eBook - ePub
The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics
Lorraine Besser-Jones, Michael Slote, Lorraine L Besser, Michael Slote
This is a test
Partager le livre
- 558 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics
Lorraine Besser-Jones, Michael Slote, Lorraine L Besser, Michael Slote
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
Virtue ethics is on the move both in Anglo-American philosophy and in the rest of the world. This volume uniquely emphasizes non-Western varieties of virtue ethics at the same time that it includes work in the many different fields or areas of philosophy where virtue ethics has recently spread its wings. Just as significantly, several chapters make comparisons between virtue ethics and other ways of approaching ethics or political philosophy or show how virtue ethics can be applied to "real world" problems.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă The Routledge Companion to Virtue Ethics par Lorraine Besser-Jones, Michael Slote, Lorraine L Besser, Michael Slote en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Philosophy et Philosophy History & Theory. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Part I
HISTORY OF VIRTUE ETHICS
1
PLATO AND THE ETHICS OF VIRTUE
In recent years some of Platoâs readers, influenced by discussions of the âethics of virtueâ over recent decades, have been moved to ask whether Plato espouses such a view, and have given various different answers. The question is difficult, because the phrase still doesnât have a clear-cut meaning. This is caused partly by the fact that its component expressions, âethicsâ and âvirtueâ are likewise ambiguous. And even âofâ causes difficulties, because thereâs little agreement about what, in the phrase âethics of virtue,â the relation between virtue and ethics is supposed to be.
Start with the simple idea that an ethics of virtue is an ethical position that makes virtue prominent by using virtue expressions often. Then itâs easy to determine that Plato does espouse such a position. But this standard isnât interesting: the prominence could easily be caused by trivial expository considerations. We want more than word-counting. We want to focus on substantive philosophical issues. If virtue terms are prominent, then why? Does Plato have grounds for making them so? One canât describe a position properly without identifying some grounds on which itâs adopted.
As Iâve hinted, the historical question whether Plato espouses an ethics of virtue hasnât been raised in a vacuum. Itâs been occasioned in recent decades by particular concerns within ethics itself. We should keep our eyes on those concerns. Therefore, one of our tasks is to determine whether, when Plato talks much of virtue and virtues, his reasons for stressing virtue are the same as the ones that are now philosophically active. My eventual answer will be: no. But Iâll start by reviewing some of the reasons that have been advanced in the last few centuries.
***
Prominence is a relation. If virtue concepts are common in Plato, we have to ask, prominent in contrast to what? What do they overshadow? What else might someone have stressed instead? We also want to know: to what are virtue terms applied? Various kinds of things can be called virtuous: people, their actions, their intentions, and so on. Which applications are prominent in Plato, and for what reasons?
Some usable answers are forthcoming from recent discussions. As to field of application: nowadays an ethics of virtue is typically thought of as giving priority to virtue terms as used of persons or their characters. Usually an ethics of virtue tries to tell us primarily what kind of person itâs âgood to be.â
Actions can be called virtuous too, of course, or be said to have particular virtues, like being courageous or just. But in a typical ethics of virtue these days, virtuous actions are specified, or defined, as actions that a virtuous person would do. Thus an actionâs virtue is usually thought to be somehow derivative from the virtue of the character or personality that produces it. The action inherits its evaluative character from the agent from whom it stems.
Weâve now touched on the main point that we need to understand about Plato. In his Republic he, too, pictures the virtue (or absence thereof) of an action as derivative from the virtue (or absence thereof) of a person. But in Platoâs picture the dependence is quite different from the modern one. On his view, weâll see, a just action is one that brings about or maintains justice in a person, not one that comes from it. That difference betokens other important differences between Platoâs concerns and more recent ones.
