Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
- moonwolfsingingnz
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: November 26th, 2020, 12:18 pm
Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
moonwolfsingingnz wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
You have asked some good questions. Since you are just starting out, you might want to look at articles in online encyclopedias of philosophy, such as the articles at these links:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/
If we look at someone like Aristotle, he thought that one could figure out the proper function of man (and I do intend that sexist expression here, as Aristotle intended it) and that it was objective. However, many today find his teleological approach unconvincing, and don't think there is an objective basis for his claims at all.
Traditionally, no proper arguments are generally given for the qualities that are supposedly those of a virtuous person, and people can often get away with that, because most people agree on many of the characteristics that they believe a virtuous person would have. Kindness, for example, is widely regarded as a good thing, so that when someone proposes that as a virtue, most people don't bother asking for a proof of that claim. If they did, then they would likely end up asking questions like what you are asking. I think you should keep asking those kinds of questions.
If you are specifically interested in Aristotle on this, you would want to read The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, not surprisingly, has a good edition of it, translated by David Ross, and had been revised by a couple of people. ISBN 0-19-283407-X. Unfortunately, Oxford likes to print their cheap books on paper that yellows with age.
Of course, if you are wanting to look at more modern theories (or older ones, like Plato's), then you will want to read something else.
Oh, you probably want an answer to your questions.
In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue?
Normally, people just think about what they regard as excellence in a person. Then they look around and decide who has those qualities that they admire.
Are such answers subjective?
Yes, but they usually believe that they are objective. Part of that is because there tends to be a lot of agreement about what qualities are good qualities to have, but agreement with many other people does not make it objective.
If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
They don't. Paying attention to this aspect of the matter is how you know the answer to the previous question. Very often, it is in the early stages of an ethical theory that the sleight of hand takes place, where the ethicist pretends to have proven that something is objective.
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm If the qualities are first defined in terms of behavior, then one could make an objective claim that the person consistently exhibiting that behavior has that virtue.
The trouble is not in whether someone has a particular quality or not, but in determining that a specific quality really is a virtue. (It is attending to the question of how someone goes from an "is" to an "ought".) If someone claims that X is a virtue, the concern is whether that is subjectively or objectively determined. That is, how does not know that X is a virtue? Claiming it is objective does not make it so. If it is just that people feel like those qualities are virtues, then it is subjectively determined.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm And that's probably what we all do. We observe someone being kind to people and say that person is kind. We observe a fireman or soldier running into danger and say they have courage. We observe someone who found a wallet on the sidewalk and used the cards inside to identify the owner and return it to them, and say he is honest.
I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).
Virtue ethics is not primarily about consequences. Here are a couple of quotes:
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/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). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.
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). Whereas consequentialists will define virtues as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as traits possessed by those who reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to define virtues in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather, virtues and vices will be foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will be grounded in them.
- moonwolfsingingnz
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: November 26th, 2020, 12:18 pm
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
- Marvin_Edwards
- Posts: 1106
- Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Thanks. Your post was very helpful. I'm a consequentialist. For me, the pragmatic question is "What is it good for?" (the Morality question) and "How can we tell, in fact, whether it is or is not actually good for that purpose?" (the Objectivity question).Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:23 amMarvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm If the qualities are first defined in terms of behavior, then one could make an objective claim that the person consistently exhibiting that behavior has that virtue.
The trouble is not in whether someone has a particular quality or not, but in determining that a specific quality really is a virtue. (It is attending to the question of how someone goes from an "is" to an "ought".) If someone claims that X is a virtue, the concern is whether that is subjectively or objectively determined. That is, how does not know that X is a virtue? Claiming it is objective does not make it so. If it is just that people feel like those qualities are virtues, then it is subjectively determined.
Consequences answer the question "Why?" Consequences explain why we create rules. Consequences explain why we care to develop virtues in ourselves and others. Consequences are like a "grand unifying theory" of morality.
So, to me, the test of "whether X is a virtue" is in whether X produces the results that virtues are expected to produce. If we have objective evidence of those results, then we have objective evidence of the virtue. It is no longer a subjective feeling, but is now a demonstrated fact.
