Survival-Based Ethics & Virtue Ethics

[Matt Hall]

I thought I'd share a little something on the topic of abortion, since the abortion section of this forum remains un-posted-upon. So, it being an issue that my philosophy teachers and I have debated an awful lot, the most satisfactory conclusion I had come to (before finding RTP) was based around the writings of Rosalind Hursthouse, a virtue ethicist. She is only mainstream philosopher I've come across whose position mirrors Harry Stottle's, in one sense at least, when it comes to human rights (which she concluded were irrelevant when applied to any real issues, whether they 'exist' or not).

Her article, while here you can find the

I suppose I just wanted to know what anybody thought about her views and about virtue theory, because it isn't totally inconsistent with survival-based ethics (or, it probably is in some way that I haven't worked out yet, in which case, enlighten me).

Could, for example, the policies that the democratic public agree upon, after their rigorous policy-creating-system described by you has taken place, lead to, or even become, a precise definition of the virtues that Artistotle, Hursthouse et al have spoken about?

If so, would this save some time in terms of future policy-making?

I can see that, even if it did, virtues might be short-term at best because of the ever-changing needs of each human (and indeed the fact that humans die and new ones, with new opinions, are born).

It's also apparent that Platonism doesn't suit the democratic aspirations of SBE, so what of Aristotle, his virtues, and his obsession with "the community"?

[HarryStottle]