On Virtue Ethics is an exposition and defence of neo‐Aristotelian virtue ethics. The first part discusses the ways in which it can provide action guidance and action assessment, which are usually given by the v‐rules—rules generated from the names of the virtues and vices such as ‘Do what is honest’, ‘Do not do what is dishonest’. That such rules may (apparently) conflict, leads to an exploration of the virtue ethics approach to resolvable, irresolvable, and tragic dilemmas. The second part is about the role of the emotions in virtue and vice, since it examines the inculcation of racism through the miseducation of the emotions. Kant and Aristotle are compared on the question of moral motivation, and a virtue ethics’ account of acting ‘from a sense of duty’ provided. The third part is on ‘the rationality of morality’ in relation to virtue ethics, the question of whether there is any ‘objective’ criterion for a certain character trait being a virtue. The standard neo‐Aristotelian premise that ‘A virtue is a character trait a human being needs for eudaimonia, to flourish or live well’ should be regarded as encapsulating two interrelated claims, namely, that the virtues benefit their possessor, and that the virtues make their possessor good qua human being (human beings need the virtues in order to live a characteristically good human life.) The second claim is defended in terms of a form of ethical naturalism—the enterprise of basing ethics in some way on considerations of human nature—but a form that explicitly disavows any pretensions to being purely scientific.

This article considers a theory that most philosophers view as deriving historically from the work of the ancient Athenian-Macedonian philosopher Aristotle. It shows how virtue ethics promotes the paradigm that we should think about moral rights and wrongs in our treatment of animals in terms of virtues and vices rather than in terms of consequences or rights and duties. The article argues that two leaders in the field of ethics and animals, Peter Singer and Tom Regan, each implicitly picks out one virtue, but one virtue only—a too concentrated focus that renders their moral theories unsatisfactory. This discussion holds that we ought to be thinking in terms of all of the virtues and vices pertinent to the moral problems that arise in human uses of nonhuman animals. It suggests that many theories have made this path difficult because of an undue focus on the concept of moral status.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Journal of Philosophy, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Philosophy.IT is often said that there is some special irrationality involved in wreaking damage or violence on inanimate objects that have angered one, and, correspondingly, something rational about striking people or animals in anger. The explanation of this seems obvious, for the first surely manifests the irrational belief that inanimate things are animate and can be punished, whereas the second has no such flaw. But behind this seemingly innocuous observation lies, as I shall argue, a false account of action explanation and a false semantic theory. According to the standard account of actions and their explanations, intentional actions are actions done because the agent has a certain desire/belief pair that explains the action by rationalizing it. Any explanation of intentional action in terms of an appetite or occurrent emotion (which might appear to be an explanation solely in terms of desire) is hence assumed to be elliptical, implicitly appealing to some appropriate belief.' In this paper, I challenge this assumption with respect to the "arational" actions of my title-a significant subset of the set of intentional actions explained by occurrent emotion. These actions threaten the standard account, not only by forming a recalcitrant set of counterexamples to it, but also, as we shall see, by undercutting the false semantic theory that holds that account in place.I define these actions ostensively by means of a list of examples, and then define them explicitly, thereby making it obvious why I call them "arational" actions (rather than "irrational," on the model of * Earlier versions of this paper have been read at philosophy colloquia at UCLA, UC/Irvine, and, most recently, at a conference on Reason and Moral Judgment at Santa Clara in 1989. I am grateful to the many people who contributed to the discussion on these various occasions, and also to Anne Jaap Jacobson, Christine Swanton, and Gary Watson for detailed comments on earlier drafts. ' So, for instance, Donald Davidson has said in lectures that 'She fled out of fear' (or 'because she was frightened') and 'She killed him out of hatred' are to be construed in terms of the actions' being caused by appropriate beliefs and desires.

No abstract