***
An ethical view that isnât an ethics of virtue is most likely (there are exceptions; see Frankena 1970) a so-called ethics of duty. Such a view doesnât recommend actions by saying that theyâre what a virtuous person would doâwhich is how an ethics of virtue recommends actions. Rather, an ethics of duty typically does two things. First, it usually gives general characterizations identifying types of actionsâcharacterizations like âkeeping promisesâ and âtelling the truth.â (Thus an ethics of duty specifies sorts of actions directly, rather than by the roundabout way of saying that theyâre what a virtuous person would do.) Second, an ethics of duty specifies those types of actions as actions that are required or obligatory; thatâs what it means to call them duties, or to say that one ought to do them.
Those who espouse an ethics of duty often say that because it specifies actions directly, it makes telling what to do much easier than an ethics of virtue does (see Frankena 1970; Schneewind 1990). An ethics of duty has to indicate how we can tell, in a given situation, âwhat a virtuous person would do.â Weâll see later how Plato, with his ethics of virtue, seems to try to answer this question.
***
The history and historiography of philosophy from the sixteenth through the nineteenth century reveal a definite occasion for asking whether Plato has this kind of reason for emphasizing concepts of virtue over those of duty and action. I sketch the picture with an extremely broad brush.
In the earlier part of this period, partly under the influence of legal thinkers like Grotius and Pufendorf, it was thought important to treat ethical standards as, in important ways, like a legal code, with clear rule-like specifications of what a person is to do and is not to doâin other words, as an ethics of action and, often, as an ethics of duty (Schneewind 1990). In the nineteenth century, there was a reaction against this, under the influence of Schiller and Hegel, and then increasingly in the second half of the twentieth, especially in English-speaking philosophy. This reaction largely involved objections to Kantâs ethics, which stressed duty vigorously.
These objections issued in a movement, especially since the 1950s, favoring anâas it came to be calledâethics of virtue, offered as a supposedly superior alternative to (especially) Kantian ethical thinking, and also favoring the evaluation of actions as opposed to persons and their characters.
Beginning with Schillerâs and Hegelâs criticisms of Kant (and stimulated, no doubt, by Kantâs chilly disregard of Greek ethics), this movement harked back strongly to classical Greek philosophy in generalâto Aristotle most of all, but also sometimes to Plato. The thought was that Greek philosophers represented the kind of thinking that was so sadly lacking in Kant and others like him.
As a result, many find it apposite to ask whether this historical pictureâof this or that Greek philosopher as offering an ethics of virtue as against Kantian duty-centered thinkingâis correct. Consequent on asking that question, of course, one asks the additional question: does Greek ethics offer grounds supporting an ethics of virtue? And are these grounds like the modern ones?
***
Does Plato say directly why he talks so much about virtue, or argue for doing so? No, he just does it, seemingly unselfconsciously. He does it a great deal in his early works, where he seems to be strongly under the influence of Socrates (esp. the Crito, Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Euthyphro, Hippias Major, Protagoras, Gorgias, Meno, and, Iâd say, Republic 1 as well), where he tries to define various virtues and, in the Meno, virtue itself. This seeming link between Socrates and Platoâs early discussions of virtues, together with a selective view of non-philosophical Greek literature, has made some of Platoâs readers believe that he unthinkingly absorbed an interest in virtue from earlier writers and from his âculture.â
That view canât be sustained, for two reasons. For one thing, thereâs plenty of talk within Greek literature, both in Platoâs time and before, that doesnât revolve around virtue, and doesnât treat the virtue of persons as focal. In fact, thereâs plenty of talk about actions that are required by a standard emanating from some other source than virtue. The gods issue lots of commands, and punish mortals for disobeying them. Zeus does that with thunderbolts. Greek mythology is full of such pictures (Lloyd-Jones 1983). Thereâs no good ground for saying that âattractiveâ standards of goodness and virtue there dominate âimperativeâ standards arising from commands.
