Virtue ethics
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 07:54, 2 December 2010 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| 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. |
| + | |||
| + | 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). | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Contemporary 'aretaic turn'==<!--'Aretaic turn' redirects here--> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although some [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]] philosophers (e.g. [[David Hume|Hume]]) continued to emphasize the virtues, with the ascendancy of [[utilitarianism]] and [[deontology]], virtue theory moved to the margins of Western philosophy. The contemporary revival of virtue theory is frequently traced to the philosopher [[G. E. M. Anscombe]]'s 1958 essay "[[Modern Moral Philosophy]]". Following this: | ||
| + | * In the 1976 paper "[[The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories]]", Michael Stocker summarises the main aretaic criticisms of deontological and consequentialist ethics. | ||
| + | * [[Philippa Foot]], who published a collection of essays in 1978 entitled ''Virtues and Vices.'' | ||
| + | * [[Alasdair MacIntyre]] has made an effort to reconstruct a virtue-based theory in dialogue with the problems of modern and [[postmodernism|postmodern]] thought; his works include ''[[After Virtue]]'' and ''Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry''. | ||
| + | * [[Paul Ricoeur]] has accorded an important place to Aristotelian [[teleological ethics]] in his [[hermeneutical]] [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]] of the subject, most notably in his book ''Oneself as Another''. | ||
| + | * theologian [[Stanley Hauerwas]] has also found the language of virtue quite helpful in his own project. | ||
| + | * [[Rosalind Hursthouse]] has published ''On Virtue Ethics''. | ||
| + | * [[Roger Crisp]] and [[Michael Slote]] have edited a collection of important essays titled ''Virtue Ethics'' | ||
| + | * [[Martha Nussbaum]] and [[Amartya Sen]] have employed virtue theory in theorizing the [[capability approach]] to [[international development]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The '''aretaic turn''' in moral philosophy is paralleled by analogous developments in other philosophical disciplines. One of these is [[epistemology]], where a distinctive [[virtue epistemology]] has been developed by [[Linda Trinkaus Zagzebski|Linda Zagzebski]] and others. In political theory, there has been discussion of "virtue politics", and in legal theory, there is a small but growing body of literature on [[virtue jurisprudence]]. The aretaic turn also exists in [[United States of America|American]] [[constitutional theory]], where proponents argue for an emphasis on virtue and vice of constitutional [[adjudicator]]s. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Aretaic approaches to morality, epistemology, and jurisprudence have been the subject of intense debates. One criticism that is frequently made focuses on the problem of guidance; opponents, such as Robert Louden in his article "Some Vices of Virtue Ethics", question whether the idea of a virtuous moral actor, believer, or judge can provide the guidance necessary for action, belief formation, or the decision of legal disputes. | ||
| - | 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. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Current revision
|
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).
Contemporary 'aretaic turn'
Although some Enlightenment philosophers (e.g. Hume) continued to emphasize the virtues, with the ascendancy of utilitarianism and deontology, virtue theory moved to the margins of Western philosophy. The contemporary revival of virtue theory is frequently traced to the philosopher G. E. M. Anscombe's 1958 essay "Modern Moral Philosophy". Following this:
- In the 1976 paper "The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories", Michael Stocker summarises the main aretaic criticisms of deontological and consequentialist ethics.
- Philippa Foot, who published a collection of essays in 1978 entitled Virtues and Vices.
- Alasdair MacIntyre has made an effort to reconstruct a virtue-based theory in dialogue with the problems of modern and postmodern thought; his works include After Virtue and Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry.
- Paul Ricoeur has accorded an important place to Aristotelian teleological ethics in his hermeneutical phenomenology of the subject, most notably in his book Oneself as Another.
- theologian Stanley Hauerwas has also found the language of virtue quite helpful in his own project.
- Rosalind Hursthouse has published On Virtue Ethics.
- Roger Crisp and Michael Slote have edited a collection of important essays titled Virtue Ethics
- Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have employed virtue theory in theorizing the capability approach to international development.
The aretaic turn in moral philosophy is paralleled by analogous developments in other philosophical disciplines. One of these is epistemology, where a distinctive virtue epistemology has been developed by Linda Zagzebski and others. In political theory, there has been discussion of "virtue politics", and in legal theory, there is a small but growing body of literature on virtue jurisprudence. The aretaic turn also exists in American constitutional theory, where proponents argue for an emphasis on virtue and vice of constitutional adjudicators.
Aretaic approaches to morality, epistemology, and jurisprudence have been the subject of intense debates. One criticism that is frequently made focuses on the problem of guidance; opponents, such as Robert Louden in his article "Some Vices of Virtue Ethics", question whether the idea of a virtuous moral actor, believer, or judge can provide the guidance necessary for action, belief formation, or the decision of legal disputes.
See also
- Arete
- Aretaic turn
- Buddhist Ethics (discipline)
- Confucianism
- Cynicism
- Eudaimonism
- Rule according to higher law
- Seven virtues
- Stoicism
- Virtue jurisprudence
- Virtue
