What´s the point of being ethical if not to make the world around you better, and prevent it from geting worse? If yes, then shouldn´t actions be deemed good or bad only on the basis of this? I simply cannot understand why someone with good reason wouldn´t be an utilitarianist. Oh well...
@SineFractal I cannot see how my assumptions about the complexity of reality are given by my comment. I´m not saying that we always can know and/or "calculate" what will be best for the world, but I am making a statement about what I think should be the ultimate goal of our actions.
What are the other components of virtue ethics besides consequentialism and their metaethical justifications?
Also, your discussion of the third point was a bit confusing. How would your version of virtue ethics be superior to a system which says "maximize human flourishing"?
(Cont.) It comes to this. Can you conceive of a virtuous action which explicitly doesn't maximize the good, or even endeavors to? To raise the bar, let's idealize such a case by including that the agents have complete knowledge. It seems as if the virtue ethicist is committed to this possibility (even in a case of complete knowledge of the consequences of the actions). I just can't see how anyone could call it ethical. Perhaps you could illuminate by fleshing out just such a possibility.
I enjoyed this very much, btw. I don't agree that consequence isn't the be all and end all of virtue ethics (and all ethics, even Kantian deontology by way of Dr. Hare's curious alchemy which wed it to utilitarianism...which Kant would take great offense to, I'm confident) . I do like the open endedness of virtue ethics (they aren't meant to be rigidly defined, but are perfectionist). (Cont.)
"Virtue ethics recognizes that there are other moral values that need to be taken into consideration."
"The fact that the various virtues may derive their value from GOOD consequences"
If by 'may', you are suggesting that a virtue could derive its value from anything OTHER than good consequences or the tendency to bring them about if operational in an agent's psychological makeup, I'd like to hear it. Because as it stands, the collapse into consequentialism is guaranteed by your own words.
@imseaton That's so cool! Husrthouse is one of the few thinkers who actually makes me wish I could go back in time and apply to grad school at UA to study with her. I met her once and spoke with her briefly about my dissertation, and she seemed kind and genuinely interested. So color me a little jealous!
@jopustopin That's probably due in no small part to the fact that one of the more vocal members of my dissertation committee was a died in the wool utilitarian and I spent a lot of time in both conversation and in my dis trying to rebut him.
I realize that this is very irregular, but is there anyway I could read your dissertation (or at the very least get some bibliographical information from you somehow). I could most likely access your dissertation through the university library (I'm willing to give my personal email, if you'd be willing to share that information with me). If not, totally understandable. Interesting discussion, thank you for your input.
Im not gonna add any thought, I think you have successfully defended Virtue Ethics ... a theory I agree with compared with deontology and utilitarianism.
And rosalind hursthouse is brilliant.... had the opportunity this year to be taught by her on virtue ethics...
@WarThemedRevolution I've been thinking about making a video on the relativism/objectivism debate. In short, morality is not relative, but neither is it objective.
@SisyphusRedeemed Lol, Sisyphus it is. I would very much enjoy such a video, by the way. I have been considering the same thing since it is something that comes up in the abortion debate a lot. Though, I think it is logically absurd to say that there are absolutely no absolutes in morality...my thought is that there are absolutes (or there is no such thing as morality) but I do not know how we can empirically demonstrate them.
@WarThemedRevolution the only absolutes in ethics are trivial. There are no more interesting absolutes in ethics then there are in economics. But this doesn't mean that in either field 'anything goes.'
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not know that I agree, but it will be very difficult to have this discussion in comment format and anyway I am tired and lazy right now. If you make a video about this I might post a response, if you are interested in having the dialogue. Then again, I may not. It'll likely be an arbitrary decision.
Great video! I actually found myself trying to integrate some aspects of positive psychology, namely Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's ideas into my own ethical philosophy. At the end of the day what really matters is one's quality of experience in this life and how fulfilling it is. Of course that is immensely complex and so an examination of the virtues that are most likely to beget this kind of fulfillment is paramount. Consequences do matter, but if that is all one focuses on one is missing a lot.
Sisyphus, it's great that Nykytyne2 is doing ethics now. The pop crowd is going to get swept into the next phase of the arguments. I've been watching the YT debates in pop and what's happening where people were already talking about objectivism and ethics and what have you, in the less pop channels, and when you have a one on one debate with someone who's actually interested, it inevitably comes down to ethics and morality claims. It's going to be quite a show. Great video, by the way!
Hey SisyphusR... Nice Vid! My biggest reservation is when you talk about how Virtue ethics will result in different actions. I prescribe to utilitarian ethics and believe that it too takes a range of factors into account when dealing with an issue like abortion. I guess my question is, do you accuse utilitarianism of the same kind of 'mathematical' moral judgements as Deontology, or do you recognize that it necessitates taking situational factors into account. Once again, good vid!
@k1dpresentable@k1dpresentable Utilitarianism and virtue ethics will agree on a lot of practical conclusions, but they will disagree on some.
Deontology is like a one variable calculation ('does it violate the categorical imperative?'); utilitarianism is a multi variable equation (one for each individual effected by the action.) So yes, it does take situational factors into account--they're amongst the variables in question.
So glad you mentioned Hursthouse's article. I have a link to it on my favorites bar because a colleague/friend over in Philosophy recommended it. I've been thinking about assigning abortion as the topic in my debate course in the fall and was looking for stuff I've not read. My friend recommended Hursthouse's article. I haven't read it yet, but will. BTW, my favorite philosophy prof in college was big on virtue ethics and used the accounting analogy a lot. In any case, enjoyed this.
@ProfMTH The best articles on abortion, IMO are Thomson's "In Defense of Abortion" and Marquis' "An Argument That Abortion is Immoral." Thomson takes something like a virtue ethics perspective, although it's not explicit. And Marquis does the best job of making a secular argument against abortion I think I've ever seen.
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the additional recommendations. I've read Thomson. (A few years ago I did a video about abortion in which I used Thomson's violinist-with-bad-kidneys hypothetical.) I've included her article as recommended reading when teaching the abortion cases in con law and using abortion as a topic in debate (I haven't used it in a while, but the new Nebraska statute makes it seem ripe for use again).
As for Marquis, I'm not familiar with that one. I'm looking at JSTOR now. Is it Don Marquis's "Why Abortion Is Immoral" from 1989 (The Journal of Philosophy)?
@ProfMTH Yes, that should be the one. It's a widely anthologized article. Doesn't work in the end, but the idea he appeals to (a 'Future Like Ours') is a clever, secular way to try and make the argument.
"The right answer" "Morality is messy like that" - YES! Trying to reduce many ethical and moral issues to formulaic responses of any kind has always seemed rather sterile to me.
You say, the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism is that virtue etics is not ONLY about consequences. My question is what on earth these other things might be??? Yes, in comparison to a scurrilous portrait of consequentialism virtue ethics is more holistic and subtle. STILL, the problem of how to determine virtues remains. Unless you choose moral relativism or moral absolutism there is utlimately no other option than to refer to consequences. So, what are these other things???
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks again for your response. Ok, proponents of virtue ethics think a moral act is one that reflects a good moral character. Still, that begs the question what good moral character is and why it is to be considered moral. If you define a moral character (positive psychology) as, say, a character that makes the individual flourish you are in fact ultimately a consequentialist. You said virtue ethics isn't only about consequences. Hence, my question what those other things are?
@buugiman78 "Unless you choose moral relativism or moral absolutism there is utlimately no other option than to refer to consequences."
You're conflating moral theory and metaethics. Consequentialism can be absolutist or relativistic, as can virtue ethics. Consequences are not some third metaethical option.
@SisyphusRedeemed Thank you for your response. Yes, in principle you are of course right. I am not a philosopher so I won't argue with you further on that issue, since it is beside my main argument. You said virtue ethics is not only about consequences. My point is that if the basis for determining what virtues are to be considered moral or not is not ultimately consequentialist (i.e. human flourishing or something similar) then what other rational measures do you refer to???
You talk about positive psychology as a way of determing virtues. Ironically that actually makes you a consequentialist, as you argue that the the moral qualities we ought to consider virtues are the ones that lead to fulfillment.
I think the main problem here is that some philosophers seem to have a very mechanic and simplistic approach to consequentialism. I've never heard a serious consequentialist deal with complex issues like abortion in such a simplistic way as you presented.
Your defense against the "bullocks" critique fails; if what determines the virtues are consequences on human flourishing, then the virtue-ethics is just a two-tiered utilitarian theory, like rule-utilitarianism. Which is fine - if that's the theory you want to hold, fine - but should be recognized, not dismissed.
This video made me think of Sartre's french soldier dilemma (from Existentialism is a Humanism if memory serves). Should the young man stay with his mother, or join the French resistance is the question. According to Sartre Kantian deontology wouldn't help, consequentialism at best makes a muddy paste of the situation, what would a virtue ethicist have to say about it?
@DiogenesofMilwaukee Well, Sartre's answer of course was "You are free, choose." That's not helpful from a practical point of view, but it does point to a relevant set of virtues: personal responsibility, integrity and self-reliance (in other words 'good faith.') By avoiding 'bad faith' we avoid the vices of self-deception, intellectual dishonesty, and inauthenticity. So this would be a good example of virtue ethics explaining what matters, rather than just telling you what you must do.
@DiogenesofMilwaukee But if you wanted more practical guidance, virtue ethics would ask you: "What kind of person would leave their sick mother behind to fight the Nazi's?" A courageous, self-sacrificing one, perhaps, but also one that perhaps is somewhat disloyal & callous. Conversly, what kind of person would stay with their sick mother when the Nazi's are threatening to take over the world? A compassionate and loyal one, but also a somewhat selfish one. So you have to ask what matters most.
Its interesting that one must adopt an "ethical system" with a virtue that it "doesn't guide ethical decisions". Lets figure out how ethics really works...wait..no lets leave it a mystery because its better that way.
Instead of trying to shoehorn ethical dilemmas into some sort of system, why don't we instead focus on the individual problems themselves?
I'm just getting into ethics more seriously;,and I'm realizing that it's not anywhere near as simple and clear as many people would like it to be. Virtues and ethical deliberation about how one should behave can be a massive boon, I understand this and so I will call myself a virtue ethicist, but the circumstances might also demand rules and general guidelines.
@SisyphusRedeemed, hmm, that is a video I would like to see made. I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Anyway this was a good video as well.
Good and bad describe no real details of an action or behavior. In an objective sense they are vacuous words. The only meaning they have is to the individual, and the only messages they convey are the speaker's approvals or disapproval. Most attempts at describing moral law are merely the result of a wish to justify ones own feelings toward any given subject. As a society it is better to think in terms of detrimental and beneficial than in terms of moral and immoral.
@RebelKain In an objective sense 'objective' is a vacuous word. So, for that matter, is 'subjective.' These words have no meaning. But that's a topic for another video.
"In an objective sense 'objective' is a vacuous word. So, for that matter, is 'subjective.' These words have no meaning."
