Final answer:
A virtue argument about greed is part of a broader ethical debate and is not inherently judgmental; it's a discussion about character within virtue ethics. Ethical egoism suggests acting in one's own interest, but it does not mean that this outlook is necessarily judgmental either. The question may reflect a misunderstanding of the nuanced discussions within ethical philosophy.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question you're asking touches on ethical theory, particularly virtue ethics and ethical egoism. The claim that a virtue argument is judgmental because it contends that greed is wrong and should be rejected is a nuanced question reflecting different philosophical attitudes. Virtue ethics focuses on the character of the moral agent rather than on the ethical rules or consequences of actions. Similarly, ethical egoism posits that it is moral for people to act in their own self-interest. To state that these are judgmental would be to misconstrue them, as they provide frameworks for evaluating actions and character rather than outright judgment.
Arguments against ethical egoism include the objection that true egoism isn't concerned with collective well-being and doesn't necessarily lead to a better society for everyone involved. This underlines a critical aspect of ethical debate where different theories offer diverse perspectives on what constitutes a moral action without necessarily being judgmental, as they aim to explain reasons behind moral assessments.
Therefore, the idea that a virtue argument is inherently judgmental may be a misunderstanding of the nuance inherent in philosophical ethical debates. It might also represent a form of false dichotomy, suggesting that ethical discussions are either judgmental or non-judgmental while failing to acknowledge the spectrum of thought within ethical theory.