David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophia 37 (1):91-104 (2009)
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||Accidental rightness Good (praiseworthy or virtuous) action Justice Right action Moral obligation Virtue ethics|
|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
W. D. Ross (2002). The Right and the Good. Clarendon Press.
Thomas Nagel (1979/2012). Mortal Questions. Cambridge University Press.
Rosalind Hursthouse (1999/2001). On Virtue Ethics. Oxford University Press.
Michael A. Slote (2001). Morals From Motives. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Daniel Doviak (2011). A New Form of Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (3):259-272.
Similar books and articles
Alastair Norcross (2005). Contextualism for Consequentialists. Acta Analytica 20 (2):80-90.
Thomas Hurka (2010). Right Act, Virtuous Motive. In Heather D. Battaly (ed.), Virtue and Vice, Moral and Epistemic. Wiley-Blackwell 58-72.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Rightness and Goodness in Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:103-114.
Christine Swanton (2003). Virtue Ethics: A Pluralistic View. Clarendon Press.
Holly M. Smith (2010). Subjective Rightness. Social Philosophy and Policy 27 (2):64-110.
Iskra Fileva (2008). The Neutrality of Rightness and the Indexicality of Goodness: Beyond Objectivity and Back Again. Ratio 21 (3):273-285.
Jason Kawall (2009). In Defense of the Primacy of the Virtues. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 3 (2):1-21.
Alastair Norcross (1997). Good and Bad Actions. Philosophical Review 106 (1):1-34.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #117,171 of 1,796,218 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #349,760 of 1,796,218 )
How can I increase my downloads?