Frontiers of Philosophy in China

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 432–448

The destiny of modern virtue ethics

Research Article
  • 73 Downloads

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.

Keywords

virtue ethics Aristotle communitarianism universalism theory of phronesis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bayertz, K. (1994). “Praktische Philosophie als Angewandte Ethik.” In: Bayertz, K. Hg. Praktische Philosophie. Hamburg: RowohltGoogle Scholar
  2. Grunert, F. (1999). “Klugheit.” In: Peter Prechtl und Franz Peter Burkhard Hg. Metzler Philosophie Lexikon. Stuttgart: MetzlerGoogle Scholar
  3. 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: RowohltGoogle Scholar
  4. Luckner, A. (2006). “Klugheitsethik.” In: Düwell, M., Hübenthal, C., and Werner, M. H. Hg. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: MetzlerGoogle Scholar
  5. Kant, I. (1968). “Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.” In: Kants Werk (Akademie Textausgabe), Bd. IV. Berlin: Walter de GruyterGoogle Scholar
  6. Pauer-Studer, H. (2003). Einführung in die Ethik. Wien: WUVGoogle Scholar
  7. Rapp, C. (2006). “Aristoteles.” In: Marcus Düwell, Christoph Hübenthal, Micha H. Werner Hg. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: MetzlerGoogle Scholar
  8. Schäuble, W. (1996). “Bürgertugenden und Gemeinsinn in der Liberalen Gesellschaft.” In: Teufel, E. Hg. Was hält die Moderne Gesellschaft Zusammen? Frankfurt a. M.: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
  9. 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: SuhrkampGoogle Scholar
  10. Waas, L. R. (2002). “MacIntyre und die moralische Krise der Gegenwart—After Virtue ‘Kommunitaristisch’ Betrachtet.” Zeitschrift für Politik, 49. Jg. 2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of PhilosophyChinese Academy of Social SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations