Virtue in a State of Vice

Like virtually all ethical theories, Virtue Theory makes me a little uncomfortable. It misses something about my thinking. Hursthouse makes great points when showing that common criticisms of virtue theory apply to utilitarianism and deontology too. My issue is that they all share a fundamental flaw: in utilitarianism it’s that maximizing the good requires a path of great conflict, even revolution, which will include bad things, in deontology respecting the good puts respect for the society that gives me life at odds with the same society that is contemptuous of what’s good, and virtue theory asks that I be virtuous in a society of vice. What’s the use in being virtuous if normalcy is vice?

To answer this I think that virtue theory needs emphasis on a specific virtue. I think that virtue theory requires a little renowned character trait, rebellious, daring, queer, strange, uncompromising, introspective, critical, radical. The core of this thought is demanding of someone to be self-critical in thought and action, and holding this virtue as high as any other. To understand it more the vice sounds useful. To be deficient in self-critical virtue one may be complicit in everything, lacking in any sense of rebellion or even debate. To be excessive in self-critical virtue one may be unable to act as one is wrapped up in ones own ideology or perhaps they’re self-destructive and incapable of stability. This attribute is essential to contextualizing oneself and applying the other virtues. The balance of an identity and questioning oneself is essential to making virtues more than just a path to an easy life.