Approaches to Conflict

Virtue Ethics and Deontological Ethics offer appraisal of behaviour in accordance with character traits and dispositions, and ethical rules, respectively. Neither Virtue Ethics nor Deontological Ethics straightforwardly resolves this conflict - both are subject to ambiguity and the conflict problem. Virtue Ethics successfully responds to this objection and more satisfactorily supports reporting the crime, but Deontological Ethics fails to overcome it.

Virtue Ethics evaluates actions and reactions or emotions in accordance with virtues. Virtue Ethics seeks to achieve eudaimonia or the flourishing life for its proponents, which is reached through virtuous excellence (arete). Virtue Ethics uses V-rules such as “be honest”, and “be benevolent” to prescribe action, and codifies practical wisdom (phronesis), which develops through maturation and allows for sound moral choices to be made.

The Virtue Ethicist’s approach to this dilemma would look to character virtues for guidance. A compassionate or benevolent person might report the truth so the innocent person is not caused to suffer, and so that the friend might change his ways as a result of correctional punishment. A just person would report the truth to preclude injustice to the innocent and to punish the guilty. However, many virtues have such broad implications that they become ambiguous. A common criticism of Virtue Ethics is that it offers no practical guidance. A person could manifest honesty either by reporting the crime, or by remaining silent. In the former, honesty lies in exposing the truth; in the latter they, in that their promise of secrecy is not broken. The virtue of loyalty has analogous implications – loyalty to the community would encourage exposition of the tr...

... middle of paper ...

...do not lie” as extremely important, I must decide whether this rule is balanced by consideration of the other rules in play. I might consider that “do not break the law” and “do not cause unnecessary suffering” are cumulatively more important. Without a method for stratifying rules, decisions will be subjective and open to abuse. Lacking the general guidance seen with phronesis and arete, the prima facie Deontologist is left without direction.

The promise case subjects both Virtue Ethics and prima facie deontology to the conflict problem. While Virtue Ethics does not provide a detailed course of action, it provides a general direction and elegantly turns the conflict problem to its own use. Prima facie Deontology is not as capable of providing a justified, rich imperative for action – it stumbles on the conflict problem and is unable to provide a sound solution.