Graduate studies at Western
Journal of Ethics 15 (4):321-339 (2011)
|Abstract||My question in this paper concerns what eudaimonist virtue ethics (EVE) might have to say about what makes right actions right. This is obviously an important question if we want to know what (if anything) distinguishes EVE from various forms of consequentialism and deontology in ethical theorizing. The answer most commonly given is that according to EVE, an action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous person would do in the circumstances. However, understood as a claim about what makes particular actions right, this is not especially plausible. What makes a virtuous person’s actions right must reasonably be a matter of the feature, or features, which she, via her practical wisdom, appreciates as ethically relevant in the circumstances, and not the fact that someone such as herself would perform those actions. I argue that EVE instead should be understood as a more radical alternative in ethical philosophy, an alternative that relies on the background assumption that no general account or criterion for what makes right actions right is available to us: right action is simply too complex to be captured in a ‘finite and manageable set of…moral principles’ (McKeever and Ridge, Principled ethics, Oxford University Press, 2006 , p. 139). This does not rule out the possibility that there might be some generalizations about how we should act which hold true without exception. Perhaps there are some things which we must never do, as well as some features of the world which always carry normative weight (even though their exact weight may vary from one context to another). Still, these things are arguably few and far between, and what we must do to ensure that we reliably recognize what is right in particular situations is to acquire practical wisdom. Nothing short of that could do the job.|
|Keywords||Consequentialism Deontology Eudaimonist virtue ethics (EVE) Particularism Right action|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Daniel C. Russell (2008). That “Ought” Does Not Imply “Right”: Why It Matters for Virtue Ethics. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):299-315.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Right Action and the Non-Virtuous Agent. Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):80-92.
Matt Stichter (2011). Virtues, Skills, and Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):73-86.
Frans Svensson (2010). Virtue Ethics and the Search for an Account of Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (3):255 - 271.
Sean McAleer (2010). Four Solutions to the Alleged Incompleteness of Virtue Ethics. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4:1-20.
Jason Kawall (2002). Virtue Theory and Ideal Observers. Philosophical Studies 109 (3):197 - 222.
Roger Crisp (forthcoming). A Third Method of Ethics? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.
Jane Singleton (2002). Virtue Ethics, Kantian Ethics, and Consequentialism. Journal of Philosophical Research 27:537-551.
Michelle Ciurria (2012). A New Mixed View of Virtue Ethics, Based on Daniel Doviak's New Virtue Calculus. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):259-269.
Jonathan J. Sanford (2010). Are You Man Enough? Aristotle and Courage. International Philosophical Quarterly 50 (4):431-445.
Sherman (2008). Wisdom and Action Guidance in the Agent-Based Virtue Ethics of Aristotle. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):481 - 506.
Marcia L. Homiak (2000). Does Hume Have an Ethics of Virtue? The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 7:191-200.
Geoffrey B. Frasz (2001). What is Environmental Virtue Ethics That We Should Be Mindful of It? Philosophy in the Contemporary World 8 (2):5-14.
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.
Added to index2011-11-03
Total downloads41 ( #32,749 of 739,353 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,680 of 739,353 )
How can I increase my downloads?