Virtue ethics
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
(Difference between revisions)
| Revision as of 07:58, 2 December 2010 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 16:44, 2 December 2014 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) Next diff → |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Template}} | {{Template}} | ||
| - | '''Virtue ethics''' is an approach to [[ethics]] that emphasizes the character of the moral agent, rather than rules or consequences, as the key element of ethical thinking. This contrasts with [[consequentialism]], which holds that the consequences of a particular act form the basis for any valid moral judgment about that action, and [[deontological ethics|deontology]], which derives rightness or wrongness from the character of the act itself rather than the outcomes. The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the way moral dilemmas are approached than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying — though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is ''always'' wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. | ||
| - | Although concern for virtue appears in several philosophical traditions, in the West the roots of the tradition lie in the work of [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], and even today the tradition’s key concepts derive from [[ancient Greek philosophy]]. These concepts include ''[[arete]]'' (excellence or virtue), ''[[phronesis]]'' (practical or moral wisdom), and ''[[eudaimonia]]'' (flourishing). In [[Western world|the West]] virtue ethics was the prevailing approach to ethical thinking in the [[ancient]] and [[medieval]] periods. The tradition suffered an eclipse during the [[early modern]] period, as [[Aristotelianism]] fell out of favour in the West. Virtue theory returned to prominence in Western philosophical thought in the twentieth century, and is today one of the three dominant approaches to normative theories (the other two being [[deontology]] and [[consequentialism]]). Virtue theory is not actually in conflict with deontology or teleology: those two viewpoints deal with which actions a person should take in any given scenario, whereas virtue theorists simply argue that developing morally desirable virtues for their own sake will help aid moral actions when such decisions need to be made. | + | '''Virtue ethics''' (or '''aretaic ethics'''from the [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] ''[[arete]]'') emphasizes the role of one's character and the [[virtue]]s that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches to [[normative ethics]], often contrasted to [[deontology]] which emphasizes duty to rules and [[consequentialism]] which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself. |
| - | While virtue ethics was born with [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]], their forms of virtue ethics are by no means the only ones. What virtue ethics refers to, rather, is a collection of [[normative]] ethical philosophies that place an emphasis on being rather than doing. Another way to say this is that in virtue ethics, morality stems from the identity and/or character of the individual, rather than being a reflection of the actions (or consequences thereof) of the individual. Today, there is a great amount of debate among various adherents of virtue ethics about what specific virtues are morally praiseworthy. However, the one thing they all agree upon is that morality comes as a result of intrinsic virtues—this is the common link that unites the sometimes disparate normative philosophies into the field known as virtue ethics. Plato and Aristotle's treatment of virtues is by no means the same however. For Plato, virtue is effectively an end to be sought, for which a friend might be a useful means. For Aristotle, the virtues function more as means to safeguard human relations, particularly authentic friendship, without which one's quest for happiness is frustrated. | + | The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the ways in which moral dilemmas are approached, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying—though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is ''always'' wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, the morality of lying would be determined on a case-by-case basis, which would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent). |
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 16:44, 2 December 2014
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Virtue ethics (or aretaic ethicsfrom the Greek arete) emphasizes the role of one's character and the virtues that one's character embodies for determining or evaluating ethical behavior. Virtue ethics is one of the three major approaches to normative ethics, often contrasted to deontology which emphasizes duty to rules and consequentialism which derives rightness or wrongness from the outcome of the act itself.
The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more in the ways in which moral dilemmas are approached, rather than in the moral conclusions reached. For example, a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying—though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential "good" that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one's character and moral behavior. As such, the morality of lying would be determined on a case-by-case basis, which would be based on factors such as personal benefit, group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or malevolent).
See also
- Arete
- Aretaic turn
- Buddhist Ethics (discipline)
- Confucianism
- Cynicism
- Eudaimonism
- Rule according to higher law
- Seven virtues
- Stoicism
- Virtue jurisprudence
- Virtue
Unless indicated otherwise, the text in this article is either based on Wikipedia article "Virtue ethics" or another language Wikipedia page thereof used under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License; or on research by Jahsonic and friends. See Art and Popular Culture's copyright notice.
