Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Virtue ethical accounts are not undermined by the adequacy objection

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The adequacy objection applies not only to reductive accounts but to any virtue ethics that cannot specify action-guidance without prior appeal to non-virtue norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.When Rosalind Hursthouse's 'v-rules' instruct agents to act courageously, determining what counts as courageous in novel cases requires independent criteria of right action.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A virtue ethics that defers to situational judgment without derivable action-guidance fails the adequacy standard even on its own non-reductive terms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The concession in P2-P3 that virtue ethics need not reduce all normative concepts to virtue implicitly grants that some normative concepts are more fundamental than virtue.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If concepts like harm, fairness, or welfare must anchor virtue attributions, then virtue ethics becomes explanatorily parasitic on rival frameworks such as consequentialism or contractualism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.An account that is non-reductive in the way P3 describes cannot coherently claim that virtue is not itself reducible to a more fundamental normative concept.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The adequacy objection is most compelling against versions of virtue ethics that attempt to define all senses of 'right action' in terms of virtues
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A virtue ethical account need not reduce all normative concepts to virtues and vices
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A virtue ethical account only requires that virtue is not reduced to a more fundamental normative concept and that some normative concepts are explained in terms of virtue and vice
      ?

      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.