Virtue ethics as a subfield of ethics
Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system opposed by consequentialism, deontology, and consequentialism. However, I don't think that that is true, as virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" while consequentialism, deontologism and other views on ethics tries to answer the question "what do we ought to do ?".
If it is possible for human beings to have any moral knowledge, then it must be that both of these questions can be answered separately, and the answers will not contradict each other in any way, that is, moral actions will always be made by people possessing the necessary virtues to perform that action.
Edit: Expanded the first sentence.
If it is possible for human beings to have any moral knowledge, then it must be that both of these questions can be answered separately, and the answers will not contradict each other in any way, that is, moral actions will always be made by people possessing the necessary virtues to perform that action.
Edit: Expanded the first sentence.
Comments (93)
Perhaps what you do is who you are; in which case asking what you ought do is exactly asking who you should be.
I think we should put on the table the principle of value inside ethics. It is not about the master of those approachers but how we rate or value them according to our education. Probably they are not even connected on a hierarchical aspect but of correlation. The main objective could be the development of value about ethics practice and way of living.
That'd be one approach.
The core of ethics is what will I do now. The consequences of your actions should be taken into account; but they are not entirely within your control. While being consistent is a consideration, it seems dubious that some rule could be both known ahead of time and yet applicable in all circumstances, so one will need to judge whatever rule one chooses to apply.
What we are left with is the virtue of the person making the choice.
That's another approach.
This can be pretty subjective too because sometimes we forget to have empathy with the persons who committed the choice. This aspect can be applied on the context of taboo topics as suicide or police/military actions where the life of persons are lost or in risk.
Virtue ethics
Quoting SEP - Virtue ethics
More to read in the SEP article about 2 central concepts: virtue and practical wisdom.
Features that distinguish different VE theories from one another.
Objections and Responses. Directions of future research...
***
Using a film as an example:
Quoting Ethics unwrapped - glossary - virtue ethics
In a particular situation where it matters to take or make the 'right' decision, given the circumstances.
By developing 'virtuous' habits, it can help us make the best possible choice when confronted with an ethical problem.
We can consider what might be thought of as 'virtuous'. Some might see a 'virtuous' action as 'vicious'.
Having a set of values, even if not agreed on by others, affects our decisions in how we lead our lives.
For better or worse...
Nothing is guaranteed.
Quoting Banno
I think so :sparkle:
Stop sharing my crib notes.
:kiss:
Hah. To share is to care :razz:
How could these two questions possibly be separate??
- - -
It's not clear what the term "virtue ethics" actually means, since "virtue" and "ethics" are, for all practical intents and purposes, synonymous. Something that is virtuous is also ethical.
, you're a proponent of virtue ethics. Can you explain what this term means?
If the term "virtue ethics" should be meaningful, then there should also be a term like "vice ethics". Is there one? What do virtue ethicists have to say about this? Thanks.
More approaches come from explicitly combining two or three of the approaches which you've mentioned in various ways. In my case, 'becoming a better person' is cultivated by 'acting in ways which prevent or reduce adverse consequences' to oneself and others (i.e. 'virtues' as positive feedback loops of 'negative utilitarian / consequentialist' practices). None of the basic approaches to ethics seems to do all the work which each respectively sets out to do, which is why (inspired by D. Parfit) I think they can be conceived of in combinations which compensate for each other's limitations.
NB: My meta-ethical formula: deontology = eudaimonism × disutilitarianism; of course, the devilish details are for another thread (which I've sketched elsewhere).
A virtue is a personal attribute.
Virtue ethics is about developing ethical personal attributes. The list usually includes things such as integrity, honesty, courage, fairness.
Deontological ethics is following rules.
Consequential ethics is about looking at the results of one's actions.
Yeah, it is. As you point out, the question then becomes which rule, and the judgement is simply moved a step further back. That's not a solution; it's not rules all the way down.
Sure, complicate the issues any way you want. In the end what you do is still down to you. Your choice of what rule to follow or what consequences you foresee remains your own.
Best make sure you are up to the task, hey?
That is, virtue remains master.
There is a way of understanding a rule that is not stating the rule, but is seen in implementing the rule. Acts speak louder than words. In ethics the rule will at best be a distraction from the fact that one is making a choice; more often it is an excuse to do what one ought not.
SO drop the language of deontology and look at the choice, and the attributes shown in the making of that choice.
Deontology reduces to virtue ethics.
And I don't see how what you are proposing differs from what I am proposing, since you too fall back on the virtue of reason. Any difference might be no more than the weight we each give to that one aspect of making a choice.
Set the circularity out.
How so?
I can't make sense of any of that. @Banno?
Glad you said that.
I gather Tim wants to say something like that to develop one's moral character one musty first know what moral character is; but that doesn't strike me as quite right. The notion of developing involves improvement. Developing one's moral character involves developing an understanding of what moral character is.
(A caveat that "moral character" is not a term I'd use; just keeping in line with Tim's wording.)
Quoting Banno
Quoting tim wood
I would just add that we seem to agree that a moral moment is a particular situation, say, when we don't know what to do, at the end of the rules or customs, or when our lives conflict with our culture. It may help to say we make the best decision we can based on all the available information--the most rational decision; based on the best methods or highest standards for our conduct. Though a fear remains that our decision is individual or personal, seemingly arbitrary. I would say that in Nietzsche, Emerson, Wittgenstein, and more currently, Cavell, this is both an argument about what to do and our part in that. The decision is not Ought vs. Am, but a realization that I play a part. Not that the reasons I decide upon before acting stand by themselves against society ( as just interests, desires), but that I must be willing to stand behind my acts (or not). We define ourselves (as @Banno points out), but we do not rely on our independence. I am responsible to answer for what I have done, maybe even without fobbing off on a rule or justified value or personal superiority or rationality (though I may have rationale). Cavell puts this that my relation to the world is more than knowledge, Emerson says character is higher than intellect, Wittgenstein asks us to see someone as having a soul (instead of wanting to know it), Nietzsche expresses this as attaining the human (Cavell also speaks of our "voice"). All of this is surrounded by ethical admonitions to look closely at each case, in history, with a context, extended from our rules and concepts and culture, even while turning against it, being adverse to it, beyond it.
By the standard developing along with the improvement.
The alternative is to presume you already have a standard that is applicable to every situation.
Quoting tim wood
Quoting Banno
[quote=Kamala Khan (Marvel)]Good is not a thing you are. It's a thing you do.[/quote]
Kamala Khan's beliefs about morality seem a bit muddled. A virtuous person is something you are but then she bounces back in the second sentence. A rather interesting pair of sentences I must say.
The virtue ethicist's eternal question: How will a virtuous person act in this situation (whatever it is)?
The virtues? What are they? All I know is that the highest virtue is wisdom but wisdom is like a double-edged sword as far as I can tell - both being good and bad, pro tos kairon, can be "wise."
The second term is related to the first. Phronesis is translated as practical wisdom, prudence, discernment. The greater the excellence of a human being the more capable they are of assessing a situation and acting in a way that is wise.
We are by nature social animals. Phronesis it then not simply a matter of deciding what is best for me to the exclusion of others. My choices and actions must take into consideration the good of others.
An interpretation of 'virtue ethics' (re: Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum) in a Spinozist-Peircean sense:
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon).
Basically, it all boils down to, wisdom although yours is a more detailed examination of morality as it relates to wisdom. :up:
I would like to hear more. It raises some questions.
Should one have good will toward his enemies? Doesn't phronesis include the ability to discern between those who have good will to us and those who are our enemies?
Quoting Hello Human
I would prefer to quote exactly the definition of "virtual ethics" from a standard reference, rather saying what most people consider? Because, besides avoiding making some mistake (e.g. you mention "consequentialism" twice!:smile:), you are raising questions such as "Is this a fact?" and "Who are these people?" Because people in general don't give a damn about such things! :smile:
So, here is what the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy" says about the subject: "Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach that emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism)."
Close enough to what you described but more correct! :smile:
Then, regarding the title of your topic, "Virtue ethics as a subfield of ethics", the word "subfield" is evidently wrong, based on the above description.
Quoting Hello Human
True, the last two are based on "doing things" while the first on "being things". But there is no separating line between the two, and "being something" also implies or defines a consequent behavior. E.g. being "charitable" and "benevolent" (virtual ethics) also means engaging in --i.e. doing-- things involving charity and benevolent, doesn't it? Because being those things without doing anything, without demonstrating in action, means nothing.
In short, ethics always imply and involves action. Even not doing something is a behavior.
Quoting Hello Human
What is "moral knowledge"? Know what is good and bad? Know the 10 commandments? Know about the moral teachings of a wise man or a saint?
This is the other passage I thought you might be referring to. Rhetoric is about what is said, not what is done. In order to be persuasive he must give the impression of possessing ?????, ?????????, ??????.
