more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Some critics say virtue is not necessary for eudaimonia (since the wicked sometimes flourish), and others say it is not sufficient (because virtuous behaviour sometimes ruins a life).
Gist of Idea
Virtue may be neither sufficient nor necessary for eudaimonia
Source
Rosalind Hursthouse (On Virtue Ethics [1999], Ch.8)
Book Ref
Hursthouse,Rosalind: 'On Virtue Ethics' [OUP 2001], p.172
A Reaction
Both criticisms seem wrong (the wicked don't 'flourish', and complete virtue never ruins lives, except in tragic dilemmas). But it is hard to prove them wrong.
| 177 | If a person is good they will automatically become happy [Plato] |
| 5972 | Living happily is nothing but living virtuously [Chrysippus, by Plutarch] |
| 2903 | A good human will be virtuous because they are happy [Nietzsche] |
| 5938 | Virtue is superior to pleasure, as pleasure is never a duty, but goodness is [Ross] |
| 5121 | Basing ethics on flourishing makes it consequentialist, as actions are judged by contributing to it [Harman] |
| 4358 | Virtue may be neither sufficient nor necessary for eudaimonia [Hursthouse] |