I'm not sure exactly how I came to it, but I've decided that virtue ethics is the correct ethical theory. Early Christians may have been virtue ethicists, but with the rise of modern theories it wasn't always clear which ethical system fit best with scripture. Some Christians have been Kantians because they see similaries between Kant's emphasis on duty and the commands of scripture.
Other Christians have been divine command theorists because that theory seemed to best capture the nature of biblical imperatives.
But recently I've come to think that virtue ethics is best because of it's emphasis on character rather than duties or actions. I believe character is fundamental, and behavior secondary. Of course many will say that character is developed through character, or that character is evidenced by behavior, which is true enough, but it's still the case that behavior is simply the means; the goal is good character.
Thus don't look for rules, look for virtue. The virtue ethicists asks not 'what should I do?', but 'what type of person will I become?'
Now, if only I knew more about the virtues...
Posted by Tim at January 28, 2004 10:34 PMI agree that virtue ethics is basically a correct approach to understanding ethics, but I would say that you don't need to set up a dichotomy between behavior and character, as you seem to be doing here when you say, "Don't look for rules, look for virtue." You can't really separate virtue (and vice) from behavior like that. A virtue is simply a good principle (or rule) *of behavior*. Someone with a virtuous character is a person who consistently *acts* on such principles.
Posted by: AshRyan at March 4, 2004 12:04 PM