, as well as in a more general sense. This ideal is not necessarily held consciously and in contrast to character traits it cannot be overridden. However, like our character traits, it is able to change due to our capacity for what Aristotle called practical wisdom (phronesis). As we navigate through our lives our rational capabilities ensure that we become increasingly knowledgeable about what constitutes human flourishing. Naturally, that knowledge will alter and mold our various regulative ideals. While this will not automatically alter our character as well, it can provide us with the notion that maybe some of our character traits are in need of revision too. Making those changes to our character will be discussed more fully after we have fleshed out the practical implications of these concepts, which will require us to shift our focus to the whistle blowing dilemma.

Let us put ourselves in the shoes of a young lawyer named Pat. Pat has been working at a law firm for the past few years and it has recently been revealed to her that her firm is committing the unethical action of excessively billing clients for hours that have not been worked. Furthermore, the clients being excessively billed are government agencies and corporations, meaning that this activity is having a negative effect on taxpayers and others associated with those corporations. In this situation, Pat is confronted with a choice: reveal the wrongdoing in order to curtail the illicit activity, in other words blow the whistle, or stay quiet and continue on with her work as usual. From an objective perspective it seems that Pat should reveal the wrong doing because doing so would uphold values that we as a society find important, such as integrity, loyalty to the public good, and honesty. However, when we attempt to understand the situation from Pat’s perspective it becomes much less clear because revealing this wrong doing may violate other values such as loyalty to friends or coworkers, responsibility for her personal welfare or that of her family, or reliability. This perspective shows us that the question of whether or not to blow the whistle is a true dilemma because there are legitimate ethical concerns on both sides of the issue.

In order to gain a full understanding of the situation that Pat has found herself in, I will now lay out a few elements of this situation that Michael Davis cites as being necessary for a true whistle blowing dilemma to present itself. First, this activity poses a threat to the public interest and were Pat to reveal the wrongdoing, it would most certainly arouse its audience. Next, Pat must first either attempt to alert her superiors to the problem or be sure that outside intervention is needed in order to end the wrongdoing. Pat must also be a member of the organization responsible for this wrongdoing and the illicit activity must be revealed to Pat due to the trust generated through her relationship with the wrongdoers or the nature of her professional role. Also, Pat must possess or have the ability to obtain the needed evidence in order to prove to an outsider that the threat exists. Lastly, Pat must have good reasons to believe that revealing this threat will actually end the wrongdoing. All of these elements ensure that Pat is not simply out for revenge, not prematurely sounding a false alarm, and that she faces a genuine dilemma, not simply an inter office problem.

In addition to this basic structure of a whistle blowing situation, Sissela Bok puts forth three additional elements that, “lend acts of whistle blowing special urgency and bitterness.” In other words, these three elements contribute to the feeling of conflict between possible actions and these elements are directly connected to the character of the agent. The first element is dissent, which Bok defines as a difference between the whistle blower’s convictions and the majority or authority view. The most common form of disagreement in a whistle blowing situation is whether or not the wrongdoing should be revealed publicly. While a potential whistle blower may think that the public needs to be aware of this wrongdoing, the culprits would disagree. What is important to understand is that this disagreement may be rooted in legitimate concerns from the culprits, such as the belief that blowing the whistle would produce more harm than good, or that it violates a supreme value such as loyalty. Let us assume that Pat’s professional regulative ideal is guided by the contention mentioned earlier that the end of the lawyering profession is upholding justice, while those responsible for the wrongdoing conceive that end as making money. If both parties truly believe that their perceived ultimate end will lead to flourishing lives, then we can see how the dissent arises.

The next element cited by Bok is the breach of loyalty that is involved. After finding herself in this situation, Pat will be forced to examine where her loyalties lie. It seems that in either path taken by Pat, she may feel like she violated a commitment to loyalty, either in the form of loyalty to the public good or loyalty to her coworkers or her firm. Again, if upholding justice is her ultimate criteria for determining what to do within her professional life, then it seems that she must follow her loyalty to the public good. But just as a regulative ideal can change for the better, Pat may find herself convinced by coworkers that making money is far more important for a flourishing life. This skewing of her regulative ideal may lead her to override the character trait of doing what is best for the public good. Whatever Pat happens to feel, the point is that she must decide where her loyalties lie.

Bok’s last element is accusation because if Pat decides to blow the whistle it will mean that she is accusing specific individuals or groups within the firm of posing a genuine threat to the public interest. This is dilemmatic because even if Pat is sure that the activity is unethical, other considerations may still weigh heavily on Pat’s mind. If she believes that those committing the wrongdoing are generally good people and simply wants them to stop excessively billing clients, but not suffer the other social sanctions of blowing the whistle, then this may prevent Pat from making the accusation. To relate this to her regulative ideal, maybe Pat’s general regulative ideal keeps her from making the accusation because of the practicality of the situation. For instance, if she believes that blowing the whistle will cost her job, or that the individuals responsible hold such an enormous amount of power that her accusation will not carry enough weight then once again that may lead her to override a more admirable character trait.

It seems clear that the structure of a whistle blowing dilemma and Bok’s three elements, against the backdrop of a virtue ethical approach, lead us to the assertion that the action of a potential whistle blower is less about what to do, and more about who we want to be. While it is tempting to focus on the action itself when pondering how to best be ethical in a dilemma like whistle blowing, it is more prudent to think about the influences which lead us to act. By doing this, Pat will be able to be confident that the decision that she ultimately makes will be the decision that is most in line with leading a truly flourishing life.  Now that we have explored virtue ethical concepts related to the person that we want to be, and also have a general understanding of what a whistle blowing dilemma entails, we can discuss how to become more virtuous.

Many critics of virtue ethics point to the fact that we cannot apply the principles of the theory to help us make an instantaneous decision as a case against the practicality of using virtue ethics. I will allow that theories such as Utilitarianism and Kantianism do provide us with a more systematic application of rules and principles in order to come to a decision on which action to take. However, it does not seem to follow that these theories give us an adequate account of how to live an ethical life. By actually living an ethical life, which is the ultimate in practicality, we remove the need for those kinds of theories because we can be sure that our decision-making already falls in line with achieving flourishing. By thinking about whom we want to be, striving for the acquisition of practical wisdom, and subsequently reflecting on that knowledge in order to shape our regulative ideal and character, we will find that navigating an ethical dilemma like whistle blowing is much easier. Next, we will examine the roles that motivation, habituation, practical wisdom, and intelligence play in shaping our regulative ideal and character so that these concepts conform to leading a flourishing life.

Motivation plays a very important role in determining whether or not we actually shape our character into a virtuous one in order to take the correct actions. Let us imagine that Pat has obtained the sort of practical wisdom that would allow her to be sure that upholding justice is the correct end of her profession. This in turn would alter the regulative ideal that guides her professional life. As previously mentioned, that would not automatically alter her character as well, meaning that she may still be disposed to act in a way that would not conform with upholding justice. If up to that point she has habitually done actions which conflict with upholding justice, for instance, maybe she regularly cuts corners for clients who pay her less per hour than other clients, that disposition will be a part of her character which is the main informant for her actions. Since she has become accustomed to doing this, even after her regulative ideal has shifted she will still have a natural disposition to continue that activity because she has yet to employ any steps to alter her character. However, now that her deeply rooted regulative ideal has changed, when she attempts to participate in an action which conflicts with that change she will inherently feel a conflict. At this point she now has a motivation to override that character trait.

Overriding a certain character trait one time will not eliminate Pat’s possession of the trait. While our character traits are not as deeply rooted as our regulative ideal, they remain a vital part of our identity and are more immediate than our regulative ideal in providing motivation to act. In Julia Annas’ article The Phenomenology of Virtue she states that becoming virtuous is never immediate, but rather requires time, experience and practice. Both Annas and Aristotle analogize this process to learning a practical skill, and this is the correct approach to take when attempting to possess a virtuous character. If Pat wants to become a better lawyer, she must identify those who are already exceptional lawyers. She will recognize certain skills that these lawyers exercise, say speaking well, maintaining good credibility, and understanding and articulating sound arguments. At first, it will be necessary for Pat to think about and consciously apply these characteristics to her own work. Eventually, through time, practice and the habituation of these skills, these thoughts will no longer be necessary. In addition, her experiences as she becomes more accustomed to the profession will lend her the advantage of applying certain aspects of the trade that she learned first hand. Obtaining virtuous character traits works in essentially the same fashion. If Pat would like to eliminate the character trait which causes her to fail to do the best work for certain clients, then she must continually work to eradicate the trait, which will naturally be replaced by the more virtuous trait of giving her best effort for all of her clients.

