When we criticize someone for being unjust, deceitful, or imprudent - or commend him as just, truthful, or wise - what is the content of our evaluation? On one way of thinking, evaluating agents in terms that employ aretaic concepts evaluates how they regulate their actions (and judgment-sensitive attitudes) in light of the reasons that bear on them. On this virtue-centered view of practical reasons appraisal, evaluations of agents in terms of ethical virtues (and vices) are, inter alia, evaluations of them as practical reasoners. Here I consider and respond to an objection that threatens to debunk the virtue-centered view.
|Original language||English (US)|
|Number of pages||28|
|Journal||Southern Journal of Philosophy|
|State||Published - 2006|