Transcript Virtue Ethics and Moral Pluralsim

Philosophy 220
Virtue Ethics and Moral Pluralism
Virtue Ethics
• Though historically speaking, Virtue Ethics is
the first systematic, philosophical ethical
position, it had until somewhat recently been
pushed aside by the other ethical theories we’ve
studied.
• One reason for this is that these other theories
have focused our attention on the ethical
evaluation of acts, while VE focuses on character.
• There are lots of (not necessarily all good)
reasons to prefer the former.
An Ethic of Virtue
• The lack of attention (until recently) paid to VE
has the result that there is still a great deal of
disagreement about the basic structure of VE.
• We can say a few basic and uncontentious things
about such theories.
• The first and most important one is the VE
reverses the tendency that we’ve seen in other
ethical theories and makes the concepts of virtue
and vice basic.
o Right and Wrong become derivative concepts.
Virtue and Vice
• Virtue: “a trait of character or mind that
typically involves dispositions to act, feel,
and think in certain ways and that is central
to a positive evaluation of persons” (25).
o Honesty, Courage, Justice, Temperance, Beneficence
• Vice: “a trait of character or mind that
typically involves dispositions to act, feel and
think in certain ways, and that is central to a
negative evaluation of persons” (26).
o Dishonesty, Cowardice, Injustice, Intemperance, Selfishness
A TRA for Virtue Ethics
• On the basis of the distinction between virtues and
vices, it is possible to articulate a general TRA for
VE.
o An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent (acting in
character) would not avoid doing in the circumstances
under consideration.
• If a virtuous agent would do it, the action is
obligatory; if they might do it, the action is
permissible; if they wouldn’t do it, the action is
forbidden.
• “Acting in character” points to the concept of
“practical wisdom” and the significance of moral
judgment/intuition for VE.
Advantages of VE
• It is consistent with our moral intuition
that there may be more than one right
answer in the face of a moral dilemma.
• It is not inconsistent with our conviction
that traits of character are importantly out
of our control, inasmuch as they are
influences by genetics and circumstance.
• It encourages us to take a holistic view of
our moral circumstances.
Disadvantages?
• What about the virtues and vices
themselves?
• Who is a virtuous agent?
• How do we know if they are “acting
in character?”
• What if we lack a virtuous character?
Moral Pluralism
• One common feature of our moral lives that we’ve
already encountered are conflicts of duties. There is
often more than one thing that we are morally obligated
to do, and when we can’t satisfy both obligations, we
have to chose one to satisfy and one to fail.
• Morally monistic views would ultimately deny that any
such conflicts exist. If we are conflicted, it’s because we
are not working the machinery of the theory correctly.
• Morally pluralistic views, on the other hand, are
skeptical that there is any one deontic standard that can
do all the work necessary.
The Main Idea
• For moral pluralism, there is a plurality of basic
moral principles of right conduct. There is no more
fundamental or basic moral principle that justifies
these plural principles.
• The basic moral principles give us moral reasons to
perform actions. These reasons can compete with
and outweigh one another.
• Because these principles are basic, but can be
outweighed by other, competing principles, moral
philosophers say that they impose a prima facie (at
first glance; sufficient unless rebutted) moral
obligation.
Ross’s Ethics of Prima Facie
Duty
• Ross’s account of our prima facie duties emerges out of
a theory of human nature that identifies four basic
intrinsic goods:
1.
2.
3.
4.
virtue
pleasure
pleasure in proportion to virtue
knowledge
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Duties of Fidelity (keeping one’s word)
Duties of Reparation (repairing harm we’ve done)
Duties of Gratitude
Duties of Justice (distribution of goods and burdens)
Duties of Beneficence (obligation to help others in need)
Duties of Self-Improvement
Duties of Non-Maleficence (do no harm)
• From this account of these basic goods, Ross identifies
seven classes of prima facie duties (i.e., basic moral
principles of right action):
Ross’s TRA
• On the basis of this account of our basic prima
facie duties, we can specify a TRA for a Rossean
moral pluralism.
o An action A is obligatory iff one has a prima facie duty to
do A that is weightier than any other conflicting prima
facie duty.
o An action A is wrong iff there is some alternative action
that would be responsive to a weightier prima facie duty.
o An action A is permissible iff 1) there are no prima facie
duties operating in the context or 2) there are more than
one prima facie duties operating in the context and they
are of equal weight, and you act in accordance with one
of them.
Strengths and Weaknesses
• One obvious advantage of a view like Ross’s is that it
builds in recognition of and machinery to handle a
common, perhaps inelliminable feature of our moral
lives: the fact of moral conflict.
• It also benefits from being rooted in a relatively
straightforward account of human nature.
• On the other side of the equation, just as with virtue
ethics, the particular account of the prima facie duties
seems susceptible to criticism, both in terms of their
content and in terms of their connection to each other.
• There are also possible questions about the actionguidingness of such an approach. There would seem to
be a number of possible moral concerns that aren’t
addressed by Ross’s duties.