Abstract

Professor Frankena has argued that an ethic of virtue is different from an ethic of obligation in that the basic judgments involved in the former contain an aretaic predicate whereas those involved in the latter contain a deontic predicate. However, his account of the differences between these two sorts of predicate is examined; and it turns out to be a difference between subject-matters for evaluation rather than a difference between predicates. The author holds that an account of deontic and aretaic predicates is required that differentiates them in terms other than those of subject-matters for evaluation.