Virtue Theories and Adultery PHILOSOPHY 220 Character vs

Virtue Theories and Adultery PHILOSOPHY 220

Character vs. Acts 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. 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” (24). 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” (24). Dishonesty, Cowardice, Injustice, Intemperance, Selfishness

A TRC for Virtue Ethics On the basis of the distinction between virtues and vices, it is possible to articulate a general TRC for VE. 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?

VE and Adultery At first glance, we might wonder why Halwani chooses VE as a context to evaluate the moral status of adultery. All of the other theories we have considered seem to have a ready answer to supply. In response to Richard Taylor’s story about the unhappy couple, Halwani identifies two perspectives from which VE can say something important and distinct about adultery. The nature of love. The nature of the virtuous person.

Love and Adultery In the first instance, Halwani points to the fact that adultery violates the bonds of love as the source of its wrongness. Is this a VE approach? Though she acknowledges the disconnect between sex and love, she insists that the disconnect is not as absolute as we sometimes believe. Adultery almost inevitable leads to emotional betrayal and hurt. As such, fidelity in an appropriate ideal in marriage.

Would the Phronimos commit Adultery? On the assumption that fidelity is the ideal, then clearly the virtuous agent would be faithful. Not only this, but they would presumably work to foster the emotional structures which Adultery threaten. Though we may not be by nature monogamous, VE’s TRC says that we should be.

The Relationship of the Virtues VE is supposed to put the virtues first and then derive judgments about actions later, but Halwani starts with types of actions and then moves to the virtues. However, in her discussion of various types of failures to conform to the ideal of fidelity, she does point to something fundamental. All of the virtues are connected. For VE, it’s an all or nothing affair. Lacking one or more of the virtues make it impossible to act virtuously in all instances.