Abstract

Rowland Stout argues that a disposition toward violence in certain circumstances counts as a virtue in Aristotle’s sense. In this paper, I will offer three reasons to reject Stout’s position. First, I will present Stout’s position. I will then argue that the plausibility of Stout’s position capitalizes on a rhetorical sleight-of-hand, what has been called the “faux anonymization of agents,” without which his position is less plausible. Next, I will argue that Stout’s own method supports conclusions which Aristotle explicitly rejects—namely, that adultery, theft, and murder could also count as virtuous. Finally, I will argue that Stout fails to account for the fact that human flourishing limits the types of environments that can be used as hypothetical tools by which to discover what counts as a virtue.