Virtue
ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation,
search

Part of a series
on

Aristotelianism

Aristotelianism

Peripatetic
school
physics
ethics
term
logic
view of
women
view of
God (unmoved
mover)

Corpus
Aristotelicum

Physics
Organon
Nicomachean
Ethics
Politics
Metaphysics
On the
Soul
Rhetoric
Poetics

Ideas

Correspondence
theory of truth
hexis
virtue ethics (golden
mean)
four causes
telos
phronesis
eudaimonia
arete
temporal
finitism
antiperistasis
nature
potentiality
and actuality
universals
(substantial
form)
hylomorphism
mimesis
catharsis
substances (ousia) and
accidents
essence
category of
being
magnanimity
sensus
communis
rational
animal
genus–differentia
definition

Influences and followers

Plato
Alexander the
Great
Theophrastus
Avicenna
Averroes
Maimonides
St. Thomas
Aquinas
Alasdair
MacIntyre
Martha
Nussbaum

Related

Platonism
Commentaries
on Aristotle
Scholasticism
Conimbricenses
Pseudo-Aristotle

Philosophy
portal

v

t

e

Virtue ethics 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.[1]

The difference between these three approaches to morality tends to lie more
in the way of how 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, lying would be made in a
case-by-case basis that would be based on factors such as personal benefit,
group benefit, and intentions (as to whether they are benevolent or
malevolent).

Contents

1 Overview

2 Distinctions

3 Achieving
eudaimonia

4 Historical origins and
development

5 Contemporary 'aretaic
turn'

6 Non-Western
tradition

7 Criticisms

7.1 Subsumed in deontology and
utilitarianism

7.2 Utopianism and
pluralism

8 Applications

9 See also

10 References

11 Further reading

12 External
links

Overview[edit]

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 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 20th century, and is today one of the three
dominant approaches to normative theories (the other two being deontology and consequentialism).[2]
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.

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.

Distinctions[edit]

Virtue ethics can be contrasted to deontological ethics and
consequentialist ethics
by an examination of the other two (the three being together the most
predominant contemporary normative ethical theories).

Deontological
ethics, sometimes referred to as duty ethics, places the emphasis on
adhering to ethical principles or duties. How these duties are defined, however,
is often a point of contention and debate in deontological ethics. One of the
predominant rule schemes utilized by deontologists is the Divine Command
Theory. Deontology also depends, at least partially, upon meta-ethical realism, in that
it postulates the existence of moral absolutes that make
an action moral, regardless of circumstances. For more information on
deontological ethics refer to the work of Immanuel Kant.

The next predominant school of thought in normative ethics is consequentialism. While
deontology places the emphasis on doing one's duty, which is established by some
kind of moral imperative (in other words, the emphasis is on obedience to some
higher moral absolute), consequentialism bases the morality of an action upon
the consequences of the outcome. Instead of saying that one has a moral duty to
abstain from murder, a consequentialist would say that we should abstain from
murder because it causes undesirable effects. The main contention here is what
outcomes should/can be identified as objectively desirable. The Greatest
Happiness Principle of John Stuart Mill is one
of the most commonly adopted criteria. Mill asserts that our determinant of the
desirability of an action is the net amount of happiness it brings, the number
of people it brings it to, and the duration of the happiness. He also tries to
delineate classes of happiness, some being preferable to others, but there is a
great deal of difficulty in classifying such concepts. For a more complete
outline of the niceties of Mill's classification system see the page on utilitarianism or read
Mill's works Utilitarianism,
Defense of Utilitarianism, and On Liberty. Examining the
meta-ethical theories of naturalism, upon
which many consequentialist theories rely, may provide further clarification.
Having looked at the other two normative ethical theories we come at last to
virtue ethics.

As stated before, deontology focuses on
adhering to ethical duties, while consequentialism
focuses on the outcomes (consequences) of actions. Here virtue ethics differs in
that the focus is instead upon being rather than doing. A virtue ethics
philosopher will identify virtues, desirable
characteristics, that the moral or virtuous person embodies. Possessing these
virtues, in virtue ethics, is what makes one moral, and one's actions are a mere
reflection of one's inner morality. To the virtue philosopher, action cannot be
used as a demarcation of morality, because a virtue encompasses more than just a
simple selection of action. Instead, it is about a way of being that would cause
the person exhibiting the virtue to make a certain "virtuous" choice
consistently in each situation. There is a great deal of disagreement within
virtue ethics over what are virtues and what are not. There are also
difficulties in identifying what is the "virtuous" action to take in all
circumstances, and how to define a virtue.

