Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 15, Issue 2, pp 259–269 | Cite as

A New Mixed View of Virtue Ethics, Based on Daniel Doviak’s New Virtue Calculus



In A New Form of Agent-Based Virtue Ethics, Daniel Doviak develops a novel agent-based theory of right action that treats the rightness (or deontic status) of an action as a matter of the action’s net intrinsic virtue value (net-IVV)—that is, its balance of virtue over vice. This view is designed to accommodate three basic tenets of commonsense morality: (i) the maxim that “ought” implies “can,” (ii) the idea that a person can do the right thing for the wrong reason, and (iii) the idea that a virtuous person can have “mixed motives.” In this paper, I argue that Doviak’s account makes an important contribution to agent-based virtue ethics, but it needs to be supplemented with a consequentialist account of the efficacy of well-motivated actions—that is, it should be transformed into a mixed (motives-consequences) account, while retaining its net-IVV calculus. This is because I believe that there are right-making properties external to an agent’s psychology which it is important to take into account, especially when an agent’s actions negatively affect other people. To incorporate this intuition, I add to Doviak’s net-IVV calculus a scale for outcomes. The result is a mixed view which accommodates tenets (ii) and (iii) above, but allows for (i) to fail in certain cases. I argue that, rather than being a defect, this allowance is an asset because our intuitions about ought-implies-can break down in cases where an agent is grossly misguided, and our theory should track these intuitions.


Agent basing Virtue ethics Consequentialism Motives 


  1. Andre J (1983) Nagel, Williams and moral luck. In: Statman D (ed) Moral luck. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 123–130Google Scholar
  2. Cox D (2006) Agent-based theories of right action. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 9(5):505–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doris J (2002) Lack of character. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Doviak D (2010) A new form of agent-based virtue ethics. Ethical Theory Moral Pract 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10677-010-9240-0
  5. Driver J (1961) Uneasy virtue. Cambridge University Press Ebooks (CRKN)Google Scholar
  6. Hume D (2003) An enquiry concerning the principles of morals. In: Darwall S (ed) Virtue ethics. Blackwell, MA. (originally published 1751)Google Scholar
  7. May L (2010) Genocide: a normative account. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Nagel T (1979) Moral questions. In: Statman D (ed) Moral luck. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 57–72Google Scholar
  9. Nussbaum M (1986) Luck and ethics. In: Statman D (ed) Moral luck. State University of New York Press, Albany, pp 73–109Google Scholar
  10. Slote M (2001) Morals from motives. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Williams B (1976) Moral luck. Proc Aristotelian Soc 50:115–135Google Scholar
  12. Williams B, Smart JCC (1973) Utilitarianism: for and against. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Yuen J. Hero teen saves heart attack victim. Toronto Sun 1 Oct 2010. Accessed 10 March 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.York UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations