Abstract
I argue that debates about virtue are best settled by clearly distinguishing two questions:
(a)What sort of character trait is there reason to cultivate?(b)What sort of character trait is there reason (morally) to admire?
With this distinction in mind, I focus on recent accounts of what consequentialists ought to say about virtue, arguing that:
(1)The instrumentalist view of virtue accepted by many prominent consequentialists should not be accepted as the default view for consequentialists to hold.(2)The main rival view, the appropriate response account, not only avoids the major objection facing the instrumental view, but gives the correct diagnosis of where it goes wrong.(3)Two objections that seem to face the appropriate response account can in fact be convincingly met in ways which leave it looking stronger.(4)The appropriate response account is also to be preferred to a disjunctive view or a mixed view.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Sociology and Political Science,Philosophy
Reference21 articles.
1. Uneasy Virtue
2. Alienation, Consequentialism and the Demands of Morality;Railton;Philosophy and Public Affairs,1984
3. The Strike of the Demon: On Fitting Pro‐attitudes and Value
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献