Consequentialist and deontological theories often still employ the term
'virtue', but in a restricted sense, namely as a tendency or disposition to
adhere to the system's principles or rules. These very different senses of what
constitutes virtue, hidden behind the same word, are a potential source of
confusion. This disagreement over the meaning of virtue points to a larger
conflict between virtue theory and its philosophical rivals. A system of virtue
theory is only intelligible if it is teleological: that is, if
it includes an account of the purpose (telos) of human life, or in
popular language, the meaning of life.[citation
needed] Obviously, strong claims about the purpose of human
life, or of what the good life for human beings is, will be highly
controversial. Virtue theory's necessary commitment to a teleological account of
human life thus puts the tradition in sharp tension with other dominant
approaches to normative ethics, which, because they focus on actions, do not
bear this burden.[citation
needed]

Achieving
eudaimonia[edit]

Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) is a state variously translated from Greek as
'well-being', 'happiness', 'blessedness', and in the context of virtue ethics,
'human flourishing'.[3]
Eudaimonia in this sense is not a subjective, but an objective, state. It
characterizes the well-lived life. According to Aristotle, the most prominent
exponent of eudaimonia in the Western philosophical tradition,
eudaimonia is the proper goal of human life. It consists of exercising
the characteristic human quality -- reason—as the soul's most proper
and nourishing activity. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle, like Plato
before him, argued that the pursuit of eudaimonia is an "activity of the
soul in accordance with perfect virtue",[4]
which further could only properly be exercised in the characteristic human
community—the polis or city-state.

Although eudaimonia was first popularized by Aristotle, it now belongs
to the tradition of virtue theories generally. For the virtue theorist,
eudaimonia describes that state achieved by the person who lives the
proper human life, an outcome that can be reached by practicing the virtues. A
virtue is a habit or quality that allows the bearer to succeed at his, her, or
its purpose. The virtue of a knife, for example, is sharpness; among the virtues
of a racehorse is speed. Thus to identify the virtues for human beings, one must
have an account of what the human purpose is. There is, and always has been,
sharp disagreement on this question: thus, as Alasdair MacIntyre
observed in After Virtue, though
thinkers as diverse as Homer, Aristotle, the authors of the
New
Testament, Thomas Aquinas, and Benjamin Franklin have
all proposed lists, and sometimes theories of the interrelation, of the virtues,
these do not always overlap.[citation
needed]

Aristotle categorized the virtues as moral and intellectual.
Aristotle identified nine intellectual virtues, the most important of which was
wisdom; sophia (theoretical
wisdom) and phronesis (practical
wisdom). The other eight moral virtues include:

Prudence

Justice

Fortitude

Temperance

Aristotle argued that each of the moral virtues was a mean (see Golden Mean)
between two corresponding vices, one of excess and one of deficiency. For
example: courage is a virtue found
between the vices of cowardliness and rashness.

Historical
origins and development[edit]

Like much of the Western tradition, virtue theory seems to have originated in
ancient Greek philosophy.
Discussion of what were known as the Four Cardinal
Virtues - wisdom, justice, fortitude and
temperance - can be
found in Plato's Republic. The
virtues also figure prominently in Aristotle's moral theory (see below). Virtue
theory was inserted into the study of history by moralistic historians
such as Livy, Plutarch, and Tacitus. The Greek
idea of the virtues was passed on in Roman philosophy through Cicero and later incorporated
into Christian moral theology by St. Ambrose of Milan. During
the scholastic period, the
most comprehensive consideration of the virtues from a theological perspective
was provided by St. Thomas Aquinas in his
Summa Theologiae
and his Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics.

The tradition was eclipsed in the Renaissance, and throughout the early
modern period, when the Aristotelian synthesis of ethics and metaphysics fell
into disfavour. Though the tradition receded into the background of European
philosophical thought in these centuries, the term "virtue" remained current
during this period, and in fact appears prominently in the tradition of classical
republicanism or classical
liberalism. This tradition was prominent in the intellectual life of
16th-century Italy,
as well as 17th- and 18th-century Britain and America; indeed the term "virtue"
appears frequently in the work of Niccolò
Machiavelli, David Hume, the republicans
of the English Civil War
period, the 18th-century English Whigs, and the
prominent figures among the Scottish
Enlightenment and the American Founding
Fathers. Despite this common term, classical republicanism should not be
conflated with virtue theory, as the two philosophical traditions draw from
different sources and often address different concerns. Where virtue theory
traces its roots to Aristotle, classical republicanism draws primarily on
Tacitus.

Virtue theory emphasizes Aristotle's belief in the polis as the acme of political
organization, and the role of the virtues in enabling human beings to flourish
in that environment. Classical republicanism in contrast emphasizes Tacitus's
concern that power and luxury can corrupt individuals and destroy liberty, as
Tacitus perceived in the transformation of the Roman
republic into an empire; virtue for classical republicans is a shield
against this sort of corruption and a means to preserve the good life one has,
rather than a means by which to achieve the good life one does not yet have.
Another way to put the distinction between the two traditions is that virtue
ethics relies on Aristotle's fundamental distinction between the
human-being-as-he-is from the human-being-as-he-should-be, while classical
republicanism relies on the Tacitean distinction of the human-being-as-he-is
from the human-being-as-he-is-at-risk-of-becoming.[5]

Contemporary
'aretaic turn'[edit]

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.[6]

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.

Non-Western
tradition[edit]

Non-Western moral and religious philosophies, such as Confucianism, also
incorporate ideas that may appear similar to those developed by the ancient
Greeks. Like ancient Greek ethics, Chinese ethical thought makes an
explicit connection between virtue and statecraft.
However, where the Greeks focused on the interior orientation of the soul,
Confucianism's definition of virtue emphasizes interpersonal relations.
Confucian ethics have been labeled as a form of role ethics rather than
virtue ethics.[7]
Normally when the term virtue theory is used, it is in reference to the western
conception of virtue theory, rather than any of the schools of East Asian
ethical thought.

Nick Gier in Buddhist Ethics as Virtue Ethics compares Buddha's
ethical teachings to Aristotle's: "Like Greek virtue ethics, Buddhist ethics is
also humanistic and thoroughly personalist."[8]

Damien Keown devotes a
great deal of his work to debunking claims that Buddhism is Utilitarian in
nature. His work then goes on to examine the structure of Buddhist Ethics,
focusing specifically on morality (Pali: siila). His conclusion is that Buddhist
Ethics most closely resembles the ancient Greek virtue ethics found in Aristotle.

James Whitehill in Buddhist Ethics in Western Context: The Virtues
Approach says: "Buddhism's legitimation in the West can be partially met by
demonstrating that Buddhist morality is a virtue-oriented, character-based,
community-focused ethics, commensurate with the Western 'ethics of virtue'
tradition."[9]

Criticisms[edit]

Some criticize the theory in relation to the difficulty involved with
establishing the nature of the virtues. Different people, cultures and societies
often have vastly different opinions on what constitutes a virtue.

For example, regarding what are the most important virtues, Aristotle
proposed the nine listed earlier (just above Historical
origins): wisdom; prudence; justice; fortitude; courage; liberality;
magnificence; magnanimity; temperance. In contrast, one modern-era philosopher
proposed as the four cardinal virtues: ambition/humility; love; courage; and
honesty.[10]

As another example, regarding virtues once supposedly applicable to women,
many would have once considered a virtuous woman to be quiet, servile, and
industrious. This conception of female virtue no longer holds true in many
modern societies (see also cultural
relativism). Proponents of virtue theory sometimes respond to this
objection by arguing that a central feature of a virtue is its universal
applicability. In other words, any character trait defined as a virtue
must reasonably be universally regarded as a virtue for all sentient beings.
According to this view, it is inconsistent to claim for example servility as a
female virtue, while at the same time not proposing it as a male one.

