Review of Political Economy 21 (2):315-323 (2009)
|Abstract||In this note, I respond to a recent article by Irene van Staveren (2007), in which she presents a case for virtue ethics, rather than deontology or consequentialism, as the most appropriate ethical foundation for ethics. Rather than taking issue with her positive arguments for virtue ethics, I argue in defense of deontology-or, more specifically, the moral philosophy of Immanuel <span class='Hi'>Kant</span>. I argue that, when properly understood, Kantian ethics should not be associated solely with formal rules and obligation, but that <span class='Hi'>Kant</span>'s moral system can accommodate many of the concerns of virtue ethics, such as social relations, real-world context, and human fallibility, as well as embodying a unique emphasis on human dignity and judgment.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Lawrence J. Jost & Julian Wuerth (eds.) (2011). Perfecting Virtue: New Essays on Kantian Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Robert B. Louden (2000). Kant's Impure Ethics: From Rational Beings to Human Beings. Oxford University Press.
H. E. Baber (1987). How Bad Is Rape? Hypatia 2 (2):125 - 138.
J. L. Schellenberg (2005). The Hiddenness Argument Revisited (II). Religious Studies 41 (3):287 - 303.
P. X. Monaghan (2010). A Novel Interpretation of Plato's Theory of Forms. Metaphysica 11 (1):63-78.
Dale Hample, Bing Han & David Payne (2010). The Aggressiveness of Playful Arguments. Argumentation 24 (4):405-421.
H. M. Malm (1989). Commodification or Compensation: A Reply to Ketchum. Hypatia 4 (3):128 - 135.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads31 ( #44,807 of 722,813 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,541 of 722,813 )
How can I increase my downloads?