David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Applied Philosophy 28 (1):80-92 (2011)
According to qualified-agent virtue ethics, an action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances. I discuss two closely related objections to this view, both of which concern the actions of the non-virtuous. The first is that this criterion sometimes gives the wrong result, for in some cases a non-virtuous agent should not do what a virtuous person would characteristically do. A second objection is it altogether fails to apply whenever the agent, through previous wrongdoing, finds herself in circumstances that a virtuous person cannot be in. I focus on Rosalind Hursthouse's account of right action, and argue that it can provide a satisfactory response to both these objections. I do so by drawing attention to the distinction between action guidance and action assessment, and arguing that while the above criterion is adequate as a means of action assessment, we should turn to the virtue- and vice-rules (v-rules) for action guidance.
|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
Thomas Sherman (2008). Wisdom and Action Guidance in the Agent-Based Virtue Ethics of Aristotle. American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80 (4):481 - 506.
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.
Daniel C. Russell (2008). That “Ought” Does Not Imply “Right”: Why It Matters for Virtue Ethics. Southern Journal of Philosophy 46 (2):299-315.
Frans Svensson (2010). Virtue Ethics and the Search for an Account of Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (3):255 - 271.
Jason Kawall (2002). Virtue Theory and Ideal Observers. Philosophical Studies 109 (3):197 - 222.
Sean McAleer (2010). Four Solutions to the Alleged Incompleteness of Virtue Ethics. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 4:1-20.
Damian Cox (2006). Agent-Based Theories of Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 9 (5):505 - 515.
Matt Stichter (2011). Virtues, Skills, and Right Action. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):73-86.
Liezl van Zyl (2011). Rightness and Goodness in Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:103-114.
Michael Wiitala (2009). Contemplation and Action Within the Context of the Kalon. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 83:173-182.
Jennifer Whiting (2002). Eudaimonia, External Results, and Choosing Virtuous Actions for Themselves. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2):270-290.
Daniel Doviak (2011). A New Form of Agent-Based Virtue Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (3):259-272.
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.
Karen E. Stohr (2003). Moral Cacophony: When Continence is a Virtue. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 7 (4):339-363.
Added to index2010-12-23
Total downloads67 ( #17,934 of 1,089,063 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #24,247 of 1,089,063 )
How can I increase my downloads?