Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T17:20:16.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Annas: Virtuous Person, Relativism, and the Circularity Objection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2015

HUSAIN SARKAR
HUSAIN SARKAR*
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is informed by two principles: the Partiality Principle and the Impartiality Principle. Relying upon a relatively-unknown argument in Kant, the latter principle is stated and defended. The former principle is shown to be connected to Annas’ claim, in her theory of virtue ethics, that no mature, responsible adult wants to be told what to do, as well as to her developmental account of teaching and learning of virtue. I argue that Annas’ theory of virtue ethics is susceptible, as Kant’s theory is not, either to the Circularity Objection or (inclusive) to the Relativism Objection.

Cet article est fondé sur deux principes : le principe de partialité et le principe d’impartialité. M’appuyant sur un argument relativement peu connu de Kant, j’énonce et je défends le second principe. Je démontre ensuite que le premier principe est lié à la thèse présentée par Annas dans sa théorie sur l’éthique de la vertu, selon laquelle aucun adulte mûr ne souhaite qu’on lui dise quoi faire, ainsi qu’à son récit sur l’enseignement et l’apprentissage de la vertu. Je soutiens que la théorie d’Annas sur l’éthique de la vertu est susceptible, contrairement à celle de Kant, de donner prise soit à l’objection de la circularité, soit (ou ainsi que) à l’objection du relativisme.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 285 - 311
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aeschylus 1977 The Oresteia: Agamemnon, The Libation Bearers, and The Eumenides. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Annas, Julia 1981 An Introduction to Plato’s Republic. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Annas, Julia 1984 “Personal Love and Kantian Ethics in Effi Briest,” Philosophy and Literature, Volume 8, Number 1, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, Julia 1992 “The Good Life and the Good Lives of Others,” in Paul, Ellen Frankel, Miller, Fred D., and Paul, Jeffrey, editors. The Good Life and the Human Good. New York: Cambridge University Press, 133–148.Google Scholar
Annas, Julia 1993 The Morality of Happiness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Annas, Julia 2001 “Moral Knowledge as Practical Knowledge,” Social Philosophy and Policy, 18: 236–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, Julia 2002 “My Station and Its Duties: Ideals and the Social Embeddedness of Virtue,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 102: 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, Julia 2004 “Being Virtuous and Doing the Right Thing,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 78: 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, Julia 2007 “Virtue Ethics and the Charge of Egoism,” in Bloomfield, Paul, editor. Morality and Self-Interest. New York: Oxford University Press, 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Annas, Julia 2011 Intelligent Virtue. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 2007 “Modern Moral Philosophy,” in Crisp, Roger and Slote, Michael, editors. Virtue Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 26–44.Google Scholar
Burke, Edmund 1998 A Philosophical Inquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful and Other Pre-Revolutionary Writings. Womersley, David, editor. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1998 “Reason, Humanity, and the Moral Law,” in Korsgaard, Christine M., The Sources of Normativity. New York: Cambridge University Press, 167–188.Google Scholar
Gewirtz, Paul 1988 “Aeschylus’ Law,” Harvard Law Review, Volume 101, Number 5, 1043–1055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursthouse, Rosalind 1998 “Normative Virtue Ethics,” in Crisp, Roger, editor. How Should One Live? Essays on the Virtues. New York: Oxford University Press, 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursthouse, Rosalind 2002 On Virtue Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1998 The Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 2013 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korsgaard, Christine 2009 Self-Constitution: Agency, Identity, and Integrity. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1988 “Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Account,” Midwest Studies in Philosophy, XIII: 32–53.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2001 Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parfit, Derek 2011 On What Matters. Volume One. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John 2000 Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Husain 2015 “Annas: The Just Soul, the Community, and the Circularity Objection,” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review, 54.1: 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scalia, Antonin 1997 “Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System: The Role of United States Federal Courts in Interpreting the Constitution and Laws,” in Peterson, Grethe B., editor. The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 18. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 79–121.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard 1999 Moral Luck: Philosophical Papers 1973-1980. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard and Smart, J. J. C. 1973 Utilitarianism: For and Against. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar