Topics Ethics

Question I'm having a hard time separating virtue ethics from other theories. As I understand it, virtue ethics states that we ought to have strong moral characters, because virtue will help us make moral decisions; the decisions themselves are said to be mere reflections of one's character. But, first, how is this different from deontology, i.e. a preoccupation with rules and duties? Isn't a virtuous character simply somebody who follows certain rules and who perceives certain duties? Alternatively, how is it different from utilitarianism? Isn't a virtuous person merely a person who is intrinsically motivated to behave in such a way that produces more happiness? Aren't virtues just descriptors of such a character?

Accepted:
May 24, 2012

Comments

Here is a way to distinguish the different theories: What does each regard as the primary bearer of value? Is it the characters of moral agents (so that actions have value only insofar as they are either symptomatic of, derive from, or help to create or sustain the approved character-traits). Or, is primary value associated with certain sorts of outcomes? Or perhaps is value to be understood as primarily an intrinsic property of action-guiding rules? The first sort of answer is what we would expect from a virtue theory, the second from a consequentialist theory (of which utilitarianism is one version), and the third from a deontological theory.