Whether or not he does is not at issue, except to the extent that the audience might question whether he does.
Quoting Fooloso4
The two of us are in two minds about the same issue. Is wisdom morally neutral? Not, according to a philosopher who defined wisdom as that which is both true and good. Speaking for myself, I feel moral philosophies like utilitarianism which sanctions evil means to achieve good ends, the only type of moral ambiguity I'm willing to tolerate, are a cop-out; they fail to be, well, imaginative/creative enough, preferring to take the easy way out. Anybody can do that, believe that the ends justify the means; it takes a real genius and an outstanding moral character to always opt for good means for good ends. Such a person, it seems, hasn't been born yet or, the more probable reason, we're just too lazy.
The passage is not about how one lives. It is about how one appears to be in order to persuade. One need not have good will, only give the impression of having good will.
Is it wise to treat your enemies as you would your friends?
Is it? I'm not sure.
A problem with the discipline of virtue ethics is that it does not operate with a definitive list of virtues.
Why not consider obedience to be a virtue? Many people consider obedience to be a crucial virtue.
Quidquid agis, prudenter agas et respice finem. Looking at the results of one's actions has also been considered a virtue.
I don't understand, and maybe you can explain, whence the usual distinction between the various theories of ethics. Because to me, they all seem to be about virtues, it's just that the prioritization of particular virtues differs from one ethics theory to another.
You do realize that the above description can be applied to obedience?
Obedience is eusocial, adaptive. It helps people flourish.
In my native language, we have a saying: Kdor ne uboga, ga tepe nadloga. 'He who doesn't obey gets himself into trouble.'
Obedience certainly can function in this way. But obedience itself is an ambiguous term. Consider obedience under the Taliban versus obedience under Joe Biden.
In most circumstances, he who doesn't obey and gets caught gets himself into trouble. Or he who is is without status and doesn't obey gets himself into trouble.
Quoting tim wood
No, it's what I say it is.
That follows directly from Quoting Banno
Yeah it does. See Nusbaum for my preferred list.
If your point is that the list is not agreed on universally, then sure; you have to choose.
When you sat that the cat is on the mat, you seek to modify your words to match the world.
When you say that the cat ought be on the mat, you seek to modify the world to match your words.
The direction of fit is reversed.
This is the simple difference in use that sits behind the mooted is/ought distinction.
Forgetting that this is how language is used is Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy.
And it's a fundamental problem for those who seek to somehow derive universally applicable moral principles.
One chooses to improve some aspects and not others. Others will judge. The question is, what virtues will you choose? It's up for discussion. But there is overwhelming agreement on certain virtues.
I've personally found this thread helpful. I'll check out Nusbaum. Cheers.
You will not see what is going on here unless you grasp the relevance of direction of fit.
Quoting tim wood
...really?
Quoting tim wood
See how you demand a base? There's the problem. Virtue ethics bootstraps. It's a process, not a rule.
Have a look at Nusbaum's capabilities.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/
I was drawn to it by the need for a critique of Singer's attitude towards disability. Something that might be worthy of a thread.
In an iterative process, it won't matter where you start, the process will lead you in the right direction. Quoting tim wood
You sound like a broken record.
Who chooses what is to count as an improvement, and what is not? This is where we came in:
Quoting Banno
And then deontologists are puzzled that folk disagree.
it's sheer hubris to think that one has found a rule that is applicable in every case.
Virtue ethics seeks to find a way for folk to thrive. It is practical. It focuses on social interaction, not philosophical debate. It doesn't have an answer to every issue, but it will help you to find one.
Quoting tim wood
I love to see folk make their replies about me, and not my arguments. It's a pretty sure sign I've got it right.
I think I've mentioned before that there are ways of implementing rules that are not found in setting them out but in enacting them. Indeed, it is not being able to state the rule, but what one does that shows that one is following the rule. That seems to me a deeper analysis of rule-following than you have offered.
How do you save ethics from drowning in a sea of individuality?
Oh, I think Nussbaum's upper middle class status is helping her thrive, not virtue ethics.
I think I've answered that: one is obliged to choose. The measure of a human is what they choose.
Deontologists tend to pretend that there is a rule, then interpret the rule so they get what they choose, anyway.
Cut to the chase and judge folk by what they do, not by what they profess.
Who, me?
I don't.
But I have helped folk to learn to swim.
How do you account for cunning?
Note that cunning is something that can also help people thrive.
Sure.
She uses that status to improve the world for others.
I don't see as problem with that.