I have wanted to see a video on this subject for a while now. I can't see how you can possibly arrive at this conclusion rationally if you understand the relative nature in which the meaning is derived. If you succeed I would suggest debunking the theory of relativity as a next step.
I think Nyk's video illuminated to me that there is a false division between virtue ethics and other's. One's virtue is intert out of the context of the circumstances, and any consequences of an action cannot be wieghed without consideration of the people involved (ie their desires and virtues).
@stefanlittle I'm inclined to agree, somewhat. There's a lot of work being done by people building bridges between utilitarianism, Kant and Aristotle. Obviously they all have important insights and I think a pluralistic theory is called for. But straight-up pluralism has a host of problems (how can we rationally decide when to use which aspects of each theory?) I think subsuming utilitarianism and Kant under virtue ethics is the way to go.
Thanks for this video - even though I had ethics in school, aside from Aristotle, virtue ethics wasn't really gone into all that much (though we had a very short excerpt by Nussbaum in regards to Aristotle as well). These answers are kind of helpful in alleviating that.
@SonofTzeentch You're welcome, glad you liked it. Nussbuam is a favorite of mine. Met her a couple of times. Such an amazingly diversify and prolific mind.
As utilitarian I do not deny the utility of virtue ethics given the right context. I do not consider it to be The Answer, but it is An Answer, and a quite good one. If Ethics is a tool, like with any other tool it can have bad results given the wrong disposition of character. The strength of virtue ethics relies on its analysis of our human disposition. No serious ethicist will deny the positive contribution of virtue ethics throughout history.
I've never heard of virtue ethics before, though I had a fairly disturbing conversation with a self-proclaimed deontologist (who supported kidnapping Haitian children because they worship the devil, and could see no reason to discard Pascal's Wager) and ended up defending consequentialism. Can you perchance explain how factors other than results and (potentially highly biased) explanations can be used to assess the morality of an action?
@beriukay I'd be very curious to know what kind of deontology would licence kidnapping children. I'm reminded of the words of J.S. Mill: it is not hard to prove any moral theory wrong when universal idiocy is conjoined with it.
@SisyphusRedeemed I think you have it right with the Mill quote. The person's justification was essentially that Haitians worship Satan, so the kids were being saved from eternal blah blah blah.
Good as ever. I (being unfamiliar with the terms involved) got the impression from Nyk's video, that virtue ethics completely disregarded concequences in the assesment of an action, and therefore considered it kind of silly. So thanks for clearing that up.
It's always practical to know what a term means before you assess it's validity.
@TheSameDonkey There are some virtue ethicists who disregard consequences entirely, but usually only in fairly specific situations. On the whole, the only people who completely disregard consequences are deontologists.
I do not see how appealing to the pluralistic approach virtue ethics takes to good/bad actions shows it's effectiveness in applicability. Granted, you said that morality is messy, hence the rather messy response to the inapplicable challenge presumably, but simply pointing out how messy a given scenario could be is not really presenting a solution or a clear and applicable answer to it. In fact, by giving a rather scattered response, you almost prove the objector's point do you not?
Also, if you will pardon my simplistic outlook on this, if your stance is that the goodness or badness of a given action is determined by the particulars, you are, to a certain extent, claiming that the action in question is morally permissible, albeit, given certain caveats.
@Dogschach I think that almost any action imaginable can be permissible, given radical enough circumstances, sure. I'm very wary of moral absolutes. But practically speaking, we don't encounter the kinds of fantastical thought experiments that philosophers are so fond of (i.e.-trolly problems) in reality, so while academically interesting I don't think they're terribly useful.
@SisyphusRedeemed I wasn't so much referring to moral absolutes, rather, the inevitability of virtue ethics being another type of moral calculus that simply considers more variables. Granted, recognizing more variables than other theories is better but it seems that virtue ethics will become a form of moral profiling as opposed to a moral equation like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative. Like, if a,b, and c are met in a certain case it's moral, if they aren't, than it isn't.
@Dogschach I think the difference is the process isn't mechanistic. When I speak of judgment, it's similar to that used by actual judges in a court of law. The law doesn't provide a formula ('if they steal X amount of $, but show Y amount of remorse then they get Z years in jail'), but rather a set of statutes to guide the judgment of the court. Human moral psychology doesn't work like a math equation.
@SisyphusRedeemed As is obvious I'm not an expert on virtue ethics but I doubt that the (presumably American) court of law is the right analogy considering that it is heavily dependent on the power or persuasiveness of argument to the point that if one cannot argue well, their moral, or lack thereof, character practically becomes irrelevant.
Even more, the court of law analogy would make virtue ethics a form of moral note taking since once a judgment is passed on a case, it can be used in a future case as support such as how roe vs wade is used incessantly to support the permissibility of abortion which seems counter to how you are trying to conceive of virtue ethics.
@Dogschach Well, if one cannot reason well then they will not make very wise judgments in their life. Bad judgments are made in court, just as bad judgments are made in life. But both are judgments. Seems like an apt comparison to me.
@SisyphusRedeemed True, but considering how argumentation is able to justify unreasonable actions and individuals in the court of law, it's safe to say that simply being able to argue well is not the same as being able to reason. Especially if we are discussing ethics or morals since a major factor in courts (the American one's at least) is status or celebrity. It seems that virtue ethics would not allow one's popularity to effect a judgment.
@Dogschach Not to mention that you neglected to comment on the analogy making virtue ethics a form of moral note taking or record keeping since, the court of law model, very often depends on past decisions justifying future judgments. Will or does virtue ethics function in a similar matter in which a decision on a particular case can be used as justification in future cases? If so, virtue ethics is now more of a moral bureaucracy as opposed to a moral calculus.