Other proponents of virtue theory, notably Alasdair MacIntyre,
respond to this objection by arguing that any account of the virtues must indeed
be generated out of the community in which those virtues are to be practiced:
the very word 'ethics' implies 'ethos'. That is to say that the virtues are, and
necessarily must be, grounded in a particular time and place. What counts as
virtue in 4th-century Athens would be a ludicrous guide to proper behavior in
21st-century Toronto, and vice-versa. To take this view does not necessarily
commit one to the argument that accounts of the virtues must therefore be
static: moral activity—that is, attempts to contemplate and practice the
virtues—can provide the cultural resources that allow people to change, albeit
slowly, the ethos of their own societies. MacIntyre appears to
take this position in his seminal work on virtue ethics, After
Virtue. One might cite (though MacIntyre does not)
the rapid emergence of abolitionist thought in the
slave-holding societies of the
18th-century Atlantic world as an
example of this sort of change: over a relatively short period of time, perhaps
1760 to 1800, in Britain, France, and British America, slave-holding, previously
thought to be morally neutral or even virtuous, rapidly became seen as vicious
among wide swathes of society. While the emergence of abolitionist thought
derived from many sources, the work of David Brion Davis,
among others[who?],
has established that one source was the rapid, internal evolution of moral
theory among certain sectors of these societies, notably the Quakers.

Another objection to virtue theory is that the school does not focus on what
sorts of actions are morally permitted and which ones are not, but rather
on what sort of qualities someone ought to foster in order to become a good
person. In other words, while some virtue theorists may not condemn, for
example, murder as an inherently immoral or impermissible sort of action, they
may argue that someone who commits a murder is severely lacking in several
important virtues, such as compassion and fairness.
Still, antagonists of the theory often object that this particular feature of
the theory makes virtue ethics useless as a universal norm of acceptable conduct
suitable as a base for legislation. Some virtue
theorists concede this point, but respond by opposing the very notion of
legitimate legislative authority instead, effectively
advocating some form of anarchism as the political
ideal[citation
needed]. Others argue that laws should be made by virtuous
legislators. Still others argue that it is possible to base a judicial system on
the moral notion of virtues rather than rules.

Some virtue theorists might respond to this overall objection with the notion
of a "bad act" also being an act characteristic of vice[citation
needed]. That is to say that those acts that do not aim at
virtue, or stray from virtue, would constitute our conception of "bad behavior".
Although not all virtue ethicists agree to this notion, this is one way the
virtue ethicist can re-introduce the concept of the "morally impermissible". One
could raise objection with Foot that she is committing an argument from
ignorance by postulating that what is not virtuous is unvirtuous. In other
words, just because an action or person 'lacks of evidence' for virtue does not,
all else constant, imply
that said action or person is unvirtuous.

Subsumed in deontology and utilitarianism[edit]

Martha Nussbaum has
suggested that, though virtue ethics is often considered to be anti-Enlightenment,
"suspicious of theory and respectful of the wisdom embodied in local
practices",[11]
it is actually neither fundamentally distinct from nor qualifies as a rival
approach to deontology and utilitarianism. She argues that philosophers from the
latter, Enlightenment traditions often include theories of virtue. She pointed
out that Kant's "Doctrine of
Virtue" (in The Metaphysics of
Morals) "covers most of the same topics as do classical Greek theories",
"that he offers a general account of virtue, in terms of the strength of the
will in overcoming wayward and selfish inclinations; that he offers detailed
analyses of standard virtues such as courage and self-control, and of vices,
such as avarice, mendacity, servility, and pride; that, although in general he
portrays inclination as inimical to virtue, he also recognizes that sympathetic
inclinations offer crucial support to virtue, and urges their deliberate
cultivation."[11]

Nussbaum also points to considerations of virtue by utilitarians such as Henry
Sidgwick (The Methods of
Ethics), Jeremy Bentham (The
Principles of Morals and Legislation), and John Stuart Mill, who
writes of moral development as part of an argument for the moral equality of
women (The Subjection of
Women). She argues that contemporary virtue ethicists such as Alasdair MacIntyre,
Bernard Williams, Philippa
Foot, and John McDowell have few
points of agreement, and that the common core of their work does not represent a
break from Kant.

