David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551 (2002)
Contemporary theories of Virtue Ethics are often presented as being in opposition to Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism. It is argued that Virtue Ethics takes as fundamental the question, “What sort of character would a virtuous person have?” and that Kantian Ethics and Consequentialism take as fundamental the question, “What makes an action right?” I argue that this opposition is misconceived. The opposition is rather between Virtue Ethics and Kantian Ethics on the one hand and Consequentialism on the other. The former two are concerned with, respectively, the development of a virtuous character and a good will, whereas Consequentialism is essentially a doctrine that just provides a justification of the right option without specifying how this is to be achieved. Furthermore, I show that Consequentialism, interpreted as a justificatory doctrine, is both an impoverished doctrine and one that cannot be enriched by taking a “pick and mix” approach to other ethical theories in the way that Consequentialists advocate. I argue that there is at least one reason to prefer Kantian Ethics: Kantian Ethics necessarily avoids the objection of selfcenteredness, whereas the avoidance of this objection is only contingent in the case of Virtue Ethics
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joel J. Kupperman (2009). Virtue in Virtue Ethics. Journal of Ethics 13 (2-3):243 - 255.
Roger Crisp (2015). A Third Method of Ethics? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (2):257-273.
Laurence Thomas (1996). Virtue Ethics and the Arc of Universality: Reflections on Punzo's Reading of Kantian and Virtue Ethics. Philosophical Psychology 9 (1):25 – 32.
A. Tellings (1998). A Virtue Approach Instead of a Kantian Approach as a Solution to Major Dilemmas in Meta-Ethics? A Criticism of David Carr. Studies in Philosophy and Education 17 (1):47-56.
Damien Keown (1996). Karma, Character, and Consequentialism. Journal of Religious Ethics 24 (2):329 - 350.
David Cummiskey (1990). Kantian Consequentialism. Ethics 100 (3):586-615.
Scott Forschler (2013). Kantian and Consequentialist Ethics: The Gap Can Be Bridged. Metaphilosophy 44 (1-2):88-104.
Roger Crisp & Michael A. Slote (eds.) (1997). Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Ben Bradley (2005). Virtue Consequentialism. Utilitas 17 (3):282-298.
Jeanine Grenberg (2005). Kant and the Ethics of Humility: A Story of Dependence, Corruption and Virtue. Cambridge University Press.
Russ Shafer-Landau (2010). The Fundamentals of Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Jacob Ross (2009). Should Kantians Be Consequentialists? Ratio 22 (1):126-135.
Yong Huang (2011). Two Dilemmas in Virtue Ethics and How Zhu Xi's Neo-Confucianism Avoids Them. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:247-281.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads34 ( #60,209 of 1,679,372 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #47,846 of 1,679,372 )
How can I increase my downloads?