I don't see how virtues can be justified under deontology. Give it a try if you like.

Ok, so we take the right choices by themselves and not by their consequences.
What is the right choice? Its the choice that builds our virtuous character.
What is a virtuous character? I don't know yet.

That still sounds like teleological ethics to me. You're still basing the virtue on an end to be achieved (building a good moral character).

Yes, but I always used the term consequentialism, not teleological.
I don't see how anything being teleological matters.
The question is whether virtue ethics depends on consequentialism, or if we could use it with deontology.

Teleological ethics is not the same as teleology in the metaphysical sense, but if you want to call it consequentialism then fine. Once again, I don't think that deontology is compatible with virtue ethics. Moral conduct is never truly separate from its consequences.

With consequentialism I mean the ethical position that the consequences of actions are what define their morality as opposed to the actions themselves.
It might be teleological, but that is not the point. This might all be telelogical, but that's not important. The question is what a "better" character is, and there virtue ethics can amend one of the other main ethical positions.

And on another point, you made earlier. I don't think virtue ethics is making a come back, its all about consequentialism these days.

What exactly are you thinking of when you use the word teleological?

That's the thing. You started using the term. I used consequentialism, I don't know if that is the same as teleological, which rather seems to be something along these lines: teleological definition | Dictionary.com
"There being a final cause."

And thanks for the links, they showed to be quite interesting.

Now what stands against combining virtue ethics and deontology?
From earlier post:
We can define right choices by themselves and not by their consequences.
What is the right choice? Its the choice that builds our virtuous character.

But isn't everything a consequence then? Isn't making the right choice for the sake of being moral a consequence too?

Exactly! That's the problem with deontology. It forgets the fact that the reason why a moral duty or obligation is considered to be such is because of the consequences of the moral rule.

Isn't that a bit of a wordplay? What if the universe is deterministic, then actions themselves and their consequences become the same thing.
Distinguishing action from consequence will never have a clean and clear distinction.
Should the alternative be that we embrace that the ends justify the means?

We do live in a deterministic universe, but actions and their consequences are separated by one thing -- time. Time is the coordination of events into past, present, and future. So the action comes first and then the consequence follows. The same way that causes come first and then the effects follow.

The ends do not always justify the means. That is utilitarianism. For example, let's say that in order to save five people I had to sacrifice another persons life by throwing them in front of a car. By utilitarian standards this would be right because it would result in the happiness for a greater number of people. However, by the metaethical standards of universality and impartiality, this would not be a morally justified end. By the normative ethical standards of virtue ethics, this would be unkind and unfair.

Yes, that is right. But if a consequence is bound to happen, and you know it, when is it part of the action itself?
Is pushing someone off a building not immoral, because that person hits the ground later in time?

Then deontology is consequentialism in disguise, and virtue ethics is deontology-light.
If virtue ethics counts consequences, how is sacrificing five people to save one justifiable? Can't you ever do anything that is immoral by itself? Where does the line go?

The consequence is not the action. Pushing someone off a building is immoral because it results in a bad consequence for that person.

Some do argue that deontology is just bad consequentialism that has forgotten the fact that resulting consequences make an action right or wrong.

Virtue ethics is not deontology-light, whatever that means. One does not practice a virtue without considering the result of such conduct.

When did I say that sacrificing five people for one person is justifiable? It is just as unjustifiable as sacrificing one person for five. Both examples go against the metaethical standards of universality and impartiality, and the virtues of kindness and fairness.

What I'm saying is that distinguishing action and consequence at some point doesn't make sense. O one can't criticize deontology as bad consequentialism, because there is no clear distinction between action and consequence.



But you have to chose one of the two options, sacrifice one of sacrifice five. If virtue ethics does not allow to choose the lesser of two evils, most decisions can't be made. If virtue ethics does allow some justification of evil, where is the line?

Many deontologist would say that lying is always wrong no matter the consequences.

Evil is sadistic behavior, and so wrong is not always evil, but evil is always wrong.

Actually, if you're not responsible for the situation then you have no obligation to save those lives, (...) I'm just saying that it's not an obligation if your not responsible in the first place. You either find a way to save those five people without killing another or you don't save them at all.

You stand in front of rail tracks, five people are tied up on the tracks and the train is rolling towards them. You can save the five by pushing one other person in front of the train. You are not attached to any of them. There are only those two potions, doing nothing will result in the death of the five. And you know this will happen.
So the action, that means being passive, is morally better than the one that kills more people?