Best Theory of Ethics?

[public hermit]

Hopefully we can get fully beyond duty ethics. "Because I said so" is pretty lazy and ultimately not grounded in any authority we can all share.

I like virtue ethics with its emphasis on development of character. And its got an objective basis in the the wise have noted what virtues promote good living.

Consequentialism is important too, because even decisions born of virtue can have unintended consequences.

So I havent voted yet.....

Not that what I think matters, but I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Duty ethics is disastrous if it is too rigid, and I've never met anyone who adheres to it that isn't rigid and a boor. I chose virtue ethics because character formation, habit formation seems key to me. I agree that consequences are important, but I'm not a fan of the "means justifies the end" approach if it leads to blatantly bad behavior, or used to justify such.

 

[durangodawood]

Not that what I think matters, but I'm pretty much in agreement with this. Duty ethics is disastrous if it is too rigid, and I've never met anyone who adheres to it that isn't rigid and a boor. I chose virtue ethics because character formation, habit formation seems key to me. I agree that consequences are important, but I'm not a fan of the "means justifies the end" approach if it leads to blatantly bad behavior, or used to justify such.

Yeah, consequentialism is best as an add-on to virtue ethics when it works like: "bad ends invalidate good means".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Theories of ethics are for post hoc justification.

Are you saying this as an Emotivist or as a Nihilist, TG?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm a little surprised no one has voted for consequentialist ethics, yet. Maybe they have determined there is no beneficial outcome in voting?

Maybe some of us just never took Calculus ... and we've heard scary stories about how hard making the correct calculations can be, especially when it comes to social issues like love and war.

 

[public hermit]

Maybe some of us just never took Calculus ... and we've heard scary stories about how hard making the correct calculations can be, especially when it comes to social issues like love and war.

No kidding. If I had to calculate the outcome in such a way that I would be comfortable in going forward with a decision, I wouldn't even leave the house.

 

[durangodawood]

No kidding. If I had to calculate the outcome in such a way that I would be comfortable in going forward with a decision, I wouldn't even leave the house.

So, with proper intent, a disastrous plan could be called "the right thing to do"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So, with proper intent, a disastrous plan could be called "the right thing to do"?

How did it work out for Spock?

 

[public hermit]

So, with proper intent, a disastrous plan could be called "the right thing to do"?

No, not necessarily, but maybe. How do you like that for an answer? I didn't mean one should not consider the outcome at all, just that there's a limit to what one can know about an unknown future. Sometimes we have to act not knowing for sure the outcome. I have done what seemed to me the best thing to do, and the outcome was not great and was totally unexpected by me. Some of my best plans have gotten me in trouble.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, if I tried to base my decisions solely on some desired outcome, there will be times I simply won't know what to do because I won't be able to divine what the outcome will be. I think this is especially the case when dealing with other people, because people take things differently.

I tend to want to treat people kindly and not cause harm. I have that tendency partly as a rule but also because it is what I consider a virtue, and one that I have tried to nurture as a habit. But, I have had the experience of doing what I thought was an act of kindness and it was a taken as an insult. My intent was golden, i.e. I didn't intend harm. But, the outcome was they were harmed by it. So, what do I do? Do I just brush it off simply because they took it in a way that I did not intend? No. I try to communicate to them 1) that I regret that my act caused harm, but also 2) that it was not my intention. If they are willing to accept my apology then I will make amends in regards to them by making the proper adjustment now that I have a sense of what they will take as harmful. But, it's messy and that's life.

If I were to take a different approach and tried to act towards others based on how I thought they might react, I am at a loss. It stops me in my tracks. I may be able to go forward in relation to those I am familiar with and have a sense of how they will take things. But, when it comes to strangers, I have no idea. So, I go by the rule and virtue I have nurtured and hope for the best.

 

[durangodawood]

How did it work out for Spock?

No, not necessarily, but maybe. How do you like that for an answer? I didn't mean one should not consider the outcome at all, just that there's a limit to what one can know about an unknown future. Sometimes we have to act not knowing for sure the outcome. I have done what seemed to me the best thing to do, and the outcome was not great and was totally unexpected by me. Some of my best plans have gotten me in trouble.

My post was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but seriously, if I tried to base my decisions solely on some desired outcome, there will be times I simply won't know what to do because I won't be able to divine what the outcome will be. I think this is especially the case when dealing with other people, because people take things differently.

I tend to want to treat people kindly and not cause harm. I have that tendency partly as a rule but also because it is what I consider a virtue, and one that I have tried to nurture as a habit. But, I have had the experience of doing what I thought was an act of kindness and it was a taken as an insult. My intent was golden, i.e. I didn't intend harm. But, the outcome was they were harmed by it. So, what do I do? Do I just brush it off simply because they took it in a way that I did not intend? No. I try to communicate to them 1) that I regret that my act caused harm, but also 2) that it was not my intention. If they are willing to accept my apology then I will make amends in regards to them by making the proper adjustment now that I have a sense of what they will take as harmful. But, it's messy and that's life.

If I were to take a different approach and tried to act towards others based on how I thought they might react, I am at a loss. It stops me in my tracks. I may be able to go forward in relation to those I am familiar with and have a sense of how they will take things. But, when it comes to strangers, I have no idea. So, I go by the rule and virtue I have nurtured and hope for the best.