I'd agree with both you. Basically the answer given by SR boils down to "Virtue ethics avoid the tricky problems and that's its strength".
If an ethical system isn't able to properly guide your moral decisions in complex or difficult situations (and yes, this may include some unromantic and rather technical calculus), it simply fails to perform it's main task.
@Xul To the contrary: I think virtue ethics is the only major theory that actually DEALS with the tricky problems. Utilitarianism, for example, denies that there ARE any moral problems, there are only epistemic ones ('which action will maximize utility?' Answer that and all moral problems are solved.) Ditto with Kant: there is only one relevant question: does this action violate the categorical imperative? This isn't how real people deal with real moral problems.
@SR: Consequentialist theories only deny that there are moral problems without any possible solution, whereas virtue ethics simply describe intuitions or conventions for the probl at hand while keeping it unresolved
Virtues may play a role in constructing a more complex value theory, but in the end actual consequences make the difference and not some fancy moral thought. Eventually you have to give a calculus to order and weigh the competing virtues or rules with regard to their consequences
@Dogschach I grant the objector's point, but deny it's a problem. Moral theories aren't just for telling us what to do, they're about making sense of our moral psychology. Given how complicated our moral psychology is we need complex theories to account for the diversity of things we care about. An overly simply theory that gives clear but unsatisfactory answers is not a good theory. Virtue ethics gives guidance, rather than straight-forward answers. Sometimes we have to do ethics without a net.
So when does honesty trump avoiding other people's feelings? And when is honesty trumped by safeguarding other people's feelings? Is not the difference revealed in the details of the circumstances ruled by what would result in the most good and least harm for the individual being told more or less of the truth?
And if so, isn't the value of virtues really within the context of morality's being primary concerned with the outcome of human behavior on those impacted by it (or consequentialism) ?
(Personally, I see the value of virtues/virtue ethics and rules/deontology within the context of consequentialism/or morality's being primarily concerned with how human behavior effects those impacted by it. Additionally I understand "enlightened self-interest" and/or "goal-theory morality" as sufficiently demonstrating why we should - and so often do - care about the effect of our behavior on others.)
@myintellectualjourny But the moral psychology that such a consequentialist theory generates is myopic and counter productive. If all you're thinking about is how to maximize good consequences, you will fail to maximize good consequences. So that means you're committed to moral schizophrenia: the right thing to do is to not think about the right thing to do, since that's the only way to get yourself to do the right thing.
@myintellectualjourny Like I said, you have to use judgment to determine if/when honesty trumps compassion and vice-versa. There are no hard and fast rules to follow; you have to take what you know about the person, the situation, likely outcomes, etc. So harm is relevant, yes, but it's not the only relevant factor. 'What kind of person would tell this lie?' is a relevant question, too.
ur so fucking clear andgood at explaining!!! ur right about the complexities of morality
kristinamlk 2 months ago
What´s the point of being ethical if not to make the world around you better, and prevent it from geting worse? If yes, then shouldn´t actions be deemed good or bad only on the basis of this? I simply cannot understand why someone with good reason wouldn´t be an utilitarianist. Oh well...
ThorBarstad 3 months ago
@ThorBarstad Because reality is much more complicated than how you think it is. The "common good" is non-existent
SineFractal 5 days ago
Comment removed
ThorBarstad 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SineFractal I cannot see how my assumptions about the complexity of reality are given by my comment. I´m not saying that we always can know and/or "calculate" what will be best for the world, but I am making a statement about what I think should be the ultimate goal of our actions.
ThorBarstad 4 days ago
What are the other components of virtue ethics besides consequentialism and their metaethical justifications?
Also, your discussion of the third point was a bit confusing. How would your version of virtue ethics be superior to a system which says "maximize human flourishing"?
4iner2 4 months ago
(Cont.) It comes to this. Can you conceive of a virtuous action which explicitly doesn't maximize the good, or even endeavors to? To raise the bar, let's idealize such a case by including that the agents have complete knowledge. It seems as if the virtue ethicist is committed to this possibility (even in a case of complete knowledge of the consequences of the actions). I just can't see how anyone could call it ethical. Perhaps you could illuminate by fleshing out just such a possibility.
Khuno2 4 months ago
I enjoyed this very much, btw. I don't agree that consequence isn't the be all and end all of virtue ethics (and all ethics, even Kantian deontology by way of Dr. Hare's curious alchemy which wed it to utilitarianism...which Kant would take great offense to, I'm confident) . I do like the open endedness of virtue ethics (they aren't meant to be rigidly defined, but are perfectionist). (Cont.)
Khuno2 4 months ago
"Virtue ethics recognizes that there are other moral values that need to be taken into consideration."
"The fact that the various virtues may derive their value from GOOD consequences"
If by 'may', you are suggesting that a virtue could derive its value from anything OTHER than good consequences or the tendency to bring them about if operational in an agent's psychological makeup, I'd like to hear it. Because as it stands, the collapse into consequentialism is guaranteed by your own words.
Khuno2 4 months ago
This was pretty useful, thanks :) I've got a much better understanding of the topic now!
P00bex 8 months ago
nice one, :) im intregued.
samgardnermusic 8 months ago
Comment removed
imseaton 9 months ago
@imseaton That's so cool! Husrthouse is one of the few thinkers who actually makes me wish I could go back in time and apply to grad school at UA to study with her. I met her once and spoke with her briefly about my dissertation, and she seemed kind and genuinely interested. So color me a little jealous!
