I think you've done a good job presenting an interesting metaphor which shows how ethical systems converge. One issue I have run into with Virtue Ethics is that, at times, it does not provide falsifiable propositions. The failures of deontological systems are often as black and white as a nuns wardrobe; while virtue ethics failures exist in an ocean of reinterpritable Grey. I like asking the question: If virtuous people repeatedly end up miserable, exploited, or socially destroyed, does the theory collapse?
I really like this question. I spend a lot of time thinking about the way virtue can work to defeat itself. The blog is actually named after the Shaker movement, which did that by making abstinence a core tenet.
Personally I think the practical wisdom from virtue ethics should demand that virtue be able to self propagate. A good life, in my eyes, is not one of such great self-sacrifice that no one else would dare copy it. It should be attainable for most people.
But then again, any kind of good virtue ethics will suspiciously resemble utilitarianism. A good person is someone who uses reason to figure out what is good to do.
Is there a universally agreed person whom we all consider a good person? Well even Gandhi said, I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians. So let's run with Christ.
So he goes about healing people, feeding people, and teaching them things he thinks is true. We also see a lot of consolation given to the poor, sick etc. He is sometimes harsh, but not too harsh, like the only case of physical aggression is throwing the money-changers out of the church, but they escape without serious injuries. One can make a case they deserved it. He is more often harsh in words, like threatening people with damnation, but again one can make a case they deserved it. Generally speaking only greedy people get this harsher kind of treatment, he is generally gentle with other sins.
Doesn't this just round up to utilitarianism? Granted he does not donate infinite shekels to shrimp welfare, in fact he has no problem with fishermen fishing at all, but as far as only people are concerned he is reasonably close to a utilitarian ideal.
And it looks like we actually inherited the very basis of a utilitarian ethic from him. Romans were not huge do-gooders really. One reason Christianity had spread fast is when plagues broke out, the Romans generally dumped their relatives as they did not want to get it. Christians nursed the sick, even Pagan ones and this charitableness was attractive.
It seems the do-gooder, charity-oriented ethic came from him. Before him, ethics was partially about avoiding doing bad things, and partially about developing a big number of virtues, where courage or a sense of humor was just as important as magnanimity.
But a strongly compassion-centric, helper, do-gooder ethic came from him. And isn't that utilitiarianism?
I do think in this direction, but it remains utilitarianism embedded in virtue ethics rather than utilitarianism first. I consider skill with utilitarian reasoning to be an important contemporary virtue, if you’re interested I had a letter here: https://blackthornhedge.substack.com/p/how-i-use-utilitarianism
This is the way I see it, too. For example, when Jesus tells the rich man to sell all of his belongings and give them to the poor, that's a very utilitarian command. But the reason that he tells the man to do that is for his own character. Easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
It seems that Jesus cares about making people good first, and then those good people will naturally help others.
The difference is small then. I mean the kind of model where virtue ethics is the shell of a hard boiled egg, that is thin and not really useful, and inside it contains the actual egg of utilitarianism, does make sense (if my metaphor is correct, one could also compare it to a lemon where the skin has uses too).
But you see I actually have one problem with both utilitarianism and virtue ethics: they both require one to be a law unto themselves. Basically both say think like as if you are an absolute king. This seems very wrong to me.
I think our basic normal approach should be follow the law unless the law is very unjust. And then you can go beyond the law and do good things the law does not forbid. But violating the law should only happen if the law is truly truly bad. We should not think we are above the law, we should not think we are wiser than the lawmaker or have a right to make our own law. Is this a deontological direction?
Some virtue ethicists get this. Specifically MacIntyrre was analysing Homer I think and said something like justice is the virtue of kings and leaders. The virtue of others is obedience.
Frankly I blame democracy. Yes, it is the least bad system but it has some bad side-effects. It encourages thinking like an absolute king. We need more subject-type thinking, more obedience, and more realization that our opinions do not matter, because democracy is limited.
Limited in this sense. I don't have exact year but in the UK death penalty was abolished like two generations ago, and it did not have majority support at all. Simply the political elites agreed on this. The people did not like it. But what are they gonna do? Found a single-issue Death Party? Come on. Sometimes you have to accept that it is an elitist democracy, it is not 100% about popular will. This means we are in some sense citizens and in some sense subjects.
Hm, I do not think virtue ethics makes one a law unto oneself; MacIntyre’s “community goods” starting point in _After Virtue_ implies a different direction more suitable for dependent rational animals.
I wouldn’t use the shell metaphor either; for me the utilitarianism operates more like a single organ of the more complex organism than “all of the living meat.”
Re democracy, the Habermasian approach via deliberative democracy offers some of the correction you’re looking for re “every man a king” deformations of democratic ideology without simply putting the law starkly and deontologically above everyone. It gives sharp clarifications of how, when, and why opinion matters in the formation and reformation of law.
Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2314/
I think you've done a good job presenting an interesting metaphor which shows how ethical systems converge. One issue I have run into with Virtue Ethics is that, at times, it does not provide falsifiable propositions. The failures of deontological systems are often as black and white as a nuns wardrobe; while virtue ethics failures exist in an ocean of reinterpritable Grey. I like asking the question: If virtuous people repeatedly end up miserable, exploited, or socially destroyed, does the theory collapse?
I really like this question. I spend a lot of time thinking about the way virtue can work to defeat itself. The blog is actually named after the Shaker movement, which did that by making abstinence a core tenet.
Personally I think the practical wisdom from virtue ethics should demand that virtue be able to self propagate. A good life, in my eyes, is not one of such great self-sacrifice that no one else would dare copy it. It should be attainable for most people.
I very much look forward to your next essay/article!
Thanks! You’re too kind.
I'm still a proud indirect and sophisticated consequentialist. And Epicurean virtue-ethicist; virtue is an instrument to pleasure.
A pretty good instrument at that. I like your name, very fitting
But then again, any kind of good virtue ethics will suspiciously resemble utilitarianism. A good person is someone who uses reason to figure out what is good to do.
Is there a universally agreed person whom we all consider a good person? Well even Gandhi said, I like your Christ, I just don't like your Christians. So let's run with Christ.
So he goes about healing people, feeding people, and teaching them things he thinks is true. We also see a lot of consolation given to the poor, sick etc. He is sometimes harsh, but not too harsh, like the only case of physical aggression is throwing the money-changers out of the church, but they escape without serious injuries. One can make a case they deserved it. He is more often harsh in words, like threatening people with damnation, but again one can make a case they deserved it. Generally speaking only greedy people get this harsher kind of treatment, he is generally gentle with other sins.
Doesn't this just round up to utilitarianism? Granted he does not donate infinite shekels to shrimp welfare, in fact he has no problem with fishermen fishing at all, but as far as only people are concerned he is reasonably close to a utilitarian ideal.
And it looks like we actually inherited the very basis of a utilitarian ethic from him. Romans were not huge do-gooders really. One reason Christianity had spread fast is when plagues broke out, the Romans generally dumped their relatives as they did not want to get it. Christians nursed the sick, even Pagan ones and this charitableness was attractive.
It seems the do-gooder, charity-oriented ethic came from him. Before him, ethics was partially about avoiding doing bad things, and partially about developing a big number of virtues, where courage or a sense of humor was just as important as magnanimity.
But a strongly compassion-centric, helper, do-gooder ethic came from him. And isn't that utilitiarianism?
I do think in this direction, but it remains utilitarianism embedded in virtue ethics rather than utilitarianism first. I consider skill with utilitarian reasoning to be an important contemporary virtue, if you’re interested I had a letter here: https://blackthornhedge.substack.com/p/how-i-use-utilitarianism
This is the way I see it, too. For example, when Jesus tells the rich man to sell all of his belongings and give them to the poor, that's a very utilitarian command. But the reason that he tells the man to do that is for his own character. Easier for a camel to go through the eye of the needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
It seems that Jesus cares about making people good first, and then those good people will naturally help others.
The difference is small then. I mean the kind of model where virtue ethics is the shell of a hard boiled egg, that is thin and not really useful, and inside it contains the actual egg of utilitarianism, does make sense (if my metaphor is correct, one could also compare it to a lemon where the skin has uses too).
But you see I actually have one problem with both utilitarianism and virtue ethics: they both require one to be a law unto themselves. Basically both say think like as if you are an absolute king. This seems very wrong to me.
I think our basic normal approach should be follow the law unless the law is very unjust. And then you can go beyond the law and do good things the law does not forbid. But violating the law should only happen if the law is truly truly bad. We should not think we are above the law, we should not think we are wiser than the lawmaker or have a right to make our own law. Is this a deontological direction?
Some virtue ethicists get this. Specifically MacIntyrre was analysing Homer I think and said something like justice is the virtue of kings and leaders. The virtue of others is obedience.
Frankly I blame democracy. Yes, it is the least bad system but it has some bad side-effects. It encourages thinking like an absolute king. We need more subject-type thinking, more obedience, and more realization that our opinions do not matter, because democracy is limited.
Limited in this sense. I don't have exact year but in the UK death penalty was abolished like two generations ago, and it did not have majority support at all. Simply the political elites agreed on this. The people did not like it. But what are they gonna do? Found a single-issue Death Party? Come on. Sometimes you have to accept that it is an elitist democracy, it is not 100% about popular will. This means we are in some sense citizens and in some sense subjects.
Hm, I do not think virtue ethics makes one a law unto oneself; MacIntyre’s “community goods” starting point in _After Virtue_ implies a different direction more suitable for dependent rational animals.
I wouldn’t use the shell metaphor either; for me the utilitarianism operates more like a single organ of the more complex organism than “all of the living meat.”
Re democracy, the Habermasian approach via deliberative democracy offers some of the correction you’re looking for re “every man a king” deformations of democratic ideology without simply putting the law starkly and deontologically above everyone. It gives sharp clarifications of how, when, and why opinion matters in the formation and reformation of law.