Virtue and Continence: Defending their Cognitive Difference

Philosophical Inquiries 10 (2):39-58 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In her recent paper Virtuous Construal (2019) Vigani provides psychological support to McDowell’s silencing effect of virtue, arguing that it is through her moral outlook that the virtuous person represents the situation as an occasion for virtue only. The term “silencing” is still, however, a controversial matter, for it might lead to the conclusion that the virtuous person does not feel any sort of attachment to what is being silenced, thus suffers no genuine loss when it comes to forsaking something valuable in the face of virtue (“no-genuine loss theory”: McDowell 1998; Baxley 2007). On the other hand, if we try to argue that what is silenced does not completely cease to exist in the eyes of the virtuous, then it is not clear what the difference between virtue and self-control (Aristotle’s enkrateia, continence; NE 1150a35) amounts to. The aim of this paper is to defend the difference between virtue and continence in terms of cognition ; that is to say, to provide further support to Vigani’s argument explaining how it is possible for something to be valuable yet be silenced (thus avoiding the no-genuine loss theory) and how this possibility is precisely what marks the difference between virtue and continence. I shall articulate my defence in the following steps: (A) arguing for the compatibility between a difference in cognition and Aristotle’s distinction between the virtuous and the enkrates (sections 1 and 2), (B) arguing that the silencing effect does not imply blindness to commonly shared human values (e.g. family, relationships, survival; section 3), and (C) making sense of the difference between virtue and continence in terms of deliberation (section 4). I shall be as loyal to Aristotle as possible, grounding my argument on the following premises: (i) virtuous actions issue from a virtuous conception of a life worth living (eupraxia: NE 1139a31-b5); (ii) there is some sort of context-dependency when it comes to deliberating virtuously (NE 1112b10-20); and (iii) virtuous deliberation does not allow for the inner struggle that is proper of continent deliberation (a “harmony” between appetites and reason: NE 1151b35-1152a5; while the continent is the one who has self-control: NE 1152a25-7). If I manage in the quest, then we will have found what the continent is missing in order to become virtuous, and it shall neither look in-humane nor undesirable; just hard.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

The price of virtue.Anne Margaret Baxley - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (4):403–423.
The Price of Virtue.Annemargaret Baxley - 2007 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 88 (4):403-423.
Moral cacophony: When continence is a virtue.Karen E. Stohr - 2003 - The Journal of Ethics 7 (4):339-363.
Virtuous Construal: In Defense of Silencing.Denise Vigani - 2019 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 5 (2):229-245.
The Continence of Virtue.Geoffrey Scarre - 2012 - Philosophical Investigations 36 (1):1-19.
Beyond Silencing: Virtue, Subjective Construal, and Reasoning Practically.Denise Vigani - 2021 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 99 (4):748-760.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-11-03

Downloads
66 (#252,294)

6 months
38 (#100,832)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Matilde Liberti
Università degli Studi di Genova

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references