Virtue Egoism

A brief explanation of why the virtue approach is superior to the pragmatic or rule consequentialist approaches.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• virtue
• ethics
• egoism
• consequentialism
• right
• wrong
• morality
• pragmatism
• principles
• objectivism

[AfricanPrince]

I classify my views as being virtue ethicist/deontologist. In short, I think that empathy and empathy alone is the basis of morality (although I don't consider myself to be a moral person, I wish that I were). I hate the idea of morality as some complicated, intellectual issue that is the private domain of "academics".

[XOmniverse]

How would you rationally defend deontology? Isn't that the idea that certain things are right and wrong regardless of the consequences? Since the purpose of all action is to lead to specific consequences, this seems fundamentally irrational.

[alwaysright10000]

III. ...Bentham's principal of greatest happiness for the greatest number? Or Rawls' veil of ignorance? If you think ethics has anything at all to do with persuading the sociopath, any more than medicine has to do with treating the dead, you are *profoundly* confused.

[alwaysright10000]

II. reverse erudition, are singularly impressive. No one, absolutely no one (at least not since Plato) founds his defense of consequentialism on the grounds that it is congenial to narrow individual self-interest.

You seem to interpret the term "consequences" as a Judge or High School principal might do. The consequentialist objection to murder is that the consequences are (most directly) suffered by the person being *murdered*, jackass. Haven't you ever heard of...

[alwaysright10000]

@XOmniverse I.

You seem like a nice guy, and so I'm tempted to pull this punch, but I cannot do so in any way that is compatible with intellectual honesty. Here it comes:

Your ignorance of metaethics is

truly

staggering.

It's as if you spent the whole of your life preparing for this video concentrating all of your intellectual energies -with a kind of inverse genius- to avoid learning as much ethical philosophy as possible. On that score, your genius, an the resultant depth of your....

[foolsbetrippin]

check out some egocentrism and solipsism, if you find any staggering revelations lemme know

[AfricanPrince]

@XOmniverse

I no longer consider myself to be a deontologist, lol. I view an ethics of empathy as being synonymous with hedonist consequentialism.

[MillionthUsername]

@cherylwens

The meaning of transcendent as applied to values means that I don't value another human being solely according to their subjective value to myself at the moment.

I value them as God values them. Their value transcends the physical because they are spiritual beings. Their value is objectively inherent in their being regardless of what they may offer me for my benefit.

In this, they are like me, hence I want to treat them as I treat myself. They are other selves, not objects.

[MillionthUsername]

@cherylwens

You can stop with LOL. Or I could put it an the end of every one of my sentences if you prefer. LOL.

First, what is it you are claiming about dogs? That they reason they ought to adopt one ethic over another? Or are you saying that man's ethics are instinct (like dogs)?

[cherylwens]

Face it. It's only transcendent because it's related to christianity. And religion is supposed to be spiritual and somehow beyond our empirical senses. Which is nonsense if you ask me but I'm not gonna expound on that now.

[cherylwens]

What is the difference between "love your neighbour as yourself" and "sacrifice yourself for another member of the pack"? Enlighten me pls. Aren't both essentially altruism? LOL

[MillionthUsername]

@cherylwens

You're telling me now that a dog follows the rule "love your neighbor as yourself," and therefore subscribes to transcendent value?

Wouldn't it be more logical to say that the

dog is acting out a pack instinct for self-defense, and will apply this to any dog

or human it senses as part of its pack?