Virtue ethics is not just interested in the characterological states of the agent , but also on those acted upon. So bad behavior does not just express bad character, it also has effects on those who are acted upon, and in the worst cases, it has the effect of damaging the characters of those who are victimized by the bad behavior. For example, part of what is wrong with treating me badly is that it is likely that I will become more defensive, less trusting, less friendly, than I waas before I was treated badly. These bad--but quite natural--reactions can become habitual if someone is victimized enough. And as the gravity of the offense becomes greater, it seems there is also greater potential for the victim to be greatly damaged in their own character--victims, in other words, can be made less virtuous themselves, as a result of being victimized. Indeed, in a virtue theory, this may be the very worst aspect of bad behavior.

It sounds to me as if the notion of "informed consent" is being stretched past reasonable limits in your case. If it is well-known among members of the fraternity that new initiates are bullied, etc., it does not seem to me as if consent can be informed adequately if this is not made known to the prospective initiates before they pledge. At most colleges and universities, moreover, there are clear rules about what is and is not appropriate in these affairs, and anything that goes outside these rules is clearly not made exempt of sanction simply because the initiate "gave consent." More broadly, society has a reasonable interest in ensuring that somethings don't happen to its citizens--even if those citizens were to give consent. Slavery is a good example. Maybe someone might actually think it was a great idea to become the chattel slave of another, and might give his or her consent to such an arrangement. Even so, the arrangement would still be illegal, and I think the same goes for whether...

The question is quite complex, and so I will try to be careful about breaking down my answer into appropriate parts. (1) The question seems to presuppose that there can be no "objective norms of morality" unless these are established by "higher power." I really don't agree with this assumption. For one thing, there are good reasons for thinking that there are problems with thinking that "objective norms of morality" even could be established by "higher power." This is the so-called "Euthyphro problem" that derives from a puzzle originally given in Plato's Euthyphro . For the application of this problem in modern ethical theory (and why many have doubted the "divine command theory" of morality), see the article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on-line: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/#EutPro (2) At any rate, plenty of other bases have been proposed for howw there could be "objective norms of morality." In Aristotle, "morality" would derive from what are...

What can be considered ethical will, of course, depend on what conception of ethics (and also, perhaps, what metaphysical assumptions) one brings to bear on the question. So, for example, if one believes in the absolute sanctity of (human) life, then the fact that the loved one continues to be (biologically) human and alive will provide the answer. On the other hand, if you think that what makes something human (in the ethical sense) is the ability to make decisions (I think it can be argued that Aristotle, for example, believed this), then it would seem that it is ethically open to end the biological life of the loved one, since their human life had already ended, in your scenario. However, it would also follow from the Aristotelian view that there is nothing wrong with terminating the life of a fetus (or even infant!) until the time it is able to engage in decision-making. In other words, a proper answer to your question must flow from having, first, an adequate conception of what sort of...

Oh boy, I really feel for you. I also have a son with autism spectrum, and as we both know, it is difficult enough dealing with that, even without the additional problem of an unreasonable spouse. My advice is that you do a little homework and find some support in your area (and not among the nutbags who have bought into the antivaccinationist nonsense, because it has been medically proven that nonsense is absolutely what it is). Because your wife needs help , to put it rather bluntly. She is feeling victimized by something that is just terrible luck and that has nothing whatsoever to do with where she is pointing the finger of blame here. But the other thing is that you really, really have a serious ethical problem here, which your questions shows you are aware of. Because your wife's adamant views now affet your otheer children, which puts not only them at risk--it also puts at risk any other children who might be exposed to your own children's (preventable) diseases. This...

This is a really important question, but it is also one that too many people think is self-answering--as if it is simply obvious that if we are not feeding the poor or curing the sick (or whatever) we are simply being selfish and immoral. There are a couple of ways to resist this extreme position. (1) Supererogation is what ethicists call it when something goes "above and beyond the call of duty"--what is more like heroic than morally required. A moral theory (or command) that requires supererogation is regarded as faulty, because by any such theory or command, it will turn out that perfectly decent human behavior (like me teaching a class on Socrates) is immoral, simply because I could be doing something more likely to cure the sick or feed the poor (or whatever). What's more, (2) A theory or command that mandates such high standards at all times would, in all likelihood, make us all miserable , because we could never take a break, never seek simple (and innocent)...

I don't think there is any clear fixed meaning to "judgmental," as it is used for so many different kinds of cases. Generally, it is applied as a term of reproach; so perhaps we should understand it as applicable to those who pass judgment without good reasons, or in situations where the judgments (presumably negative ones--we don't normally characterize someone as "judgmental" if the judgments they pass are mostly favorable ones!) are made without sufficient social ground for making such judgments. Thosse who engage in "inexcusable evil" certainly merit our negative judgment. But decent and dignified people do not feel the need to pass judgment on each and every case of faux pas or clumsiness they happen to witness. Being "judgmental" seems to go along with failures of various other traits we regard as socially virtuous: modesty, forgiveness, grace, kindness, and generosity. My guess is that every case that really deserves to be called "judgmental" behavior will also be accompanied by some failure...

It seems to me that there might be any number of such bases, yes, but perhaps there is a single generic way to characterize most (if perhaps not all) of them. One way to think of your life (since, after all, you are going to die eventually anyway) is to regard it as a whole, and to evaluate that whole as a kind of multi-media creation (part historical narrative, part performance art, etc.). Viewed in this way, sacrificing whatever is left of your life to save another's might seem very reasonably to count as the perfect ending for this work of art that is your life.

Looks to me as if you and your friend are having a debate in which the only options on the table are not the only ones available for consideration. Part of what it means to be a human animal is to live with others. This means that just at the level of fitness, we will do better if we have the resources (whether natural or socialized, as I suspect a good deal of both) to deal with others in positive ways. Precisely because there are many others around us who really matter to us, the distinction between "best for me" and "best for others" becomes both artificial and also distorting. What is "best for me" is often for me to sacrifice at least some degree of narrow self-interest in order to help others to flourish. This is the kind of thing that parents and friends do for each other all the time. But it is not limited simply to those close to us. Studies have shown that people who are given money and told to spend it on others report greater happiness thanm those who are given money and told to...

I guess there are different angles to this one. Is it wrong in a business ethics sense not to tell your friend's organization about the person they may hire? Not unlesss you are one of the people contacted for a referencce, I suppose. You are not obligated to inform other businesses about the errors they may be about to make! But what has more traction for me in your question is where you identify the other organization as your friend's . As a friend, yes, I think you owe it to your friend to let him or her know about the problem--just because you would like to be rid of the bad colleague, you will sit back and allow your friend to inherit your problem? Not nice!