Utopianism and
pluralism[edit]

Robert
Louden criticises virtue ethics on the basis that it promotes a form of
unsustainable utopianism. Trying to come to
a single set of virtues is immensely difficult in contemporary societies
as, according to Louden, they contain "more ethnic, religious, and class groups
than did the moral community which Aristotle theorized about" with each of these
groups having "not only its own interests but its own set of virtues as well".
Louden notes in passing that MacIntyre, a supporter of virtue-based ethics, has
grappled with this in After Virtue but that
ethics cannot dispense with building rules around acts and rely only on
discussing the moral character of persons.[12]

Applications[edit]

Virtue ethics has a number of applications. For instance, within the field of
social ethics, Deirdre McCloskey[13]
argues that virtue ethics can provide a basis for a balanced approach to
understanding capitalism and capitalist societies. Within the field of philosophy of
education, James
Page[14]
argues that virtue ethics can provide a rationale and foundation for peace education. Thomas Alured
Faunce has argued that whistleblowing in the healthcare setting would be
more respected within clinical governance pathways if it had a firmer academic
foundation in virtue ethics.[15][16]
He has argued that whistleblowing should have been expressly supported in the UNESCO Universal
Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights.[17]

See also[edit]

Aretaic turn

Arete

Buddhist
Ethics (discipline)

Confucianism

Cynicism

Environmental
virtue ethics

Eudaimonism

Fellowship
of Reason

Phronesis

Rule
according to higher law

Seven virtues

Stoicism

Virtue

Virtue
jurisprudence

References[edit]

This article includes a list of
references, but its sources remain unclear because it has
insufficient inline
citations. Please help to improve
this article by introducing
more precise citations. (June
2008)

^
Hursthouse,
Rosalind. "Virtue Ethics". In Zalta, Edward N. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2012 ed.).

^
Hursthouse, R. (1999). Introduction. In On
Virtue Ethics (pp. 1-24). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

^
Pojman, L.P. & Fieser, J. (2009). Virtue
Theory. In Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong (pp. 146-169). (6th ed.)
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

^
Aristotle.
Nicomachean Ethics. pp. Book I.

^
J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment

^
Michael Stocker, The Schizophrenia of Modern
Ethical Theories. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 73, No. 14, On Motives and
Morals (Aug. 12, 1976), pp. 453–466 JSTOR doi:10.2307/2025782

^
Chris Fraser; Dan
Robins; Timothy O'Leary (1 May 2011). Ethics in Early China: An Anthology. Hong Kong
University Press. pp. 17–35. ISBN 978-988-8028-93-1.

^
Buddhist
Ethics as Virtue Ethics

^
Buddhist
Ethics in Western Context: The Virtues Approach

^
Kaufmann,
W., 1961. The Faith Of A Heretic. Doubleday & Co., pages
317-338.

^ a
b
Nussbaum, Martha C.
(1999). "Virtue Ethics: A Misleading Category?". The Journal of
Ethics 3 (3): 163–201. Retrieved
23 September 2013.

^
Louden, Robert B.
(July 1984). "On Some Vices of
Virtue Ethics". American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (3):
227–236. Retrieved 6 October
2013.

^
McCloskey, D. The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for
an Age of Commerce. (2007) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN
978-0-226-55664-2.

^
Page, James S. (2008) Peace Education: Exploring
Ethical and Philosophical Foundations. Charlotte: Information Age
Publishing. ISBN
978-1-59311-889-1.

^
Faunce TA Developing and Teaching the Virtue-Ethics
Foundations of Healthcare Whistle Blowing Monash Bioethics Review 2004; 23(4):
41-55

^
Faunce TA and Jefferys S. Whistleblowing and
Scientific Misconduct: Renewing Legal and Virtue Ethics Foundations Journal of
Medicine and Law 2007, 26 (3): 567-84

^
Faunce TA and Nasu H. Normative Foundations of
Technology Transfer and Transnational Benefit Principles in the UNESCO
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human RightsJournal of Medicine and
Philosophy , 0 : 1 – 26, 2009 doi:10.1093/jmp/jhp021

Further reading[edit]

Crisp, Roger; Slote, Michael (1997). Virtue
Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Darwall, ed., Stephen (2003). Virtue
Ethics. Oxford: B. Blackwell.

