|
For one thing, virtue ethics does not have to be Aristotelian in the sense just given. Michael Slote's recent 'agent-based' version of virtue ethics is not at all, he thinks, Aristotelian, but is to be found in the nineteenth-century ethicist Martineau, and some of Christine Swanton's work pays more attention to Neitzsche than to Aristotle. For another, any virtue ethics which is 'Aristotelian' as described inevitably aims to stick close to the author's interpretation of Aristotle, and interpretation of Aristotle, on many of the relevant issues, vary. (Thus, to cite one example amongst many, there is a debate over whether Aristotle is intrinsically elitist. To others, myself included, this is not so. We agree that the elitism, like the sexism, is present, but we do not think it is built into the very structure of his thought.)
And finally, as I first discovered when I tried to apply neo-Aristotelianism to abortion, and later to the question of moral dilemma, there are all sorts of specific areas that come up in contemporary moral philosophy about which Aristotle said little or nothing. When this happens, the neo-Aristotelian virtue ethicist has to launch out on her own, perhaps, as often in my case, feeling that she is pursuing a line of thought which is a natural development of his (albeit conscious of the fact that it would make him rotate in his grave); or perhaps self-consciously moving away from him. But either way, there are lots of different directions to go, so in launching out on our own we may come up with different versions.
Indeed, for all my claims to being, 'Aristotelian', most of this book must be described, in a way, as 'launching out on my own', because I have tried to write it without presupposing that my readers have read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. And, consistently with that presupposition, I must say something here about what I import from him. In fact, just how much has dropped out of our thought only recently, and how much is still around, needing only to be brought to the surface and acknowledge again, would be a delicate question in the history of ideas. But, for whatever reason, there are certainly some familiar stumbling blokcs for many people who are unacquainted with Aritsotle's ethics, and they should be addressed straight away. | | |