Generally there are three approacher to ethnics: Following rules; examine the consequences of one's actions; and becoming a better person. The question is, which is to be master? — Banno
...principle of value... — javi2541997
What we are left with is the virtue of the person making the choice. — Banno
Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system. — Hello Human
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)...
This is not to say that only virtue ethicists attend to virtues, any more than it is to say that only consequentialists attend to consequences or only deontologists to rules. Each of the above-mentioned approaches can make room for virtues, consequences, and rules. Indeed, any plausible normative ethical theory will have something to say about all three. What distinguishes virtue ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the centrality of virtue within the theory (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). — SEP - Virtue ethics
To illustrate the difference among three key moral philosophies, ethicists Mark White and Robert Arp refer to the film The Dark Knight where Batman has the opportunity to kill the Joker. Utilitarians, White and Arp suggest, would endorse killing the Joker. By taking this one life, Batman could save multitudes. Deontologists, on the other hand, would reject killing the Joker simply because it’s wrong to kill. But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t. — Ethics unwrapped - glossary - virtue ethics
The core of ethics is what will I do now. — Banno
Perhaps what you do is who you are; in which case asking what you ought do is exactly asking who you should be. — Banno
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. — Hello Human
I'll add Kant as shorthand for deontology because I think it's not the same as "following the rules."Following rules; examine the consequences of one's actions; and becoming a better person. — Banno
But maybe he should. That is, personal standard cannot trump ethical standard.But a virtue ethicist “would highlight the character of the person who kills the Joker. Does Batman want to be the kind of person who takes his enemies’ lives?” No, in fact, he doesn’t. — Ethics unwrapped - glossary - virtue ethics
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.Generally there are three approach[es] to et[hi[cs: Following rules; examine the consequences of one's actions; and becoming a better person. The question is, which is to be master?
Perhaps what you do is who you are; in which case asking what you ought do is exactly asking who you should be. — Banno
↪Banno , you're a proponent of virtue ethics. Can you explain what this term means? — baker
I'll add Kant as shorthand for deontology because I think it's not the same as "following the rules." — tim wood
More approaches come from explicitly combining the two or three of the approaches which you've mentioned in various ways — 180 Proof
Yeah, it is. — Banno
Deontology is an asking of what I should do, and an answering not in terms of pre-existing rules or what I hope might happen, but in terms of best reason that can be brought to bear.Deontology reduces to virtue ethics. — Banno
Reason as rigor, which presumably reduces nonsense. Or perhaps you mean reason as a feeling?since you too fall back on the virtue of reason. — Banno
appears to concern moral character. Which becomes viciously circular, unless you see a way out of the circle.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)... — SEP - Virtue ethics
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 ?". — Hello Human
Perhaps what you do is who you are; in which case asking what you ought do is exactly asking who you should be. — Banno
Deontology is an asking of what I should do... in terms of best reason that can be brought to bear * * * I do not see ethics as identical with personal virtue or moral character. — tim wood
From aboveVirtue 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)... — SEP - Virtue ethics
As you can see, not my wording.just keeping in line with Tim's wording. — Banno
From what, by what standard?The notion of developing involves improvement. Developing one's moral character involves developing an understanding of what moral character is. — Banno
And you apparently missed this.And if you insist on virtue ethics - taking that as defined above - then how do you square that with the imperatives of circumstance? And lacking that squaring, how can you call it ethics? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.