Annas states that, “a virtue is a disposition built up through intelligent practice” and we can turn to Aristotle to provide us with a method for determining how to practice our desired dispositions intelligently. This method is known as the golden mean and it calls for the use of our rational capacity to determine which actions are more virtuous than others. For every situation that we encounter in our daily lives, our rational capacity allows us to make a choice on which action to take. There is a wide spectrum of possible actions in response to all situations, and through the accumulation of practical wisdom we will become more adept at recognizing which action will accord with the golden mean. Aristotle wrote about avoiding the excessive and the deficient areas of this spectrum of choices. To borrow a widely used analogy, imagine an archery target, with a dot directly in the center of the target. When shooting at the target we are trying to hit the dot and avoid the areas outside of the dot. However even if we do not hit the dot directly but come close, that is always preferable to hitting the target on the outside edges or missing it altogether. Striving to do the most virtuous action is the same sort of process. We may not always hit the bull’s-eye but the more we practice, the better we become and the more likely we are to make a virtuous choice.

So how does all of this relate to the whistle blowing dilemma? Well unfortunately Pat will not be able to make a very virtuous decision if she has not made any attempt at being virtuous prior to the appearance of the dilemma in her life. However, by focusing on determining what sort of person she wants to be and why, she will be taking a step in the right direction. All professionals must strive to cultivate a virtuous character through the process described in this paper if they want to make a virtuous choice when they are faced with a dilemma. Not only will this help them to recognize when a certain situation fits the structure of a whistle bowing dilemma, but it will also give them a good grasp on where they stand in relation to Bok’s three elements. So much of our general regulative ideal, what we deem will ultimately facilitate flourishing, is dependant on our professional lives that we must cultivate a virtuous character long before we encounter a professional dilemma like whistle blowing in order to make a truly ethical decision. By doing this, we will shift the focus of our deliberations on the dilemma from the action itself to the reasons why we may choose one action over the other. This will allow us to make a comfortable decision when we are confronted with a dilemma like whistle blowing in our own workplace, which would be quite practical.

In order to live a flourishing life we must strive to incorporate all of these principles into all of our decisions. It all starts by consciously striving for the accumulation of practical wisdom. Our rational capacity will allow us to recognize that certain actions are more conducive to flourishing then others. Just like obtaining practical skills and virtuous dispositions, we must continually cultivate that rationality so that we may continually develop our capacity. If we are always striving for that continual development, then this will allow us to recognize how to lead a flourishing life. That in turn will alter our regulative ideals into a standard that is truly in line with flourishing. By having regulative ideals that are pointed toward virtue, we will feel a conflict when we are disposed to act viciously and have the necessary motivation for overriding a vicious trait. By recognizing that we must eradicate those vicious traits and replace them with virtuous ones through the same habituation process in which we obtain practical skills, we will be able to shape our character into a virtuous one as well. When we are unsure of the virtuous action in a certain situation, implementing the principles of the golden mean will assist us in understanding the implications of possible actions. Having a virtuous character will dispose us to naturally do virtuous actions in all areas of life. This is beneficial because rarely, if ever, are we expecting an ethical dilemma to present itself to us. By constantly and consistently using the virtue ethical approach in all of our actions we will easily and comfortably be able to make a decision in an ethical dilemma like whistle blowing, showing the true practicality and value of the virtue ethical approach to ethical decision-making.

Works Cited

Annas, Julia. “The Phenomenology of Virtue.” PhilPapers: Online Research in Philosophy. Springer, 12 Sept. 2007. Web. 05 Aug. 2011. <http://philpapers.org/rec/ANNTPO>.

Aristotle, and W. D. Ross. The Nichomachean Ethics,. London: Oxford UP, 1959. Print.

Audi, Robert. “Responsible Action and Virtuous Character.” Ethics 101.2 (1991): 304. Print.

Bok, Sissela. “Whistleblowing And Professional Responsibility.” New York University Education Quarterly 11 (1980): 2-7. Print.

Davis, Michael. “Some Paradoxes of Whistleblowing.” Business and Professional Ethics Journal 15 (1996). Print.

Hursthouse, Rosalind. “Virtue Theory and Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 20.3 (1991): 223-46. Jstor.org. Blackwell Publishing. Web. 22 July 2011.

Oakley, Justin, and Dean Cocking. Virtue Ethics and Professional Roles. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2001. Print.