Four Solutions to the Alleged Incompleteness of Virtue Ethics
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19524738 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Sean McAleer, Dean McAleer (University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2010 |
| Volume | 4 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 1-21 |
| Publication date | 2010-09-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1559-3061 • E-ISSN: 1559-3061 |
| Publisher | Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.26556/jesp.v4i3.44 |
| OpenAlex | W342949624 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 2 |
In “Virtue and Right,” Robert Johnson argues that virtue ethics that accept standards such as Virtuous Agent (A’s x-ing is right in circumstances c iff a fully virtuous agent would x in c) are incomplete, since they cannot account for duties of moral self-improvement. In this paper I offer four solutions to the problem of incompleteness. The first discards Virtuous Agent and counts actions as wrong iff a vicious person would perform them. The second retains Virtuous Agent but counts self-improving actions as countererogatory: wrong but nonetheless good to do. The third replaces Virtuous Agent with a standard appealing to the Mengzian virtue of righteousness, understood as situational appropriateness. The fourth replaces Virtuous Agent with a standard that holds an action right if it promotes the agent’s virtue. Each solution accommodates duties of moral self-improvement, so a virtue ethics embracing any of them would not be incomplete
Economics · Epistemic virtue · Epistemology · Law and economics · Political science · Righteousness · Situational ethics · Sociology · Theology · Virtue · Virtue ethics · Virtuous circle and vicious circle · Ethics in medical practice · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophical Ethics and Theory · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 0.25 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2021 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |