The aim of revision is not just to learn knowledge: we also need to practise analysis and evaluation. To this end, the four steps described here can be used to revise any theory – but I will use Virtue Ethics to illustrate the points made. We need to practise sequencing ideas so that analysis flows naturally in an exam.

Analysis is about avoiding assertions by building sequences of thought. An assertion is an unexplained statement such as “Virtue-ethics is agent-centred”. There are two problems with this: it tells us nothing about why or how virtue ethics is agent-centred (it lacks the word ‘because’…) and it begs the question which is central to a good analysis “how does virtue ethics generate an idea of moral goodness?”. Like natural law VE arises out of the Greek teleological worldview, where everything has a purpose, and the purpose of humankind, says Aristotle, is to reason well to attain the end of the flourishing life (eudaimonia). So at least we need to insert the word “because”; “virtue-ethics is agent-centred because it concentrates on building habits of character that build a flourishing life – the focus is the moral agent that is behind the action and not the action itself”.

Step 1: Know your definitions

We need to demonstrate that we really understand terms like “teleological” and “eudaimonia”. To do this, the first thing we do is to list all the technical vocabulary contained in the syllabus in this area, and maybe add one or two of our own. So with VE, we might add eudaimonia, phronesis, the golden mean, virtue (Greek: arete), and some terms from modern virtue ethics such as MacIntyre’s “goods internal to practices”. Having clarified the list of terms, the next step is to write then on index cards – one term per card, with the key word on one side and a fuller explanation on the other of the meaning and use of the term. This is the knowledge part, but what of understanding?

A game I like to play is to pair up and for one person to think up three technical terms. You then have to explain those terms to your partner without using the term itself – so your partner can guess the word. This ensures you are filtering the meaning through your brain. You can then swap over as your partner tries to explain three further terms.

Step 2: Practise sequencing ideas

The next step is to practise sequencing ideas. Having written the key terms down, we ask the question: where would you start an analysis? One possible place is with an assumption of the moral theory or an explanation of its worldview.

So with VE Aristotle has a particular metaphysical view (which MacIntyre explicitly rejects). This is based on two ideas – Aristotle’s idea of the four causes where the final cause gives human beings an ultimate purpose (to reason well) and the idea of the soul. Aristotle’s soul has a rational side, of intellectual and moral skills, and a non-rational side, of desires and appetites. Virtue is about building habits that regulate the non-rational side – habits of reason. We need to be clear how this works.

The key virtue is phronesis or practical wisdom (right judgement). This finds the appropriate application of the virtuous characteristic. To Aristotle it involves discerning a golden mean or judgement point somewhere between a vice of excess (recklessness) and a vice of deficiency (cowardice) which gives us an idea of courage (for example).

So the sequence goes from telos (or excellence of reason) through habit of character (phronesis) to application (or judgement in a particular situation). Along the way we could put the three Es – emulation, experience and education by which virtues are established in us. Finally the end result is eudaimonia, which is both a personal and social idea. Virtues are social characteristics or descriptions of an ideal society (one characterised by wisdom, justice and courage).

Be aware that you also need to sequence and contrast Aristotle with one other modern virtue theorist. For example, if you choose MacIntyre, you need to make clear that MacIntyre rejects Aristotle’s metaphysics and never talks about the golden mean. Finally he criticises Aristotle for failing to place virtues in the context of a narrative life – a history if you like. In the UK for example we find two traditions competing with each other – the Christian tradition elevating faithfulness, love, chastity and obedience, and the Greek tradition which is rather different. They do, however, overlap (temperance, courage, fortitude).

Step 3: Draw a mind map

Having decided on our sequence of thought and considered how we justify it, we then need to draw a physical mind map.

We place the mindmap in the centre of an A3 piece of paper, leaving plenty of space around it. We then draw a box in one corner for strengths and a box in another for weaknesses. We place some key quotes on our A3 poster, such as Aristotle’ s final cause and the principle of reason (phronesis) that comes from it. So the map might move from arete to phronesis to the golden mean to eudaimonia. We catually need two mindmaps – one for Aristotle and one for a modern virtue theorist such as MacIntyre or Foot or Hursthouse.

Our mind map becomes a living poster which we work with. As we read more we add comments and quotes. Perhaps we look at what academics have said about virtue – a quote from Anscombe, Foot or MacIntyre helps ground our map.

The poster then goes on our wall and by the time we get to the exam day we know and understand our own sequence of thought – so when the question on natural law comes up, we reproduce the sequence quickly on a piece of scrap paper so that we can follow the line of reasoning through in our answers.

Step 4: Practise opening paragraphs

Our analytical writing needs to start the moment our pen hits the paper. No long explanations of Aristotle’s penchant for dissecting frogs. We need to go straight into the explanation of the theory (assuming the question asks us to explain virtue ethics).

So we need to ask, where does VE come from and how does it define the good? We need to explain straightaway how VE comes out of Aristotle’s idea of final causes and also, his view that politics is morality by another name. To this end, personal and social virtues come together to build a flourishing community. And it is about character, not action or consequences. Good actions come from a good character.

We must also avoid at all costs foolish assertions which beg the question such as “VE is useless in helping us with moral decisions as the virtues are too vague”. This is highly debatable as VE theorists maintain it is more useful than either deontology or utilitarian teleology – because it is about building a second nature which eventually works like an instinct. We reason well as a habit and have good judgment as a characteristic of our very nature. You might quote Anscombe’s 1956 essay on this point – she argues that current morality is based on an outdated view of law. We have rejected the god who gave the law and need to find another way of doing ethics. And consequentialism is too problematic, for example, in its demands that we endlessly calculate without the wisdom to do the calculation. So, she argues, VE is actually a better way to arrive at a moral decision.

In so doing we are heading towards a subtler response – and hence closer to an A grade. For we are showing care not just in how we build up a theory from its first principles, but how words which we often think have one meaning (relativism, for example is often mentioned int eh context of VE) actually have a number of meanings. Is VE a form of relativism? I’ll leave you to tease that one out – but it does depend on which meaning of relativism you’re talking about (subjective, consequentialist or particular to culture). Eudaimonia, for example, is an objective idea based on a state of human society which will cause good characteristics to be encouraged.