SisyphusRedeemed 9 months ago
I couldn't help but notice that you constantly fall into consequentialism in order to defend virtue ethics on difficult moral decisions.
jopustopin 9 months ago
Basically you bite the bullet. Shrug. Not convinced, but good job nevertheless.
jopustopin 9 months ago
@jopustopin That's probably due in no small part to the fact that one of the more vocal members of my dissertation committee was a died in the wool utilitarian and I spent a lot of time in both conversation and in my dis trying to rebut him.
SisyphusRedeemed 9 months ago
Excellent arguments and video.
tomgk90 11 months ago
thanks for posting this. you just helped my school paper become more precise!
Roxanne
frenchgirl2000 1 year ago
Nice defence of Virtue Ethics.
You probably won't like this, but I think ethics is for bureaucrats and morality is for people.
On the empirical issue. What's your take on the view that Dr Andy Thompson takes?
stevehayes13 1 year ago
I realize that this is very irregular, but is there anyway I could read your dissertation (or at the very least get some bibliographical information from you somehow). I could most likely access your dissertation through the university library (I'm willing to give my personal email, if you'd be willing to share that information with me). If not, totally understandable. Interesting discussion, thank you for your input.
SweetRandal 1 year ago
@SweetRandal Send me a PM with your email address and I'd be happy to email you a copy.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Kewl I'll check it out. Ohh and I did a video on kind of a refutation of Virtue ethics. Hope you can check it out. Would love to know what you think.
Hugs, em
bananabread119 1 year ago
So quick question since you advocate Virtue ethics. Would you call a mentally retarded person immoral?
bananabread119 1 year ago
@bananabread119 See my video on Glenn Beck.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago 7
this was an excellent post, thanks for sharing
darkwaterhermit 1 year ago
Damn fine video. Your argument for virtue ethics is excellent.
fulekkei 1 year ago
Im not gonna add any thought, I think you have successfully defended Virtue Ethics ... a theory I agree with compared with deontology and utilitarianism.
And rosalind hursthouse is brilliant.... had the opportunity this year to be taught by her on virtue ethics...
ryonheart 1 year ago
May I inquire as to your opinion on moral relativism, Mr. Redeemed? (Can I call you Prometheus?)
WarThemedRevolution 1 year ago
@WarThemedRevolution I've been thinking about making a video on the relativism/objectivism debate. In short, morality is not relative, but neither is it objective.
And it's Sisyphus. Prometheus is my neighbor ;)
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Lol, Sisyphus it is. I would very much enjoy such a video, by the way. I have been considering the same thing since it is something that comes up in the abortion debate a lot. Though, I think it is logically absurd to say that there are absolutely no absolutes in morality...my thought is that there are absolutes (or there is no such thing as morality) but I do not know how we can empirically demonstrate them.
WarThemedRevolution 1 year ago
@WarThemedRevolution the only absolutes in ethics are trivial. There are no more interesting absolutes in ethics then there are in economics. But this doesn't mean that in either field 'anything goes.'
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I do not know that I agree, but it will be very difficult to have this discussion in comment format and anyway I am tired and lazy right now. If you make a video about this I might post a response, if you are interested in having the dialogue. Then again, I may not. It'll likely be an arbitrary decision.
WarThemedRevolution 1 year ago
Great video! I actually found myself trying to integrate some aspects of positive psychology, namely Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's ideas into my own ethical philosophy. At the end of the day what really matters is one's quality of experience in this life and how fulfilling it is. Of course that is immensely complex and so an examination of the virtues that are most likely to beget this kind of fulfillment is paramount. Consequences do matter, but if that is all one focuses on one is missing a lot.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
Sisyphus, it's great that Nykytyne2 is doing ethics now. The pop crowd is going to get swept into the next phase of the arguments. I've been watching the YT debates in pop and what's happening where people were already talking about objectivism and ethics and what have you, in the less pop channels, and when you have a one on one debate with someone who's actually interested, it inevitably comes down to ethics and morality claims. It's going to be quite a show. Great video, by the way!
igytsiycm 1 year ago
Hey SisyphusR... Nice Vid! My biggest reservation is when you talk about how Virtue ethics will result in different actions. I prescribe to utilitarian ethics and believe that it too takes a range of factors into account when dealing with an issue like abortion. I guess my question is, do you accuse utilitarianism of the same kind of 'mathematical' moral judgements as Deontology, or do you recognize that it necessitates taking situational factors into account. Once again, good vid!
k1dpresentable 1 year ago
@k1dpresentable @k1dpresentable Utilitarianism and virtue ethics will agree on a lot of practical conclusions, but they will disagree on some.
Deontology is like a one variable calculation ('does it violate the categorical imperative?'); utilitarianism is a multi variable equation (one for each individual effected by the action.) So yes, it does take situational factors into account--they're amongst the variables in question.
Glad you liked the vid, thanks for saying so.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
So glad you mentioned Hursthouse's article. I have a link to it on my favorites bar because a colleague/friend over in Philosophy recommended it. I've been thinking about assigning abortion as the topic in my debate course in the fall and was looking for stuff I've not read. My friend recommended Hursthouse's article. I haven't read it yet, but will. BTW, my favorite philosophy prof in college was big on virtue ethics and used the accounting analogy a lot. In any case, enjoyed this.
