Graduate studies at Western
Utilitas 16 (1):33-41 (2004)
|Abstract||This essay is a rejoinder to comments on Uneasy Virtue made by Onora O'Neill, John Skorupski, and Michael Slote in this issue. In Uneasy Virtue I presented criticisms of traditional virtue theory. I also presented an alternative – a consequentialist account of virtue, one which is a form of ‘pure evaluational externalism’. This type of theory holds that the moral quality of character traits is determined by factors external to agency (e.g. consequences). All three commentators took exception to this account. Therefore, the bulk of my response focuses on defending the externalist account of virtue presented in the final chapters of Uneasy Virtue.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jennifer Baker (2013). Who's Afraid of a Final End? The Role of Practical Rationality in Contemporary Accounts of Virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (1):85-98.
Christian Miller (2009). Empathy, Social Psychology, and Global Helping Traits. Philosophical Studies 142 (2):247 - 275.
Onora O'neill (2004). Consequences for Non-Consequentialists. Utilitas 16 (1):1-11.
Michael Jeffrey Winter (2012). Does Moral Virtue Require Knowledge? A Response to Julia Driver. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (4):533 - 546.
Roger Crisp (2010). Virtue Ethics and Virtue Epistemology. Metaphilosophy 41 (1):22-40.
Lester H. Hunt (2003). Julia Driver, Uneasy Virtue:Uneasy Virtue. Ethics 114 (1):167-170.
Ben Bradley (2005). Virtue Consequentialism. Utilitas 17 (3):282-298.
Michael Slote (2004). Driver's Virtues. Utilitas 16 (1):22-32.
Julia Driver (2001). Uneasy Virtue. Cambridge University Press.
Dale L. Clark (2009). Aesop's Fox: Consequentialist Virtue Meets Egocentric Bias. Philosophical Psychology 22 (6):727 – 737.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads53 ( #23,340 of 749,901 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #38,076 of 749,901 )
How can I increase my downloads?