These commands come from both divine and legal sources (and even from both, as in Platoâs Crito). True, Plato has no confidence in the power of law and law courts to regulate society, and throughout he gives this job over primarily to education. Nevertheless his Laws, written near the end of his life, is anything but skeptical of the power of law to set standards, though thatâs largely because it gives law an educative role too (Laws 857e).
Platoâs early works, by contrast, are chiefly devoted to attempts to define virtue terms (along with a couple of others, such as friendship in the Lysis). Strikingly, however, Plato often cites cases of virtue that arenât persons or their characters, but rather actions or action types (e.g., Euthyphro 5dâe, 7a). He doesnât say that persons are conceptually primary instances of virtue.
***
The Republic is like Platoâs earlier works in focusing on virtues possessed by persons, especially the virtue of justice, which the Republic tried to define. However, the work shows that Plato recognizes a different approach to ethics, which emphasizes actions and general rules. The interlocutors in the conversation accept the action- and rule-oriented approach. All of their attempts at defining justice in this way are refuted within Book 1. A definition of justice as speaking the truth and repaying what one owes is proposed and refuted (331d; N.B.: such references without the name of another Platonic work are to the widely standardized pages of the Republic); likewise a definition of it as helping friends and harming enemies (332d). Plato is on his way to arguing against, not only these particular definitions, but the whole approach of trying to define a virtue by means of direct specifications of the actions that fall under it.
Actions are likewise the focus of the conversation in Book 1 between the character Socrates and his chief adversary, Thrasymachus. The latterâs way of broaching the topic (338â339) sounds for all the world like a present-day treatment of the question, âWhy does it make sense to do whatâs right?â
Not only is Thrasymachusâ focus on just or right actions, including notably those that are required or forbidden by laws. Thrasymachus also maintains that most actions that are so called actually harm the persons who do them. So he asks, âWhy should anyone do them?â Thrasymachus himself asserts that doing them is simply âhigh-minded foolishnessâ (ĂȘlithios, 348c). (Notice that as the word âhigh-mindedâ shows, Thrasymachus doesnât think that everyone acknowledges that they act only in order to further their own well-being; rather, he ascribes to people a notion of non-self-regarding motivation, and Plato agrees; see White 2002: 189â214.)
The same preoccupation with actions is exhibited further in the restatements of Thrasymachusâ position by Glaucon and Adeimantus in Republic 2. The question on the table thenceforth is, then: is it in fact foolish to perform just actions?
Once Plato has disposed of these definitions, as weâll see, heâs on his way to rejectingâclearly, self-consciously, and emphatically (443câe)âthe whole action-oriented approach to defining justice. Instead he opts in the rest of the Republic for a kind of ethics of virtueâthough not, as weâll see, the kind thatâs common nowadays.
***
What we might initially expect from Plato as a response to Thrasymachusâ position is, of course, an argument for saying that doing just actions is indeed beneficial. But thatâs not what we get. From its inception in Books 2â4, and its continuation thereafter, Platoâs response has little directly to do with just or obligatory actions. Instead it deals with virtues, and especially justice as a virtue, both of characters or personalities (âsoulsâ or psychai), and also, by analogy to persons, of city-states (poleis) or social organizations of individuals.
Critics have objected that Plato has switched the terms of the debate in the middle of it, and hasnât shown his reply to be relevant to Thrasymachusâ position. This matter doesnât concern us here.
***
What does concern us is Platoâs shift in application of the term justice. In Platoâs early works and in Republic 1, the talk was of virtues, both of persons and of actions. Thrasymachusâ outburst (336b) led us to think primarily about justice as applied to (he thinks, âfoolishâ) actions. Thereupon Plato forced us to shift our attention back again to justice as applied to persons and their characters. These shifts have implications for whether weâre dealing with an ethics of virtue or not.
What that series of shifts conveys is this. Platoâs Socrates (and probably the historical Socrates, with his interest in the health of the individualâs soul) wanted to focus on defining virtue terms as applied both to persons and to other things, including actions. The relation between these two kinds of application wasnât fully articulated. T...