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH The best articles on abortion, IMO are Thomson's "In Defense of Abortion" and Marquis' "An Argument That Abortion is Immoral." Thomson takes something like a virtue ethics perspective, although it's not explicit. And Marquis does the best job of making a secular argument against abortion I think I've ever seen.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks for the additional recommendations. I've read Thomson. (A few years ago I did a video about abortion in which I used Thomson's violinist-with-bad-kidneys hypothetical.) I've included her article as recommended reading when teaching the abortion cases in con law and using abortion as a topic in debate (I haven't used it in a while, but the new Nebraska statute makes it seem ripe for use again).
ProfMTH 1 year ago
As for Marquis, I'm not familiar with that one. I'm looking at JSTOR now. Is it Don Marquis's "Why Abortion Is Immoral" from 1989 (The Journal of Philosophy)?
ProfMTH 1 year ago
@ProfMTH Yes, that should be the one. It's a widely anthologized article. Doesn't work in the end, but the idea he appeals to (a 'Future Like Ours') is a clever, secular way to try and make the argument.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I agree.
insidetrip101 1 year ago
"The right answer" "Morality is messy like that" - YES! Trying to reduce many ethical and moral issues to formulaic responses of any kind has always seemed rather sterile to me.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
You say, the difference between virtue ethics and consequentialism is that virtue etics is not ONLY about consequences. My question is what on earth these other things might be??? Yes, in comparison to a scurrilous portrait of consequentialism virtue ethics is more holistic and subtle. STILL, the problem of how to determine virtues remains. Unless you choose moral relativism or moral absolutism there is utlimately no other option than to refer to consequences. So, what are these other things???
buugiman78 1 year ago
@buugiman78 " what on earth these other things might be???"
In a word, character. You need to ask not simply 'what will happen if I do X?' but also 'What kind of person would I be if I did X?'
"the problem of how to determine virtues remains."
Yeah, this is a problem, one I can't solve in 10 minutes. But a lot of work has been done on it (again, see positive psychology).
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thanks again for your response. Ok, proponents of virtue ethics think a moral act is one that reflects a good moral character. Still, that begs the question what good moral character is and why it is to be considered moral. If you define a moral character (positive psychology) as, say, a character that makes the individual flourish you are in fact ultimately a consequentialist. You said virtue ethics isn't only about consequences. Hence, my question what those other things are?
buugiman78 1 year ago
@buugiman78 "Unless you choose moral relativism or moral absolutism there is utlimately no other option than to refer to consequences."
You're conflating moral theory and metaethics. Consequentialism can be absolutist or relativistic, as can virtue ethics. Consequences are not some third metaethical option.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed Thank you for your response. Yes, in principle you are of course right. I am not a philosopher so I won't argue with you further on that issue, since it is beside my main argument. You said virtue ethics is not only about consequences. My point is that if the basis for determining what virtues are to be considered moral or not is not ultimately consequentialist (i.e. human flourishing or something similar) then what other rational measures do you refer to???
buugiman78 1 year ago
You talk about positive psychology as a way of determing virtues. Ironically that actually makes you a consequentialist, as you argue that the the moral qualities we ought to consider virtues are the ones that lead to fulfillment.
I think the main problem here is that some philosophers seem to have a very mechanic and simplistic approach to consequentialism. I've never heard a serious consequentialist deal with complex issues like abortion in such a simplistic way as you presented.
buugiman78 1 year ago
Your defense against the "bullocks" critique fails; if what determines the virtues are consequences on human flourishing, then the virtue-ethics is just a two-tiered utilitarian theory, like rule-utilitarianism. Which is fine - if that's the theory you want to hold, fine - but should be recognized, not dismissed.
secularisrael 1 year ago
This video made me think of Sartre's french soldier dilemma (from Existentialism is a Humanism if memory serves). Should the young man stay with his mother, or join the French resistance is the question. According to Sartre Kantian deontology wouldn't help, consequentialism at best makes a muddy paste of the situation, what would a virtue ethicist have to say about it?
DiogenesofMilwaukee 1 year ago
@DiogenesofMilwaukee Well, Sartre's answer of course was "You are free, choose." That's not helpful from a practical point of view, but it does point to a relevant set of virtues: personal responsibility, integrity and self-reliance (in other words 'good faith.') By avoiding 'bad faith' we avoid the vices of self-deception, intellectual dishonesty, and inauthenticity. So this would be a good example of virtue ethics explaining what matters, rather than just telling you what you must do.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@DiogenesofMilwaukee But if you wanted more practical guidance, virtue ethics would ask you: "What kind of person would leave their sick mother behind to fight the Nazi's?" A courageous, self-sacrificing one, perhaps, but also one that perhaps is somewhat disloyal & callous. Conversly, what kind of person would stay with their sick mother when the Nazi's are threatening to take over the world? A compassionate and loyal one, but also a somewhat selfish one. So you have to ask what matters most.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Its interesting that one must adopt an "ethical system" with a virtue that it "doesn't guide ethical decisions". Lets figure out how ethics really works...wait..no lets leave it a mystery because its better that way.
Instead of trying to shoehorn ethical dilemmas into some sort of system, why don't we instead focus on the individual problems themselves?
askirojadu 1 year ago
Nyk's work, and your responses and input are perfect examples of how youtube should be and why youtube is a tidal wave of awesome sometimes.
FlightIsLife 1 year ago
I'm just getting into ethics more seriously;,and I'm realizing that it's not anywhere near as simple and clear as many people would like it to be. Virtues and ethical deliberation about how one should behave can be a massive boon, I understand this and so I will call myself a virtue ethicist, but the circumstances might also demand rules and general guidelines.
Critical thinking! It burns!
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed, hmm, that is a video I would like to see made. I would like to know how you came to that conclusion. Anyway this was a good video as well.
