Virtue Ethics: The Independence As A Type Of Morality

The situation of contemporary western normative ethics is the tripartite confrontation between virtue ethics, utilitarianism and deontology. An feature of this situation is the competition between virtue ethics and rule ethics which mainly includes utilitarianism and deontology.According to rule ethics, the basic notion of virtue ethics, namely virtue, is not an unreducible initial point; and virtue ethics is not able to provide an effectual universal standard for assessing moral actions. Consequently, virtue ethics is not independent and just a beneficial supplement to rule ethics. In addition, the substantiality of virtue is queried by situationist. Therefore, the independence of virtue ethics is relation to following three topics:the conceptual structure of ethics, standards of actions, the substantiality of virtue.Rule ethicist's criticism about the structural independence of virtue ethics is based on monist and reductionist standpoint of the structure of modern ethics. In sight of the modern ethical structure, ancient Aristotle's ethics and contemporary neo-Aristotarian have not independent structure; Slote's has a independent structrue, but it is not a plausible ethical thoery. Given the unreducibility between current ethical core concepts, modern viewpoint of the structure of ethics is unplausible. If we accept a pluralist ethical structure, virtue ethics should be a kind of independent normative ethical theory.Situationists deny the substantiality of virtue as character traits with the The experimental results of social psychology. However, they make use of wrong experimental methods and apply wrong analysis methods on the experimental result on one hand, on the other hand their understanding of the conception of virtue deviates from that of virtue ethicists. Thus situationist's accusation of the substantiality of virtue is a piece of failure. However, situationism has instructive significance on the aspects of the means and strategy of the devlopment of virtue ethics, it reminds ethicists, especially virtue ethicists, that it is important for ethics to draw into experiential methods and to improve moral practice effectually.Given the defence of substantiality of virtue and the structrual independence of virtue ethics, virtue ethics is a independent normative ethical theory which has equal status with utilitarianism and deontology. But this does not mean virtue ethics can replace rule ethics. Due to the internality of virtue and the great change of modern social structure, virtue ethics has limitations in assessing individual actions and behavior-guiding. So rule ethics is superior to virtue ethics. But this does not mean that virtue ethics has not normative function. Generally speaking, rule ethics regulate agent's actions by particular moral rules, whereas virtue ethics urge agents to improve and perfect their moral characters through ideal moral integrity and living pattern.In contrast with the conception of virtue of rule ethics, the coenception of virtue ethics has its specificity. For rule ethics, athough virtue has value of itself, it has not fundermental value, the aim of rule ethics is regulating moral actions; in virtue ethics, virtue points to agents'happiness(eudaimonia) and the flourishing of humanity, it is a kind of human life and existence, virtue ethics points to human life for itself.The competition and mutual exclusion between virtue ethics and rule ethics derive from their motivations of constructing monist and unipolar ethical theories. They are neither aware that unipolar ethical theories can not reflect real moral life. Virtue and rule both are component parts of moral life. The significance of rule ethics consists in providing behavior rules of modern life, the significance of virtue ethics consists in providing the value of existense and telos of humanity development for modern life. Thus the relationship between them is coordination but not competence.