Good is not a thing you are. It's a thing you do. — Kamala Khan (Marvel)
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon).Moral character (ethos) consists of habits of eusocial judgment (phronesis).
Virtues (arete) are adaptive skills acquired and developed through applying them in various practices (praxes) which gradually habitualize and thereby, in positive feedback loops, are reinforced by moral character (ethos).
Flourishing, or reduction of self-immiserating habits (eudaimonia) is the 'categorical imperative' (telos) of moral character (ethos).
An interpretation of 'virtue ethics' (re: Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum) in a Spinozist-Peircean sense:
Moral character (ethos) consists of habits of eusocial judgment (phronesis).
Virtues (arete) are adaptive skills acquired and developed through applying them in various practices (praxes) which gradually habitualize and thereby, in positive feedback loops, are reinforced by moral character (ethos).
Flourishing, or reduction of self-immiserating habits (eudaimonia) is the 'categorical imperative' (telos) of moral character (ethos).
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon). — 180 Proof
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:Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system opposedbyto consequentialism, deontology, and consequentialism. — 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.virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" while consequentialism,deontologismdeontology and other views on ethics tries to answer the question "what do we ought to do ?" — 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?If it is possible for human beings to have any moral knowledge — Hello Human
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? — Fooloso4
Nothing radical, just straight-up Aristotle. The good man makes a good speech, and among the ways to tell are his manifesting αρέτε, φρονέισις, ευνοία, good character, good judgment, good will. (Rhetoric, 1378a - 6.) — tim wood
Rhetoric is about what is said, not what is done — Fooloso4
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." — TheMadFool
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? — Fooloso4
Is wisdom morally neutral? — TheMadFool
Is wisdom morally neutral?
— TheMadFool
Is it wise to treat your enemies as you would your friends? — Fooloso4
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. — Banno
An interpretation of 'virtue ethics' (re: Philippa Foot, Martha Nussbaum) in a Spinozist-Peircean sense:
Moral character (ethos) consists of habits of eusocial judgment (phronesis).
Virtues (arete) are adaptive skills acquired and developed through applying them in various practices (praxes) which gradually habitualize and thereby, in positive feedback loops, are reinforced by moral character (ethos).
Flourishing, or reduction of self-immiserating habits (eudaimonia) is the 'categorical imperative' (telos) of moral character (ethos).
In sum: inhabiting a habitat with others (from etymology of ethos) is cultivated by exercising eusocial habits through adaptive conduct contra maladaptive conduct (agon). — 180 Proof
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.' — baker
Irrelevant.direction of fit, — Banno
Straw man.Expecting a universal law here is a mistake. — Banno
But based on or in what? Either it's capricious, arbitrary, relative, or, it's grounded in something more solid and substantial than itself, out of which it may be developed and derived. I nominate reason, not being the first to do so.But there is overwhelming agreement on certain virtues. — Banno
You will not see what is going on here unless you grasp the relevance of direction of fit.Irrelevant — tim wood
...really?Straw man — tim wood
But based on or in what? — tim wood
No rules, no reason(s), no logic, no steps, no consequences, no intentions, no preferences? Just process ex nihilo?Virtue ethics bootstraps.... It's a process, not a rule. — Banno
By what standard? How would you know what (an) improvement is? (In terms of Banno's argument?) — tim wood
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. — Banno
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.