RebelKain 1 year ago
Good and bad describe no real details of an action or behavior. In an objective sense they are vacuous words. The only meaning they have is to the individual, and the only messages they convey are the speaker's approvals or disapproval. Most attempts at describing moral law are merely the result of a wish to justify ones own feelings toward any given subject. As a society it is better to think in terms of detrimental and beneficial than in terms of moral and immoral.
RebelKain 1 year ago
@RebelKain In an objective sense 'objective' is a vacuous word. So, for that matter, is 'subjective.' These words have no meaning. But that's a topic for another video.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed
"In an objective sense 'objective' is a vacuous word. So, for that matter, is 'subjective.' These words have no meaning."
I have wanted to see a video on this subject for a while now. I can't see how you can possibly arrive at this conclusion rationally if you understand the relative nature in which the meaning is derived. If you succeed I would suggest debunking the theory of relativity as a next step.
askirojadu 1 year ago
I made a mistake going into Classics, which I'll be paying for for the rest of my life--but thank the immortal Gods I didn't study modern philosophy!
HConstantine 1 year ago
I think Nyk's video illuminated to me that there is a false division between virtue ethics and other's. One's virtue is intert out of the context of the circumstances, and any consequences of an action cannot be wieghed without consideration of the people involved (ie their desires and virtues).
stefanlittle 1 year ago
@stefanlittle I'm inclined to agree, somewhat. There's a lot of work being done by people building bridges between utilitarianism, Kant and Aristotle. Obviously they all have important insights and I think a pluralistic theory is called for. But straight-up pluralism has a host of problems (how can we rationally decide when to use which aspects of each theory?) I think subsuming utilitarianism and Kant under virtue ethics is the way to go.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Thanks for this video - even though I had ethics in school, aside from Aristotle, virtue ethics wasn't really gone into all that much (though we had a very short excerpt by Nussbaum in regards to Aristotle as well). These answers are kind of helpful in alleviating that.
SonofTzeentch 1 year ago
@SonofTzeentch You're welcome, glad you liked it. Nussbuam is a favorite of mine. Met her a couple of times. Such an amazingly diversify and prolific mind.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
Good video. The objections weren't that heavy anyway, unless you are stubbornly predisposed against virtue ethics.
mischachiaro 1 year ago
@mischachiaro Yeah, I don't think he took himself to be delivering death blows, just throwing out a few reservations.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
As utilitarian I do not deny the utility of virtue ethics given the right context. I do not consider it to be The Answer, but it is An Answer, and a quite good one. If Ethics is a tool, like with any other tool it can have bad results given the wrong disposition of character. The strength of virtue ethics relies on its analysis of our human disposition. No serious ethicist will deny the positive contribution of virtue ethics throughout history.
mischachiaro 1 year ago
I've never heard of virtue ethics before, though I had a fairly disturbing conversation with a self-proclaimed deontologist (who supported kidnapping Haitian children because they worship the devil, and could see no reason to discard Pascal's Wager) and ended up defending consequentialism. Can you perchance explain how factors other than results and (potentially highly biased) explanations can be used to assess the morality of an action?
beriukay 1 year ago
@beriukay I'd be very curious to know what kind of deontology would licence kidnapping children. I'm reminded of the words of J.S. Mill: it is not hard to prove any moral theory wrong when universal idiocy is conjoined with it.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I think you have it right with the Mill quote. The person's justification was essentially that Haitians worship Satan, so the kids were being saved from eternal blah blah blah.
beriukay 1 year ago
Good as ever. I (being unfamiliar with the terms involved) got the impression from Nyk's video, that virtue ethics completely disregarded concequences in the assesment of an action, and therefore considered it kind of silly. So thanks for clearing that up.
It's always practical to know what a term means before you assess it's validity.
TheSameDonkey 1 year ago
@TheSameDonkey There are some virtue ethicists who disregard consequences entirely, but usually only in fairly specific situations. On the whole, the only people who completely disregard consequences are deontologists.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I do not see how appealing to the pluralistic approach virtue ethics takes to good/bad actions shows it's effectiveness in applicability. Granted, you said that morality is messy, hence the rather messy response to the inapplicable challenge presumably, but simply pointing out how messy a given scenario could be is not really presenting a solution or a clear and applicable answer to it. In fact, by giving a rather scattered response, you almost prove the objector's point do you not?
Dogschach 1 year ago
Also, if you will pardon my simplistic outlook on this, if your stance is that the goodness or badness of a given action is determined by the particulars, you are, to a certain extent, claiming that the action in question is morally permissible, albeit, given certain caveats.
Dogschach 1 year ago
@Dogschach I think that almost any action imaginable can be permissible, given radical enough circumstances, sure. I'm very wary of moral absolutes. But practically speaking, we don't encounter the kinds of fantastical thought experiments that philosophers are so fond of (i.e.-trolly problems) in reality, so while academically interesting I don't think they're terribly useful.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed I wasn't so much referring to moral absolutes, rather, the inevitability of virtue ethics being another type of moral calculus that simply considers more variables. Granted, recognizing more variables than other theories is better but it seems that virtue ethics will become a form of moral profiling as opposed to a moral equation like utilitarianism and the categorical imperative. Like, if a,b, and c are met in a certain case it's moral, if they aren't, than it isn't.
