Advertisement

The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 207–227 | Cite as

The Full Unity of the Virtues

  • Christopher Toner
Article

Abstract

The classical doctrine that the moral virtues are unified is widely rejected. Some argue that the virtues are disunified, or even mutually incompatible. And though others have argued that the virtues form some sort of unity, these recent defenses of unity are always qualified, advocating only a partial unity: the unity of the virtues is limited to certain practical domains, or weak in that one virtue implies only moral decency in the fields of other virtues. I argue that something like the classical doctrine—a full unity of the virtues thesis—remains defensible. After reviewing the arguments of partial unity theorists for the claim that the virtues form at least some sort of unity, I examine their main arguments for thinking that this unity is only partial (limited or weak). I then show that these arguments fail, and address some further criticisms (such as the argument that full unity implausibly requires that a person must attain the virtues “all at once”). I do not seek here to prove the truth of the full unity thesis (in fact I suggest a modification of it), but only to refute important extant criticisms of it, and thus to show that it remains a plausible view.

Keywords

Cardinal virtues  The unity of the virtues Virtue ethics 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Rosalind Hursthouse and an anonymous referee for very helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

References

  1. Aquinas, St. Thomas. 1984. Treatise on the virtues [Summa theologiae, I–II, qq. 49–67]. Trans. John Oesterle. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1999. Nicomachean ethics, 2 edition. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  3. Badhwar, Neera. 1996. The limited unity of virtue. Nous 30: 306–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Geach, Peter. 1977. The virtues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Hursthouse, Rosalind. 1999. On virtue ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hursthouse, Rosalind. 2006. Practical wisdom: a mundane account. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society (new series) 106: 285–309.Google Scholar
  7. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1984. After virtue, 2nd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  8. Russell, Daniel. 2009. Practical intelligence and the virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Stocker, Michael. 1976. The schizophrenia of modern ethical theories. Journal of Philosophy 14: 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Swanton, Christine. 2003. Virtue ethics: a pluralistic view. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Walsh, James. 1986. Buridan on the connection of the virtues. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24: 453–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Watson, Gary. 1984. Virtues in excess. Philosophical Studies 46: 57–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wolf, Susan. 2007. Moral psychology and the unity of the virtues. Ratio (new series) XX: 145–167.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of St. ThomasSaint PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations