Philosophia 37 (1):91-104 (2009)
|Abstract||In this paper I argue that the disagreement between modern moral philosophers and (some) virtue ethicists about whether motive affects rightness is a result of conceptual disagreement, and that when they develop a theory of ‘right action,’ the two parties respond to two very different questions. Whereas virtue ethicists tend to use ‘right’ as interchangeable with ‘good’ or ‘virtuous’ and as implying moral praise, modern moral philosophers use it as roughly equivalent to ‘in accordance with moral obligation.’ One implication of this is that the possibility of an act being right by accident does not pose a problem for consequentialism or deontology. A further implication is that it reveals a shortcoming in virtue ethics, namely that it does not—yet needs to—present an account of moral obligation.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alastair Norcross (2005). Contextualism for Consequentialists. Acta Analytica 20 (2):80-90.
Alastair Norcross (1997). Good and Bad Actions. Philosophical Review 106 (1):1-34.
Jason Kawall (2009). In Defense of the Primacy of the Virtues. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (2):1-21.
Iskra Fileva (2008). The Neutrality of Rightness and the Indexicality of Goodness: Beyond Objectivity and Back Again. Ratio 21 (3):273-285.
Holly M. Smith (2010). Subjective Rightness. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
Christine Swanton (2003). Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View. Clarendon Press.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Rightness and Goodness in Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:103-114.
Thomas Hurka (2010). Right Act, Virtuous Motive. In Heather D. Battaly (ed.), Virtue and Vice, Moral and Epistemic. Wiley-Blackwell.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #145,673 of 549,119 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,390 of 549,119 )
How can I increase my downloads?