Dogschach 1 year ago
@Dogschach I think the difference is the process isn't mechanistic. When I speak of judgment, it's similar to that used by actual judges in a court of law. The law doesn't provide a formula ('if they steal X amount of $, but show Y amount of remorse then they get Z years in jail'), but rather a set of statutes to guide the judgment of the court. Human moral psychology doesn't work like a math equation.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed As is obvious I'm not an expert on virtue ethics but I doubt that the (presumably American) court of law is the right analogy considering that it is heavily dependent on the power or persuasiveness of argument to the point that if one cannot argue well, their moral, or lack thereof, character practically becomes irrelevant.
Dogschach 1 year ago
Even more, the court of law analogy would make virtue ethics a form of moral note taking since once a judgment is passed on a case, it can be used in a future case as support such as how roe vs wade is used incessantly to support the permissibility of abortion which seems counter to how you are trying to conceive of virtue ethics.
Dogschach 1 year ago
@Dogschach Well, if one cannot reason well then they will not make very wise judgments in their life. Bad judgments are made in court, just as bad judgments are made in life. But both are judgments. Seems like an apt comparison to me.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SisyphusRedeemed True, but considering how argumentation is able to justify unreasonable actions and individuals in the court of law, it's safe to say that simply being able to argue well is not the same as being able to reason. Especially if we are discussing ethics or morals since a major factor in courts (the American one's at least) is status or celebrity. It seems that virtue ethics would not allow one's popularity to effect a judgment.
Dogschach 1 year ago
@Dogschach Not to mention that you neglected to comment on the analogy making virtue ethics a form of moral note taking or record keeping since, the court of law model, very often depends on past decisions justifying future judgments. Will or does virtue ethics function in a similar matter in which a decision on a particular case can be used as justification in future cases? If so, virtue ethics is now more of a moral bureaucracy as opposed to a moral calculus.
Dogschach 1 year ago
@Dogschach
@myintellectualjourny
I'd agree with both you. Basically the answer given by SR boils down to "Virtue ethics avoid the tricky problems and that's its strength".
If an ethical system isn't able to properly guide your moral decisions in complex or difficult situations (and yes, this may include some unromantic and rather technical calculus), it simply fails to perform it's main task.
Xul 1 year ago
@Xul To the contrary: I think virtue ethics is the only major theory that actually DEALS with the tricky problems. Utilitarianism, for example, denies that there ARE any moral problems, there are only epistemic ones ('which action will maximize utility?' Answer that and all moral problems are solved.) Ditto with Kant: there is only one relevant question: does this action violate the categorical imperative? This isn't how real people deal with real moral problems.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@SR: Consequentialist theories only deny that there are moral problems without any possible solution, whereas virtue ethics simply describe intuitions or conventions for the probl at hand while keeping it unresolved
Virtues may play a role in constructing a more complex value theory, but in the end actual consequences make the difference and not some fancy moral thought. Eventually you have to give a calculus to order and weigh the competing virtues or rules with regard to their consequences
Xul 1 year ago
@Dogschach I grant the objector's point, but deny it's a problem. Moral theories aren't just for telling us what to do, they're about making sense of our moral psychology. Given how complicated our moral psychology is we need complex theories to account for the diversity of things we care about. An overly simply theory that gives clear but unsatisfactory answers is not a good theory. Virtue ethics gives guidance, rather than straight-forward answers. Sometimes we have to do ethics without a net.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I fully agree with you on this. I absolutely love and appreciate your passionate delivery on this topic as well.
tattooskin72 1 year ago
@tattooskin72 Thank you for saying so, glad you liked it.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
So when does honesty trump avoiding other people's feelings? And when is honesty trumped by safeguarding other people's feelings? Is not the difference revealed in the details of the circumstances ruled by what would result in the most good and least harm for the individual being told more or less of the truth?
And if so, isn't the value of virtues really within the context of morality's being primary concerned with the outcome of human behavior on those impacted by it (or consequentialism) ?
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
(Personally, I see the value of virtues/virtue ethics and rules/deontology within the context of consequentialism/or morality's being primarily concerned with how human behavior effects those impacted by it. Additionally I understand "enlightened self-interest" and/or "goal-theory morality" as sufficiently demonstrating why we should - and so often do - care about the effect of our behavior on others.)
myintellectualjourny 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny But the moral psychology that such a consequentialist theory generates is myopic and counter productive. If all you're thinking about is how to maximize good consequences, you will fail to maximize good consequences. So that means you're committed to moral schizophrenia: the right thing to do is to not think about the right thing to do, since that's the only way to get yourself to do the right thing.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
@myintellectualjourny Like I said, you have to use judgment to determine if/when honesty trumps compassion and vice-versa. There are no hard and fast rules to follow; you have to take what you know about the person, the situation, likely outcomes, etc. So harm is relevant, yes, but it's not the only relevant factor. 'What kind of person would tell this lie?' is a relevant question, too.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
I was a deontologist, but now I'm more inclined to seriously examine the role of virtue in ethics. Thx for the video sisyphus
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo More than welcome, thanks for saying so.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
"A virtue of virtue ethics" Cute! :-)
CousinoMacul 1 year ago
@CousinoMacul Yeah, virtue ethicists are really sick of that gag, but I still use it anyway.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
WOAH! I would have thought for sure you believed some teleological system of ethics
migkillertwo 1 year ago
@migkillertwo In my ethics class, both my professor and TA seemed to dislike consequentialism. It's not completely surprising to me.
kamijk 1 year ago
@kamijk It has passionate defenders and passionate detractors. Makes for very interesting debates.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago
any ethical theory that is one dimensional is doom to failure.
TheAtheistPaladin 1 year ago
@TheAtheistPaladin
agreed!
stampmaille 1 year ago
@TheAtheistPaladin Well put.
SisyphusRedeemed 1 year ago