Quoting baker
Do you think cunning is a virtue? Do you strive to build your cunning? Do you encourage cunning in others?
You choose. What you choose tells us about you.
Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.
I think this can be overstated. I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. But you need to know them to know this. This is especially true with Aboriginal people.
That matter of actually knowing other people comes up a lot.
:100:
Ever heard the saying "Nice girls don't get the corner office"?
Strata of society that are for one reason or another excluded from working for a living (or at least excluded from having to work hard for a living) can enjoy practicing a vastly different extent of virtues (without this having bad consequences for them) than those who aren't thusly excluded.
It detracts from how useful her work is for different strata of people. For some, it could be detrimental.
- - -
Quoting 180 Proof
But what exactly is the context here?
Remember, Bertolt Brecht tried to uplift the working class. In the spirit of solidarity with the workers, his shirt was tailored the way the shirts of workers were. Except that his was made of silk.
And what have you found out about her work?
Is it her work with animal rights that is not useful? OR her work on global inequity? Or her feminism? Her work on the rights of people with disabilities? Or do you just not like opera?
You mouthing your own biases.
Your questions and your formulation indicates that you're a proponent of ethical authoritarianism.
You are very much in favor of rules: your rules.
*sigh*
Have you ever read a book of advice (or a book that can be read as a book of advice) and thought that in order to put that advice into practice, you'd need to be an entirely different person, with a different socio-economic status? That in your current state, acting on that advice is impossible for you, or would even be detrimental for you?
Seems as you are having difficulty following the plot. No worries. Keep thinking on it and come back when you are ready.
I wrestled with this very question seven years ago. The way I solved the problem is
1) A better theory than the traditional three you mention is an ethical theory that does not have "action" as its central concept but rather makes "good character" as its primary orientation.
2) The three most well-known schools of thought form a hierarchy, with rules-based approaches worth the least value, ends-based approaches are better but still not the best; and character-based theories being at the top of the hierarchy. They - the ideas in Modern VT - are the very best of the lot. And I give reasons why this is so: I justify my claim. See pages 7-12 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LIVING%20WELL-How%20ethics%20helps%20us%20flourish.pdf
One might think to himself: I want to make a lot of money. Then I can pursue my ambitions, and be a success! " I'll have money (or power, or influence.) Or I'll have recognition (or fame, or celebrity)."
But all this is a moral fallacy. The guy has it backwards and upside down:
Before you can do or have, you are to BE. Once you have practical wisdom, moral courage, moderation and know how to neither overdo nor under-do ...or, more correctly: how how to not over-value something nor under-value it ...whatever it may be: a situation, a thing, an event, a conception, a perception or an experience.
An individual of good character has good qualities. I discuss these in my writings, the latest of which is THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf
See also the references it offers within that text in order to get a fuller and deeper understanding of the new paradigm for Ethics which it describes and which it offers for your consideration.
Also examine and reflect upon the content of my recent two discussions here at this Forum: Why a new approach is needed and How to tell a good character from a bad one. The good character I am talking about has what used to be called "the virtues."
To know what I mean when I call something "good" see the first few sections in the booklet, Marviin C. Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. {A search on Bing or Firefox will bring it up for your reading enjoyment.} Robert S. Hartman, a great professional philosopher, and a genius, gets the credit for an in-context definition of the concept: ' x is a good C'
C here refers to the concept under which x falls. For example, "This is a good thread." Hartman explained what makes anything good.
Your comments or questions are most welcome!
Please explain this sentence, hard to understand.
If we have any obligations at all -- and I believe we have one -- we are obliged to be good.
The question then becomes: how can an individual be good? Virtue Ethics offers some suggestions. The new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics, incorporates the best ideas from VT as well as from other known theories in moral philosophy, and stresses that we are to apply what we believe to be our moral standards, apply these principles in our daily life. Check out this synthesis of all the best concepts from the theories with which you are familiar. Study it. You'll be glad you did.
Sorry for being late to answer. Anyway, it means that virtue ethics tries to tell us how our general personality must be.
I agree. Either there is some higher power setting moral standards, or we are all left to live by our own standards in a world full of other people like us. Because we don't know which one is for sure, and even if we could, it would be impossible to convince everyone to believe the true proposition, best we can do is assume that we are all stuck in a world full of people who we have to negotiate with and respect.
Not how I understand it. Virtue ethics is just a list of virtues, good ways to act.
And virtue may best be defined as excellence of character. So giving a list of virtues implies giving a list of characteristics our character must have.
Sounds fair.