Devettere, Raymond J. (2002). Introduction
to Virtue Ethics. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University
Press.

Gardiner, ed., Stephen M. (2005). Virtue
Ethics, Old and New. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Hursthouse, Rosalind (2001). On Virtue
Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swanton, Christine (2003). Virtue Ethics: a
Pluralistic View. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Taylor, Richard (2002). An Introduction to
Virtue Ethics. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

Virtue: Confucius and Aristotle by Jiyuan Yu

External links[edit]

Virtue Ethics entry in the Internet
Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Virtue
Ethics entry in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry by Rosalind
Hursthouse;

Moral
Character entry in the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, entry by Marcia Homiak.

Virtue Ethics - summary, criticisms and how to apply the
theory

Legal theory lexicon: Virtue ethics by Larry Solum.

A clickable
list of Virtues with definitions and famous quotes.

The Four Virtues

v

t

e

Philosophy

Branches
of philosophy

Traditional

Metaphysics

Epistemology

Logic

Ethics

Aesthetics

Philosophy of

Action

Art

Being

Biology

Business

Chemistry

Computer
science

Culture

Design

Dialogue

Education

Economics

Engineering

Environment

Film

Futility

Geography

Information

Healthcare

Hermeneutics

History

Human
nature

Humor

Justice

Language

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Mind

Music

Pain

Philosophy

Physics

Politics

Psychology

Religion

Science

Sexuality

Social
science

Society

Space
and time

Technology

War

Schools
of thought in philosophy

By
era

Ancient

Western

Medieval

Renaissance

Modern

Contemporary

Ancient

Chinese

Agriculturalism

Confucianism

Legalism

Logicians

Mohism

Chinese
naturalism

Neotaoism

Taoism

Yangism

Zen

Greco-Roman

Aristotelianism

Cynicism

Epicureanism

Neoplatonism

Peripatetic

Platonism

Presocratic

Pythagoreanism

Sophism

Stoicism

Indian

Buddhist

Cārvāka

Hindu

Jain

Persian

Mazdakism

Zoroastrianism

Zurvanism

Medieval

9th
– 16th
century

Christian
Europe

Scholasticism

Renaissance
humanism

Thomism

East Asian

Korean
Confucianism

Rigaku

Neo-Confucianism

Indian

Navya-Nyāya

Vishishtadvaita

Dvaita

Islamic

Averroism

Avicennism

Persian
Illuminationism

Kalam

Sufi

Jewish

Judeo-Islamic

Modern

17th
– 19th
century

Absolute
idealism

Anarchism

Cartesianism

Liberalism

Dialectical
materialism

Empiricism

Existentialism

Hegelianism

Idealism

Kantianism

Kokugaku

Marxist
philosophy

Modernism

Neo-Kantianism

Neo-Thomism

New
Confucianism

Phenomenology

Pragmatism

Rationalism

Transcendentalism

Utilitarianism

Contemporary

20th
– 21st
century

Analytic

Analytic
feminism

Consequentialism

Experimental
philosophy

Internalism
and Externalism

Falsificationism

Foundationalism
and Coherentism

Logical
positivism

Legal
positivism

Quinean
Naturalism

Ordinary
language philosophy

Quietism

Rawlsian

Reformed
epistemology

Postanalytic
philosophy

Utilitarianism
(Contemporary)

Neo-Aristotelian

Vienna
Circle

Wittgensteinian

Continental

Critical
theory

Deconstruction

Existentialism

Feminist

Frankfurt
School

Postmodernism

Post-structuralism

Social
constructionism

Structuralism

Kyoto
School

Russian
cosmism

more...

