Commentary on Glen Pettigrove’s ‘What Virtue Adds to Value’

ABSTRACT

Glen Pettigrove wishes to accommodate the thought that exemplary instances of love, forgiveness and ambition need not be strictly proportional to the value present in their objects and that agents who are excellent may value the same things somewhat differently from one another or differently over time. To make room for these attractive ideas, he sketches an approach according to which (i) the virtuous agent’s particular modus operandi constitutes an important locus of value and (ii) the value of virtue is sui generis. I note that the principle of universalizability threatens his project. I sketch a way to reject this principle that agrees with the thesis that an agent’s modus operandi may be an important locus of value but puts pressure on the thesis that the value of virtue is sui generis. I question whether Pettigrove needs the second thesis.

KEYWORDS:

• virtue
• character
• proportionality
• universalizability
• Pettigrove, Glen

Notes

1 This gloss is inspired by two passages in particular. ‘A third option would take virtue to be an independent sort of value, without trying to reduce it to a function of value of other types (or vice versa). I shall sketch one such view, which I call the modus operandi account of virtue. At least sometimes, I shall argue, a virtuous action will not be explained by other goods the agent appreciates, pursues, or promotes. It will be explained by qualities of the agent’ [Pettigrove 2022: 123–4]. And: ‘The point of the M.O. account is that virtuousness is its own kind of goodness and its goodness is fundamental. In a complete normative ontology, we would find the goodness of virtue in the ground floor of the theory. It doesn’t need to be explained in terms of some other property from which it is derived’ [ibid.: 126].

2 I can’t here do justice to Murdoch’s argument. See Hopwood [2017: 245–71].

3 I am grateful to Glen Pettigrove for his stimulating paper and to the editors for the opportunity to respond in the pages of this journal. I also wish to thank Paul Muench for characteristically helpful comments on earlier drafts of this commentary.