Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T08:13:05.223Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Answering the Situationist Challenge: A Defense of Virtue Ethics as Preferable to Other Ethical Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

MICHELLE CIURRIA
MICHELLE CIURRIA*
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a well-known paper, John Doris argues that situationist psychology impugns Aristotelian virtue ethics, which presupposes the existence of stable, situation-independent virtues. Maria Merritt responds that a Humean conception of virtue, which is situation-dependent, is immune to this criticism. However, she does not directly address two of Doris’ more trenchant objections, which he presents in the form of a dilemma. In this paper, I respond to Doris’ dilemma, using recent research in psychology and cognitive science to show that virtue ethics, as a dispositionalist, non-codifiable theory, represents a more empirically adequate moral psychology than the leading alternatives.

Dans un célèbre article de 1998, John Doris avance que la psychologie situationniste remet en question l’éthique de la vertu aristotélicienne, laquelle présuppose l’existence de vertus qui sont à la fois fixes et indépendantes d’une situation. Son argument prend la forme d’un dilemme. Le présent article, qui a pour but de répondre à ce dilemme, s’appuie sur des recherches récentes menées dans les domaines de la psychologie et des sciences cognitives afin de démontrer que l’éthique de la vertu, en tant que théorie dispositionnaliste et non-codifiable, constitue une psychologie morale plus adéquate au plan empirique que les autres approches reconnues.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , December 2014 , pp. 651 - 670
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2014 

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

Ambady, N., and Rosenthal, R..1993 Half a Minute: Predicting Teacher Evaluations from Thin Slices of Nonverbal Behavior and Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64/3: 431–441.Google Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M.1958 Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy. 33/124: 1–19.Google Scholar
Arriaga, X., and Russbult, C..1998 Standing in My Partner’s Shoes: Partner Perspective Taking and Reactions to Accommodative Dilemmas. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 9: 927–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battaly, Heather.2014 Acquiring Epistemic Virtue: Emotions, Situations, and Education. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
CBC News.2012 Dec. 26. What Moose? Woman Can’t Recall Dramatic Collision. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/what-moose-woman-can-t-recall-dramatic-collision-1.1215223.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J.1993 Teaching for Transfer: The ‘Now-You-See-It-Now-You-Don’t’ Quality of Intelligence in Context. In Rosselli, H.. The Edyth Bush Symposium on Intelligence. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ceci, S. J.1993a Contextual Trends in Intellectual Development. Developmental Review. 13: 403–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darwall, S.2009 The Second Person Standpoint: Morality, Respect, and Accountability. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Doris, J. M. (ed.) 2010 Moral Psychology Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doris, J. M.2002 Lack of Character. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doris, J. M.1998 Situations and Virtue Ethics. Nous. 32/4: 504–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flanagan, O.1991 Varieties of Moral Personality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Foot, P.1967 The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. In Virtues and Vices and Other Essays. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Gino, F.2013 Sidetracked: Why Our Decisions Get Derailed and How We Can Stick to the Plan. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
Gazzaniga, M. S.2005 The Science of Our Moral Dilemmas. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M.2005 Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking. New York: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Gotman, J. G., and Carrere, S..1999 Predicting Divorce among Newlyweds from the First Three Minutes of a Marital Conflict Discussion. Family Process. 38/3: 293–301.Google Scholar
Harman, G.1999 Moral Philosophy Meets Social Psychology: Virtue Ethics and the Fundamental Attribution Error. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 99: 315–331.Google Scholar
Hurley, P.2009 Beyond Consequentialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hursthouse, R.1999 On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D.2011 Thinking, Fast and Slow. Anchor Canada.Google Scholar
Kamtekar, R.2004 Situationism and Virtue Ethics on the Content of Our Character. Ethics. 114: 458–491.Google Scholar
Lukes, S.2009 Do People Have Character Traits? In Chrysostomos, M.. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McDowell, J.1979 Virtue and Reason. Monist. 62: 331–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, M.2000 Virtue Ethics and Situationist Personality Psychology. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. 3/4: 365–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, A. G.2004 What Can the Milgram Obedience Experiments Tell Us About the Holocaust?: Generalizing from the Social Psychology Laboratory. In Miller, A. G.. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Ross, L.1988 Situationist Perspectives on the Obedience Experiments: Review of A. G. Miller (1986). Contemporary Psychology. 33: 101–104.Google Scholar
Ross, L., and Nisbett, R..1991 The Person and the Situation: Perspectives of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rouse, J.2013 What is Conceptually Articulated Understanding? In Schear, J. K.. Mind, Reason, and Being-in-the-Word: The McDowell-Dreyfus Debate. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shroeder, T.2005 Moral Responsibility and Tourette Syndrome. International Phenomenological Society. 71/1: 106–123.Google Scholar
Sosa, E.2009 Situations Against Virtues: The Situationist Attack on Virtue Theory. In Chrysostomos, M.. Philosophy of the Social Sciences: Philosophical Theory and Scientific Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sreenivasan, G.2002 Errors about Errors: Virtue Theory and Trait Attribution. Mind. 111: 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stocker, M.1976 The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories. Journal of Philosophy. 73/14: 453–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanton, C.2003 Can Hume be Read as a Virtue Ethicist? Hume Studies. 33/1: 91–113.Google Scholar
Vranas, P.2005 The Indeterminacy Paradox: Character Evaluations and Human Psychology. Nous. 39/1: 1–42.Google Scholar
Williams, B.1985 Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. D.2002 Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Zimbardo, P.2004 A Situationist Perspective on the Psychology of Evil: Understanding How Good People are Transformed into Perpetrators. In Miller, A. G.. The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. New York: Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar