This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Deontology makes the mistake of thinking that there is a rule to which everyone must agree - usually on pain of being thought irrational - and that this is the base from which right conduct ensues.

And then deontologists are puzzled that folk disagree.

it's sheer hubris to think that one has found a rule that is applicable in every case.

Virtue ethics seeks to find a way for folk to thrive. It is practical. It focuses on social interaction, not philosophical debate. It doesn't have an answer to every issue, but it will help you to find one.

It would seem there's a level of abstraction you simply cannot handle, — tim wood

I love to see folk make their replies about me, and not my arguments. It's a pretty sure sign I've got it right.

I think I've mentioned before that there are ways of implementing rules that are not found in setting them out but in enacting them. Indeed, it is not being able to state the rule, but what one does that shows that one is following the rule. That seems to me a deeper analysis of rule-following than you have offered.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

And it's a fundamental problem for those who seek to somehow derive universally applicable moral principles. — Banno

How do you save ethics from drowning in a sea of individuality?

Virtue ethics seeks to find a way for folk to thrive. — Banno

Oh, I think Nussbaum's upper middle class status is helping her thrive, not virtue ethics.

What is guidance? What guides? Ethics have anything to do with guidance? Or is ethics just the retroactive look that affirms the is? — tim wood

I think I've answered that: one is obliged to choose. The measure of a human is what they choose.

Deontologists tend to pretend that there is a rule, then interpret the rule so they get what they choose, anyway.

Cut to the chase and judge folk by what they do, not by what they profess.

How do you save ethics from drowning in a sea of individuality? — baker

Who, me?

I don't.

But I have helped folk to learn to swim.

Cut to the chase and judge folk by what they do, not by what they profess. — Banno

How do you account for cunning?
Note that cunning is something that can also help people thrive.

Oh, I think Nussbaum's upper middle class status is helping her thrive, not virtue ethics. — baker

Sure.

She uses that status to improve the world for others.

I don't see as problem with that.

...cunning... — baker

Do you think cunning is a virtue? Do you strive to build your cunning? Do you encourage cunning in others?

You choose. What you choose tells us about you.

The problem with it is that she has not arrived at her high socioeconomic status by following virtue ethics; she didn't start somewhere at the bottom of society and then worked her way up with the help of virtue ethics.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.

She would perhaps agree. None of that detracts from her work.

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status. — baker

I think this can be overstated. I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. But you need to know them to know this. This is especially true with Aboriginal people.

That matter of actually knowing other people comes up a lot.

I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. — Tom Storm

:100:

Thriving possibly requires different standards of ethics, depending on one's current socioeconomic status.
— baker

I think this can be overstated. I have worked a lot with people experiencing homelessness and I am often surprised by the level of virtue - generosity, courage and selflessness I see in their behavior. But you need to know them to know this. This is especially true with Aboriginal people. — Tom Storm

Ever heard the saying "Nice girls don't get the corner office"?

Strata of society that are for one reason or another excluded from working for a living (or at least excluded from having to work hard for a living) can enjoy practicing a vastly different extent of virtues (without this having bad consequences for them) than those who aren't thusly excluded.

None of that detracts from her work. — Banno

It detracts from how useful her work is for different strata of people. For some, it could be detrimental.

- - -

Taken out of context, you can apply anything to anything else. — 180 Proof

But what exactly is the context here?

Remember, Bertolt Brecht tried to uplift the working class. In the spirit of solidarity with the workers, his shirt was tailored the way the shirts of workers were. Except that his was made of silk.

It detracts from how useful her work is for different strata of people. For some, it could be detrimental. — baker

And what have you found out about her work?

Is it her work with animal rights that is not useful? OR her work on global inequity? Or her feminism? Her work on the rights of people with disabilities? Or do you just not like opera?

You mouthing your own biases.

Do you think cunning is a virtue? Do you strive to build your cunning? Do you encourage cunning in others?

You choose. What you choose tells us about you. — Banno

Your questions and your formulation indicates that you're a proponent of ethical authoritarianism.
You are very much in favor of rules: your rules.

*sigh*
Have you ever read a book of advice (or a book that can be read as a book of advice) and thought that in order to put that advice into practice, you'd need to be an entirely different person, with a different socio-economic status? That in your current state, acting on that advice is impossible for you, or would even be detrimental for you?

Seems as you are having difficulty following the plot. No worries. Keep thinking on it and come back when you are ready.

Then it seems such to you ...

Most people consider virtue ethics as an ethical system opposed by consequentialism, deontology, and consequentialism. 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 ?". — Hello Human

I wrestled with this very question seven years ago. The way I solved the problem is
1) A better theory than the traditional three you mention is an ethical theory that does not have "action" as its central concept but rather makes "good character" as its primary orientation.

2) The three most well-known schools of thought form a hierarchy, with rules-based approaches worth the least value, ends-based approaches are better but still not the best; and character-based theories being at the top of the hierarchy. They - the ideas in Modern VT - are the very best of the lot. And I give reasons why this is so: I justify my claim. See pages 7-12 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/LIVING%20WELL-How%20ethics%20helps%20us%20flourish.pdf

One might think to himself: I want to make a lot of money. Then I can pursue my ambitions, and be a success! " I'll have money (or power, or influence.) Or I'll have recognition (or fame, or celebrity)."
But all this is a moral fallacy. The guy has it backwards and upside down:

Before you can do or have, you are to BE. Once you have practical wisdom, moral courage, moderation and know how to neither overdo nor under-do ...or, more correctly: how how to not over-value something nor under-value it ...whatever it may be: a situation, a thing, an event, a conception, a perception or an experience.
An individual of good character has good qualities. I discuss these in my writings, the latest of which is THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS. - http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/THE%20STRUCTURE%20OF%20ETHICS.pdf

See also the references it offers within that text in order to get a fuller and deeper understanding of the new paradigm for Ethics which it describes and which it offers for your consideration.

Also examine and reflect upon the content of my recent two discussions here at this Forum: Why a new approach is needed and How to tell a good character from a bad one. The good character I am talking about has what used to be called "the virtues."
To know what I mean when I call something "good" see the first few sections in the booklet, Marviin C. Katz, ETHICS: A College Course. {A search on Bing or Firefox will bring it up for your reading enjoyment.} Robert S. Hartman, a great professional philosopher, and a genius, gets the credit for an in-context definition of the concept: ' x is a good C'
C here refers to the concept under which x falls. For example, "This is a good thread." Hartman explained what makes anything good.

Your comments or questions are most welcome!

virtue ethics tries to answer the question "how do we ought to be ?" — Hello Human

Please explain this sentence, hard to understand.

Ethics is not just an idea, or a set of ideas; it's a way of life.
If we have any obligations at all -- and I believe we have one -- we are obliged to be good.

The question then becomes: how can an individual be good? Virtue Ethics offers some suggestions. The new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz theory of Ethics, incorporates the best ideas from VT as well as from other known theories in moral philosophy, and stresses that we are to apply what we believe to be our moral standards, apply these principles in our daily life. Check out this synthesis of all the best concepts from the theories with which you are familiar. Study it. You'll be glad you did.

~~

Please explain this sentence, hard to understand. — Jackson

Sorry for being late to answer. Anyway, it means that virtue ethics tries to tell us how our general personality must be.

we are to apply what we believe to be our moral standards, apply these principles in our daily life. — Marvin Katz

I agree. Either there is some higher power setting moral standards, or we are all left to live by our own standards in a world full of other people like us. Because we don't know which one is for sure, and even if we could, it would be impossible to convince everyone to believe the true proposition, best we can do is assume that we are all stuck in a world full of people who we have to negotiate with and respect.

Looking back on the thread, I realize that the two questions of the OP are actually linked to each other in such a way that answering one leads to answering the other, if the ethical theory is to be applicable in real world situations. So virtue ethics does indeed seem to be necessary for an ethical theory. I feel lazy for having only read all of it 9 months later, but better late than never, I guess.

Sorry for being late to answer. Anyway, it means that virtue ethics tries to tell us how our general personality must be. — Hello Human

Not how I understand it. Virtue ethics is just a list of virtues, good ways to act.

:lol: