Skip to main content
Log in

The destiny of modern virtue ethics

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

Abstract

The revival of Aristotelian virtue ethics since the 1980s does not signify that it goes back to its original form; rather, it is generally manifested in three different variations: The first is a variation of what is known as communitarianism, the second is universalism, and the third is phronesis. On the social level of morality, the serious attempt of modern virtue ethics towards improving the moral spirit of society is laudable. However, its method and reasoning deviates greatly from the demands of modern society’s integration of its operating rules and regulations, and concept of values; hence all of its attempts can hardly escape the fate of becoming just a fantasy. Yet, on the level of dealing with ethic conflicts and moral paradox, modern virtue ethics—via interpreting the theory of phronesis by Aristotle—proposes the valuable thought of a balanced morality that principlism should concern itself with and nourish itself from.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayertz, K. (1994). “Praktische Philosophie als Angewandte Ethik.” In: Bayertz, K. Hg. Praktische Philosophie. Hamburg: Rowohlt

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, F. (1999). “Klugheit.” In: Peter Prechtl und Franz Peter Burkhard Hg. Metzler Philosophie Lexikon. Stuttgart: Metzler

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. M. (1972). Die Sprache der Moral, Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp. Vgl. Bayertz, K. “Praktische Philosophie als angewandte Ethik.” In: Bayertz, K. Hg. Praktische Philosophie. Hamburg: Rowohlt

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckner, A. (2006). “Klugheitsethik.” In: Düwell, M., Hübenthal, C., and Werner, M. H. Hg. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: Metzler

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1968). “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.” In: Kants Werk (Akademie Textausgabe), Bd. IV. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauer-Studer, H. (2003). Einführung in die Ethik. Wien: WUV

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapp, C. (2006). “Aristoteles.” In: Marcus Düwell, Christoph Hübenthal, Micha H. Werner Hg. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: Metzler

    Google Scholar 

  • Schäuble, W. (1996). “Bürgertugenden und Gemeinsinn in der Liberalen Gesellschaft.” In: Teufel, E. Hg. Was hält die Moderne Gesellschaft Zusammen? Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp

    Google Scholar 

  • Waas, L. R. (1983). “MacIntyre und die Moralische Krise der Gegenwart—After Virtue ‘kommunitaristisch’ Betrachtet.” Zeitschrift für Politik, 49. Jg.2/2002. Vgl. Gert, B. (1983). Die Moralischen Regeln: Eine neue Rationale Begründung der Moral. Frankfurt a. M: Suhrkamp

  • Waas, L. R. (2002). “MacIntyre und die moralische Krise der Gegenwart—After Virtue ‘Kommunitaristisch’ Betrachtet.” Zeitschrift für Politik, 49. Jg. 2

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaoping Gan.

Additional information

Translated by ZHANG Lin from Zhongguo Renmin Daxue Xuebao 中国人民大学学报 (Journal of Renmin University of China), 2009, (3): 80–88

About this article

Cite this article

Gan, S. The destiny of modern virtue ethics. Front. Philos. China 5, 432–448 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-010-0107-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-010-0107-1

Keywords

Navigation