Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:10:43.149Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Introduction

Virtue Theoretic Epistemology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2020

By
Christoph Kelp
Edited by
Christoph Kelp  and
John Greco
Christoph Kelp
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
John Greco
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

There are three leading theories of normativity: teleology, deontology and virtue theory. All three types of normative theory countenance values, norms and virtues. What they disagree on is the order of explanation. Teleology takes values to be the fundamental normative kind and explains norms and virtues in terms of them. Deontology takes norms to be the fundamental normative kind and explains values and virtues in terms of them. And, finally, virtue theory takes virtues to be the fundamental normative kind and explains norms and values in terms of them.

Type
Chapter
Information
Virtue Theoretic Epistemology
New Methods and Approaches
 , pp. 1 - 14
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aristotle, . 1985. The Nicomachean Ethics. Edited by Irwin, T.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1961. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Code, L. 1987. Epistemic Responsibility. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England and Brown University Press.Google Scholar
Greco, J. 2010. Achieving Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hooker, B. 2000. Ideal Code. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hookway, C. 2003. ‘How to Be a Virtue Epistemologist’, in DePaul, M. (ed.), Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hursthouse, R., and Pettigrove, G.. 2018. ‘Virtue Ethics’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/. Accessed January 24, 2020.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1964. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. 2014. ‘Two for the Knowledge Goal of Inquiry’, American Philosophical Quarterly 51: 227–32.Google Scholar
Kelp, C. 2019. ‘Inquiry and the Transmission of Knowledge’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99: 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, J. 2003. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, M. 2005. True to Life. Why Truth Matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1998. Utilitarianism. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millar, A. 2011. ‘Why Knowledge Matters’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Suppl. Vol. 85: 63–81.Google Scholar
Montmarquet, J. 1993. Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Plato, . 2000. The Republic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchard, D., Millar, A. and Haddock, A. (eds). 2010. The Nature and Value of Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, W. D. 1930. The Right and the Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1979. ‘Utilitarianism and Welfarism’, Journal of Philosophy 76: 463–489.Google Scholar
Sidgwick, H. 1907. The Method of Ethics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Singer, P. 1993. Practical Ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, E. 2015. Judgment and Agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 1996. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×