Ethics

As far as I am aware, according to virtue ethics, we are supposed to cultivate a virtuous character. Suppose a person with a non-virtuous character engaged in an activity that expressed, but did not cultivate, his problematic character. Would it nevertheless be preferable for him to suppress this expression of his character, even if that suppression didn't contribute to improving his character? Or is virtue ethics only concerned with behavior that leads to a change in one's character?

Comments

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.

Read another response by Nicholas D. Smith

Read another response about Ethics