Philosophical
positions

Aesthetics

Formalism

Institutionalism

Aesthetic
Response

Ethics

Consequentialism

Deontology

Virtue

Free will

Compatibilism

Determinism

Libertarianism

Metaphysics

Atomism

Dualism

Monism

Naturalism

Epistemology

Constructivism

Empiricism

Idealism

Particularism

Fideism

Rationalism/Reasonism

Skepticism/Nihilism

Solipsism

Mind

Behaviorism

Eliminativism

Epiphenomenalism

Functionalism

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Normativity

Absolutism

Particularism

Relativism

Nihilism

Skepticism

Universalism

Ontology

Action

Event

Process

Reality

Anti-realism

Conceptualism

Idealism

Materialism

Naturalism

Nominalism

Realism

Philosophy
by region

Philosophy-related lists

By
region

African

Ethiopian

Aztec

Eastern

Chinese

Indian

Indonesian

Iranian

Japanese

Korean

Pakistani

Western

American

British

Danish

French

German

Greek

Italian

Polish

Romanian

Russian

Slovene

Lists

Outline

Index

Years

Problems

Schools

Glossary

Philosophers

Movements

Publications

Portal

Category

WikiProject

Changes

v

t

e

Ethics

Related articles

Applied
ethics

Axiology

Bioethics

Business
ethics

Christian
ethics

Descriptive
ethics

Discourse
ethics

Environmental
ethics

Evolutionary
ethics

Islamic
ethics

Jewish
ethics

Legal
ethics

Medical
ethics

Meta-ethics

Normative
ethics

Nursing
ethics

Professional
ethics

Religious
ethics

Sexual
ethics

Philosophers

Plato

Aristotle

Cicero

Confucius

Augustine
of Hippo

Mencius

Mozi

Xunzi

Thomas
Aquinas

Baruch
Spinoza

David Hume

Immanuel
Kant

Georg
W. F. Hegel

Arthur
Schopenhauer

Jeremy
Bentham

John Stuart
Mill

Søren
Kierkegaard

Henry
Sidgwick

Friedrich
Nietzsche

G. E.
Moore

Karl Barth

Paul
Tillich

Dietrich
Bonhoeffer

Philippa
Foot

John Rawls

Bernard
Williams

J. L.
Mackie

G. E. M.
Anscombe

Alasdair
MacIntyre

R. M. Hare

Peter
Singer

Derek
Parfit

Thomas
Nagel

Robert
Merrihew Adams

Charles
Taylor

Christine
Korsgaard

Martha
Nussbaum

more...

Theories

Consequentialism

Deontology

Virtue ethics

Ethics of
care

Pragmatic
ethics

Particularism

Role
ethics

Concepts

Autonomy

Axiology

Belief

Conscience

Consent

Equality

Care

Evaluative
diversity

Evil

Free will

Good

Happiness

Justice

Morality

Norm

Freedom

Principles

Suffering or
Pain

Stewardship

Sympathy

Trust

Value

Virtue

Wrong

full
index...

Portal

Category

Task
Force

Stubs

Discussion

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virtue_ethics&oldid=584627748"

Categories:

History of
philosophy

Normative
ethics

Virtue
ethics

Analytic
philosophy

Ethical
theories

Hidden categories:

Pages
containing cite templates with deprecated parameters

All
articles with unsourced statements

Articles
with unsourced statements from January 2011

Articles
with unsourced statements from May 2010

All
articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases

Articles
with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from January 2011

Articles
with unsourced statements from March 2013

Articles
with unsourced statements from January 2008

Articles
lacking in-text citations from June 2008

All
articles lacking in-text citations

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Create
account

Log
in

Namespaces

Article

Talk

Variants

Views

Read

Edit

View
history

Actions

Search

Navigation

Main page

Contents

Featured
content

Current
events

Random article

Donate
to Wikipedia

Interaction

Help

About Wikipedia

Community
portal

Recent
changes

Contact
page

Tools

What
links here

Related
changes

Upload
file

Special
pages

Permanent
link

Page
information

Data item

Cite
this page

Print/export

Create
a book

Download
as PDF

Printable
version

Languages

Català

Deutsch

Español

Français

Hrvatski

Íslenska

ქართული

Lietuvių

Nederlands

日本語

Slovenčina

Suomi

Svenska

Edit
links

This page was last modified on 5 December 2013 at
02:43.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to
the Terms of
Use and Privacy Policy.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a
non-profit organization.

Privacy
policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact
Wikipedia

Developers

Mobile view