V-rules are action-guiding prescriptions derived from the virtue and vice terms, such as 'do what is honest, charitable, and just' and 'do not do what is cruel or cowardly,' which give virtue ethics concrete practical content.

Does virtue ethics face a circularity problem?

Critics argue that defining right action by appeal to the virtuous agent, who is in turn defined by acting rightly, is circular; defenders respond that the virtues can be characterized independently, so the account is informative rather than viciously circular.

Virtue-Ethical Action Guidance

Virtue-ethical action guidance concerns how a theory centred on character can tell agents what to do, principally through the standard of what a virtuous agent would characteristically do and the v-rules tied to the virtue and vice concepts.

Definition

On the dominant qualified-agent account, an action is right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent, one with the relevant virtues, would characteristically do in the circumstances; this standard is made usable through v-rules such as 'act honestly' and 'do not act cruelly.'

Scope

This topic covers how virtue ethics specifies right action and answers the charge that it cannot guide conduct. It treats Hursthouse's account of right action in terms of the virtuous agent, the derivation of v-rules from virtue terms, the handling of moral dilemmas and tragic cases, and target-centred and pluralist alternatives. It does not re-examine the nature of virtue itself, treated in a sibling topic.

Core questions

Can a character-based theory specify right action without reducing to rules?
How are v-rules derived from the virtue and vice concepts?
How does virtue ethics handle moral dilemmas and tragic dilemmas?
Is the qualified-agent standard or a target-centred standard the better account of right action?

Key theories

The qualified-agent account of right action: Hursthouse's view that a right action is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the situation, supplemented by v-rules that translate each virtue and vice into prescriptions and prohibitions.
Target-centred and pluralist virtue ethics: Swanton's alternative defining right action by reference to hitting the targets of the relevant virtues, allowing a pluralistic rather than strictly eudaimonist foundation for action guidance.

History

The objection that virtue ethics cannot guide action was pressed throughout its twentieth-century revival. Hursthouse (1999) answered it by analysing right action through the virtuous agent and the v-rules, drawing on Aristotle's emphasis on practical wisdom and perception. Swanton (2003) developed a target-centred, pluralist alternative, broadening the options for how virtue theory specifies what to do.

Debates

Circularity in the qualified-agent standard: Critics worry that defining right action by the virtuous agent, and the virtuous agent by the disposition to act rightly, is circular; defenders deny that the analysis is viciously so.
Tragic dilemmas and moral remainder: Hursthouse argues that in tragic dilemmas even the virtuous agent's act leaves a moral remainder; whether this is a strength or a defect of the view is debated.

Key figures

Rosalind Hursthouse
Christine Swanton
Aristotle
Michael Slote

Seminal works

hursthouse1999
swanton2003

Frequently asked questions

What are v-rules?: V-rules are action-guiding prescriptions derived from the virtue and vice terms, such as 'do what is honest, charitable, and just' and 'do not do what is cruel or cowardly,' which give virtue ethics concrete practical content.
Does virtue ethics face a circularity problem?: Critics argue that defining right action by appeal to the virtuous agent, who is in turn defined by acting rightly, is circular; defenders respond that the virtues can be characterized independently, so the account is informative rather than viciously circular.