• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Is Agent-Based Virtue Ethics Self-Undermining?

    Author(s)
    Ransome, William
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Ransome, William F.
    Year published
    2010
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Agent-based virtue ethics strives to offer a viable account of both moral conduct and the source of moral value, independent of 'deontic' teleological and deontological characterizations. One of its chief proponents offers an agent-based virtue-ethical account that aspires to derive all moral value, including the moral status of actions, solely from the 'aretaic' concept of benevolence. I suggest that morality as benevolence fails to offer a viable account of either virtuous moral conduct or the source of moral value, because it is selfundermining in both respects. In order to solve this structural problem, it appears as ...
    View more >
    Agent-based virtue ethics strives to offer a viable account of both moral conduct and the source of moral value, independent of 'deontic' teleological and deontological characterizations. One of its chief proponents offers an agent-based virtue-ethical account that aspires to derive all moral value, including the moral status of actions, solely from the 'aretaic' concept of benevolence. I suggest that morality as benevolence fails to offer a viable account of either virtuous moral conduct or the source of moral value, because it is selfundermining in both respects. In order to solve this structural problem, it appears as if the theory may have to give up its agent-based status.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Ethical Perspectives
    Volume
    17
    Issue
    1
    Publisher URI
    http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/
    Subject
    Ethical Theory
    Philosophy not elsewhere classified
    Philosophy
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/33582
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander