Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Foot's supporting argument conflates the conditions for *virtuous* courage with the conditions for courage as such, a distinction Urmson and Geach both mark.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Aristotle's virtue ethics, which Foot develops, defines virtues partly through their characteristic ends, making the conflation charge questionable.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Urmson and Geach may mark a distinction Foot intentionally rejects as philosophically unnecessary, not proving her argument commits an error.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
The claim that courage "as such" exists independent of evaluative context itself requires substantiation beyond scholarly precedent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Courage can manifest in morally neutral contexts (e.g., a courageous thief), distinguishing it from virtuous courage requiring right motivation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Urmson and Geach explicitly differentiate between courage as a capacity and courage as a moral virtue, supporting the distinction claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Foot's argument requires courage to entail proper ends, conflating psychological capacity with ethical evaluation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.