David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):71-82 (2012)
This article seeks to contribute to the discussion on the nature of choice in virtue theory. If several different actions are available to the virtuous agent, they are also likely to vary in their degree of virtue, at least in some situations. Yet, it is widely agreed that once an action is recognised as virtuous there is no higher level of virtue. In this paper we discuss how the virtue theorist could accommodate both these seemingly conflicting ideas. We discuss this issue from a modern Aristotelian perspective, as opposed to a purely exegetic one. We propose a way of resolving what seems to be a major clash between two central features of virtue ethics. Our proposal is based on the notion of parity, a concept which recently has received considerable attention in the literature on axiology. Briefly put, two alternatives are on a par (or are ‘roughly equal’) if they are comparable, although it is not the case that one is better than the other, nor that they are equally good. The advantages of applying the concept of parity to our problem are twofold. Firstly, it sheds new light on the account of choice in virtue theory. Secondly, some of the criticisms that have been mounted against the possibility of parity can be countered by considering the notion of choice from a virtue theory perspective
|Keywords||Virtue Ethics Choice Parity On a par Aristotle|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Derek Parfit (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford University Press.
Philippa Foot (2001). Natural Goodness. Oxford University Press.
John Broome (1991). Weighing Goods: Equality, Uncertainty and Time. Wiley-Blackwell.
Martha C. Nussbaum (1990). Love's Knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Ruth Chang (2002). The Possibility of Parity. Ethics 112 (4):659-688.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Thomas Sherman (2008). Wisdom and Action Guidance in the Agent-Based Virtue Ethics of Aristotle. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):481 - 506.
David Carr (2003). Character and Moral Choice in the Cultivation of Virtue. Philosophy 78 (2):219-232.
S. J. Thomas Sherman (2006). Wisdom and Action Guidance in the Agent-Based Virtue Ethics of Aristotle. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):481-506.
Thomas Hurka (2010). Right Act, Virtuous Motive. In Heather D. Battaly (ed.), Virtue and Vice, Moral and Epistemic. Wiley-Blackwell 58-72.
Ruth Chang (2005). Parity, Interval Value, and Choice. Ethics 115 (2):331-350.
Martijn Boot (2009). Parity, Incomparability and Rationally Justified Choice. Philosophical Studies 146 (1):75 - 92.
Jason Kawall (2002). Virtue Theory and Ideal Observers. Philosophical Studies 109 (3):197 - 222.
Sean McAleer (2010). Four Solutions to the Alleged Incompleteness of Virtue Ethics. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4 (3):1-20.
Matt Stichter (2011). Virtues, Skills, and Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):73-86.
Matthew Stichter (2007). The Skill of Virtue. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 14 (2):39-49.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Right Action and the Non-Virtuous Agent. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):80-92.
Erik Carlson (2010). Parity Demystified. Theoria 76 (2):119-128.
Daniel C. Russell (2008). That “Ought” Does Not Imply “Right”: Why It Matters for Virtue Ethics. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):299-315.
Candace Vogler (2006). Modern Moral Philosophy Again: Isolating the Promulgation Problem. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106 (3):345–362.
Added to index2011-02-19
Total downloads67 ( #54,113 of 1,780,590 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #166,011 of 1,780,590 )
How can I increase my downloads?