Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
I like the idea that morality is defined by something as seemingly simple as 'being a good person', it doesn't require gods or complex rules that contain flaws or are are not flexible or that create impossible decisions.
A food for thought while you read: the flip side of flexibility is often a lack of specificity. As in, if I make a general statement like "be good", that has the flexibility to apply very broadly and in many different ways. But it lacks any form of specificity of what being good actually is. And if I write out a long list of very specific natures of what "be good" means, then you lose the flexibility. So there often is a trade off.
This isn't specific to virtue ethics, similar problems arise in deontological ethics, for instance. I can give a very general moral rule that applies flexibly but gives no specificity, or very specific rules that allow little flexibility.