So is a well intentioned action the ethically right thing to no matter what the outcome?

Could it be ethically right but practically wrong? ....or something like that.

 

[public hermit]

Could it be ethically right but practically wrong? ....or something like that.

That's a really good question. Maybe, the way you put it makes sense. I'm not one to argue that so long as the intention is good that's all that matters. The outcome matters, as well. That is why, regardless of my intention, if the outcome has caused harm I feel responsible. I don't just feel that way, I believe I am responsible and so I try to make amends. This is why I think the categories as they are laid out in the opening post are a bit wooden and don't capture the reality of human experience.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So is a well intentioned action the ethically right thing to no matter what the outcome?

Could it be ethically right but practically wrong? ....or something like that.

If we're talking 'Utilitarian' pragmatics, then what seems wrong to some people, or even to many people, might be done anyway by a [supposed] moral agent who thinks that by doing so will bring about a "greater good" for the many.

If I was a Utilitarian (and I'm not), I'd think I'd have Thanos and Spock in mind as my model agents.

 

[durangodawood]

If we're talking 'Utilitarian' pragmatics, then what seems wrong to some people, or even to many people, might be done anyway by a [supposed] moral agent who thinks that by doing so will bring about a "greater good" for the many.

If I was a Utilitarian (and I'm not), I'd think I'd have Thanos and Spock in mind as my model agents.

I'm trying to keep it simple. Lets say even the agent thinks the net outcome is bad.

Should his well intentioned act be considered ethically right?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm trying to keep it simple. Lets say even the agent thinks the net outcome is bad.

Should his well intentioned act be considered ethically right?

But a Utilitarian isn't going to undertake an act that can have a bad "net outcome" for the many. That's the point of being a Utilitarian. But a Duty based ethicist will look at the mode and means by which the act will be done, first, and if the means and mode of the act is determined to be 'bad,' then the Duty based ethicist will identify the Utilitarians act as 'wrong.'

Different ethical positions can (although not always) differ on their ethical evaluations of some act.

 

[durangodawood]

But a Utilitarian isn't going to undertake an act that can have a bad "net outcome" for the many. That's the point of being a Utilitarian. But a Duty based ethicist will look at the mode and means by which the act will be done, first, and if the means and mode of the act is determined to be 'bad,' then the Duty based ethicist will identify the Utilitarians act as 'wrong.'

Different ethical positions can (although not always) differ on their ethical evaluations of some act.

You yourself were pointing out how its basically impossible to calculate the outcome of an action to be certain of avoiding unintended negative consequences. Unless utilitarians have some kind of predictive superpower....

Heck, the same question applies to a duty-ethicist: was the duty-bound action "right" even if the net outcome was terrible?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You yourself were pointing out how its basically impossible to calculate the outcome of an action to be certain of avoiding unintended negative consequences. Unless utilitarians have some kind of predictive superpower....

Heck, the same question applies to a duty-ethicist: was the duty-bound action "right" even if the net outcome was terrible?

Right. And this kind of irony within ethical theories will indicate to us, if anything, that no humanly derived, less than omniscient position of moral insight will ever provide a perfectly just moral scheme for us to live by. However, most professional ethicists realize this and don't seek to perfectly justify their position; rather they try to show why they think their Ethical position is theoretically and practically 'the best,' or most noble, or most useful, or most beneficial for the most people, or the most humane, etc., etc., etc.

 

[durangodawood]

Right. And this kind of irony within ethical theories will indicate to us, if anything, that no humanly derived, less than omniscient position of moral insight will ever provide a perfectly just moral scheme for us to live by. However, most professional ethicists realize this and don't seek to perfectly justify their position; rather they try to show why they think their Ethical position is theoretically and practically 'the best,' or most noble, or most useful, or most beneficial for the most people, or the most humane, etc., etc., etc.

ok. Then the best ethical position is:

67% virtue ethics, to promote good moral agents.
28% consequentialist, to place some value on being careful
5% duty ethics, for people who basically need to be forced into compliance.

 

[public hermit]

ok. Then the best ethical position is:

67% virtue ethics, to promote good moral agents.
28% consequentialist, to place some value on being careful
5% duty ethics, for people who basically need to be forced into compliance.

Haha, this should be somewhere in the conclusion of every course on ethics.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

ok. Then the best ethical position is:

67% virtue ethics, to promote good moral agents.
28% consequentialist, to place some value on being careful
5% duty ethics, for people who basically need to be forced into compliance.

And which ethical position is this?

Does it have a name?

Does it have a rational method (because just about all of the moral positions of significance claim to be 'rational,' despite the fact that they can come to different conclusions of moral valuation and evaluation)?

Do we want to call it "Durangodawood-atology," or something like that?

 

[public hermit]

Still no vote for consequentialist ethics. Where are the CF utilitarians?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Still no vote for consequentialist ethics. Where are the CF utilitarians?

Like I said earlier, there's a number here who think that there's some duty in the moral salad ...


... or maybe they finished watching season 4 of The Good Place and are now thoroughly confused!