Philosophy Now Forum

1) What is the current status of virtue ethics among academics and laypeople, i.e., do more or less people in either camp subscribe to moral virtue theory nowadays?

2) How might a nominalist defend virtue ethics given that, prima facie, such a theory postulates abstract entities, namely, virtues?

(I ask just out of curiosity and because I, myself, find virtue ethics intuitively appealing. Though I'm a novice about ethics--metaphysics is more my area of interest right now, but I've been dabbling in ethics--especially metaethics [because of the metaphysics involved]--lately, and like to hear from people who know better than I.)

Sounds like a paper you have to write.

Ethics tend to be very mixed, and virtue ethics, I'd say, is rather mixed up in soups of opinions we have about things. It's important to remember that despite being absolute, virtues are not constant. For instance, the virtue of patience does not mean you should never be quick to act, it only means you should strive to be patient. When and where might be specified, or not, and if not, it must be something the individual figures out on their own.

Thanks, The Voice of Time (sounds odd put that way...).

No, I'm not writing a paper for school about this. I'm out of school right now, and I certainly wouldn't refer to a forum regardless. As I said, I'm just curious since virtue theory is still a minority, but a thriving minority, it seems.

When I think about virtue I have a mixed response about the virtuous.

When perceived by some, the virtuous person is doing something to satisfy the needs or requirements of others. He denies himself something, whether safety, time or money in order to give something to others.

But, if that person actually gains self-esteem or satisfaction in doing so, is he still worthy of the term virtuous? Is there ever non-gratifying virtuosity from one human towards another? A balance of satisfaction must result, in my view, to any virtuous act. Therefore is it moral to be virtuous? I think not.