Notes on a Vexed Question

Are Compelled Acts Virtuous? Can the Civic Government Enforce Purely Moral Actions?

• In virtue ethics, a compelled virtuous action, performed under duress, is generally not considered a true expression of virtue, as it lacks the crucial element of character and intentionality. 
• Voluntary vs. Involuntary Actions:

In Aristotle's ethics, actions must be voluntary, meaning they are performed intentionally, for an action to be considered a true expression of virtue. 

• Compelled Actions Lack Intentionality:

A compelled action, performed under duress, lacks this intentionality, as the agent is not acting freely or according to their own virtuous character. 

• Example:

If someone is forced to give money to charity, even though it's a virtuous act, it doesn't demonstrate their character as generous, as they were compelled to do it.

Punishment is for wicked deeds, not for failure to do good deeds. There must be the breaking of an explicit or complicit contract, as adultery to marriage which is entered into with a promise, or an abortion to the act of sexual congress which is complicitly ordered to procreation.

To force or compel someone to do a good action not only does not make the action virtuous, it makes the act of force a positively evil action, by deprivation of free will.

The opposite of a prohibitive law, which forbids or makes something illegal, is a law that is permissive, allowable, or permitted, meaning it allows or authorizes something. 

In a legal context, "compulsion" refers to being forced or compelled to do something, often through coercion or duress. 

The statement "it may be practical, it may be prudent, the one thing it can never be is virtuous" suggests that while something may be useful or sensible, it can still be morally wrong or lacking in virtue, implying a separation between practicality, prudence, and virtue.