Issue Whether Aristotelian virtue ethics can give sufficiently clear
guidance about how to act
Integration This objection challenges the appeal of the practical challenges
entailed by a holistic, relativist approach
Weighting This objection attacks the implications of a fundamental philosophy
which lies behind virtue ethics - that a relativist, holistic approach is
better suited than a dogmatic, absolutist approach. Thus, it attacks
the essence of the theory and, therefore, if successful, would be
very significant.
However, it is perhaps not crucial as it does not ipso facto render a
relativist approach false. Instead, it highlights that it is merely
unattractive that the theory doesn't go far enough in providing strict
guidelines. This supposedly undermines the function of a normative
ethical theory (which is to guide the moral agent) perhaps making
virtue ethics redundant. This decreases its appeal but does not
provide it false or logically incoherent.
Thus, this would be pro tanto a very crucial but not a fatal
criticism, if successful
Counter 1 Perhaps it is actually a strength of virtue ethics that it doesn’t
prescribe absolutist guidelines. These approaches oversimplify
complex moral situations and do not give the individual enough
flexibility. Morals are meant to be vague and up for interpretation
and thus virtue ethics is appealing when it gives more agency to the
individual to form their own moral intuitions through phronesis and
the golden mean
Integration This counter-argument considers whether we can preserve
Aristotle’s appeal by rejecting the assumption that a normative
ethical theory must strictly guide the moral agent to be necessary,
fulfill its function and be plausible.
Success Surely this collapses AVE into moral relativism? Everyone is
going to have their own moral laws meaning that there will not be
enough consistency between moral agents. If this is the case then
, how can AVE operate as a practical theory? How can it create
objective moral rules and laws which all of society must follow?
For example, a society relies upon objective moral laws to underpin
and legitimize our legal system.
Seemingly, it is at least a role of a normative ethical theory to offer
some prescriptions which society must follow and can be judged
against.
Counter 2 Hursthouse argues that we can extract moral rules from Aristotle’s
pre-existing moral framework. Taken together, the vices not found
on the mean can be taken as negative prescriptions. These can be
interpreted as principles which can guide the moral agent to act
virtuously. For example, “do not be greedy”. She calls these rules
V-rules
Integration This counter-argument considers whether we can preserve
Aristotle’s appeal by rejecting the claim that Virtue ethics does not
have a clear system to guide the moral agent to do virtuous acts
such as the Categorical Imperative or Hedonic Calculus
Success Perhaps V-rules are more psychologically realistic than rigid
moral laws since they are grounded in character traits humans
can actually develop? It could be argued that they offer a suitable
balance. They give us rules and structures to underpin society
without being too restricting and dogmatic
But do V-rules offer enough guidance? Consider Rosalind
Hursthouse’s example of euthanasia, where virtues appear to
conflict. V-rules attempt to guide action by prohibiting vices (e.g. “do
not be callous” or “do not be unjust”), but in this scenario, following
these rules may simply highlight the moral dilemma rather than
resolve it. Avoiding callousness might support euthanasia as an act
of mercy, while avoiding injustice might oppose it as a violation of
moral or legal norms. But these V-rules do not clearly prioritise one
virtue over another in cases of conflict.
guidance about how to act
Integration This objection challenges the appeal of the practical challenges
entailed by a holistic, relativist approach
Weighting This objection attacks the implications of a fundamental philosophy
which lies behind virtue ethics - that a relativist, holistic approach is
better suited than a dogmatic, absolutist approach. Thus, it attacks
the essence of the theory and, therefore, if successful, would be
very significant.
However, it is perhaps not crucial as it does not ipso facto render a
relativist approach false. Instead, it highlights that it is merely
unattractive that the theory doesn't go far enough in providing strict
guidelines. This supposedly undermines the function of a normative
ethical theory (which is to guide the moral agent) perhaps making
virtue ethics redundant. This decreases its appeal but does not
provide it false or logically incoherent.
Thus, this would be pro tanto a very crucial but not a fatal
criticism, if successful
Counter 1 Perhaps it is actually a strength of virtue ethics that it doesn’t
prescribe absolutist guidelines. These approaches oversimplify
complex moral situations and do not give the individual enough
flexibility. Morals are meant to be vague and up for interpretation
and thus virtue ethics is appealing when it gives more agency to the
individual to form their own moral intuitions through phronesis and
the golden mean
Integration This counter-argument considers whether we can preserve
Aristotle’s appeal by rejecting the assumption that a normative
ethical theory must strictly guide the moral agent to be necessary,
fulfill its function and be plausible.
Success Surely this collapses AVE into moral relativism? Everyone is
going to have their own moral laws meaning that there will not be
enough consistency between moral agents. If this is the case then
, how can AVE operate as a practical theory? How can it create
objective moral rules and laws which all of society must follow?
For example, a society relies upon objective moral laws to underpin
and legitimize our legal system.
Seemingly, it is at least a role of a normative ethical theory to offer
some prescriptions which society must follow and can be judged
against.
Counter 2 Hursthouse argues that we can extract moral rules from Aristotle’s
pre-existing moral framework. Taken together, the vices not found
on the mean can be taken as negative prescriptions. These can be
interpreted as principles which can guide the moral agent to act
virtuously. For example, “do not be greedy”. She calls these rules
V-rules
Integration This counter-argument considers whether we can preserve
Aristotle’s appeal by rejecting the claim that Virtue ethics does not
have a clear system to guide the moral agent to do virtuous acts
such as the Categorical Imperative or Hedonic Calculus
Success Perhaps V-rules are more psychologically realistic than rigid
moral laws since they are grounded in character traits humans
can actually develop? It could be argued that they offer a suitable
balance. They give us rules and structures to underpin society
without being too restricting and dogmatic
But do V-rules offer enough guidance? Consider Rosalind
Hursthouse’s example of euthanasia, where virtues appear to
conflict. V-rules attempt to guide action by prohibiting vices (e.g. “do
not be callous” or “do not be unjust”), but in this scenario, following
these rules may simply highlight the moral dilemma rather than
resolve it. Avoiding callousness might support euthanasia as an act
of mercy, while avoiding injustice might oppose it as a violation of
moral or legal norms. But these V-rules do not clearly prioritise one
virtue over another in cases of conflict.
