That should be no more a problem for virtue ethics than it is for disagreement in ethical judgements under other cognitive ethical theories. Differences in judgements can be explained by invoking W.D. Ross's distinction between real vs. prima facie duties, differences in factual beliefs, differences in psychological characteristics, etc., without necessarily undermining the idea that there is a moral fact of the matter or moral truth.
An underappreciated classic that explains this is:
Peter Glassen, "Are There Unresolvable Moral Disputes?", Dialogue 1 (1962) 36-50.
If you don't have access to it, email me at < unbranded at post dot com > and I'll send you a copy.
That should be no more a problem for virtue ethics than it is for disagreement in ethical judgements under other cognitive ethical theories. Differences in judgements can be explained by invoking W.D. Ross's distinction between real vs. prima facie duties, differences in factual beliefs, differences in psychological characteristics, etc., without necessarily undermining the idea that there is a moral fact of the matter or moral truth.
An underappreciated classic that explains this is:
Peter Glassen, "Are There Unresolvable Moral Disputes?", Dialogue 1 (1962) 36-50.
If you don't have access to it, email me at < unbranded at post dot com > and I'll send you a copy.
I can just express my viewpoints:
1. Difference in opinion is not itself a problem in research and scientific discussions.
2. In many research, it opens many new way of thoughts and means of research.
3. The main target of Scientific Conferences are such discussions.
4. But problem rises.
In most the cases, some person feel that they are defeated when somebody express some other logic not at per with them.
5. In such cases, argument starts.
If the person with reverse logic are feeling same like counter part that by considering anything outside his/ her own view is a defeat, then problem arises.
I think it is not a problem of ethics, rather a conflict of ego.
The situation seems to be asking about two things. The second sentence, asks about virtue ethics, which is about character. The first sentence, however, focuses on two virtuous individuals who disagree about "which action is right." In other words, this half of the question appears to lean towards a consideration of deontological ethics (i.e., "duty"). This suggests there is something about the situation that may require a "correct action."
Viewed from the above perspective, one way I can see this as a problem for virtue ethics would be if the actions of one individual (or both) might lack virtue. Stated differently, we might ask if it is possible for there to be two (or more) potential "duties" which are virtuous? If it is, then the situation is not problematic to virtue ethics.
No, because each being is a world and with each virtue of that being sharing it with other virtuous beings, they could get to a flexible and coherent point.
"Virtue" is a term with clear moral sense, but the former arete had initially no explicit moral connotation. It was precisely Socrates, in the fifth century BC, who first gave Arete the moral meaning of which the noun "virtue" is charged.
Before Socrates, the term arete was applied to work tools or musical instruments, to animals, to different types of workers, etc. There was talk, for example, of the arete of a horse to refer to its speed, its resistance and its ability to overcome obstacles, because these characteristics are what make "excellent" a horse.
The problem you pose is related to the ideological differences of what is meant by virtue.This is where the ethical problem of virtue lies. A problem that hides an ideology of the subject. In short, it is the struggle of feelings endowed with apparent rationality.
I think "virtue" at its most basic understanding escapes many of us, so I am pleased to see it being treated in a frontal way here. This is a much needed discussion to help with the understanding and importance of the topic.
Best regards,
Debra
Not a problem all of us are entitled to our opinions in a given moral boundary that is based on universal truths (that needs to be understood well )
If this is related to the previous question about leading a virtuous life, then I would think that what matters is that we believe we are doing the right things. Clearly, people disagree all the time on what's right, at least in the details.
"Virtue ethics" is an interesting term! Cynically, a term that would attract all of the poseurs. Let us define the phrases that will best convince others how wonderful we are. Commit to memory the slogans we have to spout, to prove our wonderfulness.
That virtuous people sometimes disagree about some actions that are correct, I do not think it is a problem of the Ethics of Values or Virtue; since often the virtuous people if they agree with the correct actions, and if they disagree, will be by personal criterion, culture, tradition, religion, language or education.
Difference of opinion is always possible. People with different minds think differently. It does not mean that blindly disagreeing the right actions for status/reputation/prestige sake. Right is always right. Fault is always have flaws.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics