In this dissertation, I took sides with virtue ethicists and argued that virtue is possible despite the mounting empirical evidence of how situational features impact human behavior. The main innovation I bring into the character debate is the idea that humans are creatures with various species-specific and socio-cultural constraints, and that this dimension should be integrated into theorizing about virtue. To do this, I extended and refined the concept of human limitations, to encompass not on…
Read moreIn this dissertation, I took sides with virtue ethicists and argued that virtue is possible despite the mounting empirical evidence of how situational features impact human behavior. The main innovation I bring into the character debate is the idea that humans are creatures with various species-specific and socio-cultural constraints, and that this dimension should be integrated into theorizing about virtue. To do this, I extended and refined the concept of human limitations, to encompass not only natural disasters, as Aristotle did it, but also contain psychological and socio-cultural elements that impose limits to the way we see the social world and navigate it. Respectively, so was my argument, the idea of virtue should be refined as well, as an aspiration of creatures like us, and not those of heroes with a divine power or even half-gods. In a nutshell, I proposed to rethink three core concepts: moral failure, human limitations, and moral virtues.