A "virtue" seems to be defined below as a "character trait", one that is not necessarily inborn, but one that can be developed by practice until it is a habitual "way of life". Habits don't require thinking and choosing, because the choosing was done long ago in order to build the habit. They are like rules that have become "second nature" to us, operating as if they were always naturally imbued.
So, virtues would operate differently than written rules that one may look up in a book of ethics, like "do not steal". Instead they would encapsulate a set of rules into a single notion like "Honesty", which implies not lying, not stealing, and not cheating.
That seems to me to be what virtues are about, if I've understood the notion correctly.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 12:23 amMarvin_Edwards wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 9:19 pm And that's probably what we all do. We observe someone being kind to people and say that person is kind. We observe a fireman or soldier running into danger and say they have courage. We observe someone who found a wallet on the sidewalk and used the cards inside to identify the owner and return it to them, and say he is honest.
I think that virtues correspond to principles. We say that it is good for people to be kind, and brave, and honest (that is, the behaviors usually have good results). We can also say that people ought to be kind, and brave, and honest (because of the good results).
Virtue ethics is not primarily about consequences. Here are a couple of quotes:
https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/Virtue ethics is a broad term for theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. A virtue ethicist is likely to give you this kind of moral advice: “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.”
Most virtue ethics theories take their inspiration from Aristotle who declared that a virtuous person is someone who has ideal character traits. These traits derive from natural internal tendencies, but need to be nurtured; however, once established, they will become stable. For example, a virtuous person is someone who is kind across many situations over a lifetime because that is her character and not because she wants to maximize utility or gain favors or simply do her duty. Unlike deontological and consequentialist theories, theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation. And virtue ethics theories deal with wider questions—“How should I live?” and “What is the good life?” and “What are proper family and social values?”
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/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). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.
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). Whereas consequentialists will define virtues as traits that yield good consequences and deontologists will define them as traits possessed by those who reliably fulfil their duties, virtue ethicists will resist the attempt to define virtues in terms of some other concept that is taken to be more fundamental. Rather, virtues and vices will be foundational for virtue ethical theories and other normative notions will be grounded in them.
- Jack D Ripper
- Posts: 610
- Joined: September 30th, 2020, 10:30 pm
- Location: Burpelson Air Force Base
- Contact:
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
moonwolfsingingnz wrote: ↑November 27th, 2020, 5:06 am Marvin and Jack, you have both been really helpful and I appreciate your comments. Thank you.
You are welcome.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
moonwolfsingingnz wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy wrote: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). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximize well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as “Do unto others as you would be done by” and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent. - link
As virtue is a vague and ill-defined, subjective, invention, I don't think there is a way to arrive at an objective definition; I don't think such a thing exists.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Virtue ethics is usually attributed to Aristotle. His method is to observe other people and judge whether the action is good or bad.moonwolfsingingnz wrote: ↑November 26th, 2020, 12:36 pm I am very much in the beginning stages of studying philosophy, with a particular interest in morality and ethics. In virtue ethics, how does one decide who are exemplars of virtue? Are such answers subjective? If not, how does one objectively arrive at a definition of virtue?
The idea of virtue being objective or subjective need not even enter the analysis.
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 28th, 2020, 1:03 pm
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.
Is the virtue of not being violent subjective? Are there people who think being violent is always good?
-
- Posts: 2181
- Joined: January 7th, 2015, 7:09 am
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
My suspicion is virtue ethics and deontology are morally meaningless if they aren't concerned with outcomes, which will need justifying in terms of good/bad or right/wrong consequences.
You can argue that 'being virtuous' or following a set of rules will generally result in morally good consequences, and that's fine for establishing a rule of thumb practical approach. A methodology rather than a principle. If you pick the right virtues or rules it will mostly work in terms of consequences too.
But without bearing consequences in mind, how can you assess where a rule of thumb breaks down (eg the lying to Nazis about Anne Frank in your attic scenario), or doesn't that matter, iare consequences really irrelevant to moral consideration for Virtue Ethicists or Deontologists?
More significantly, how do you establish what Good and Right are, without considering consequences? Are they then about anything more than rules for rules' sake we happen to agree on? Or feeling like you're a good person?
If we expect more from a moral theory, we have to think about the Is/Ought distinction, what is it for and how can it be justified. Why do Oughts matter? And I believe this entails thinking about Interests, and consequences in terms of how they affect Interests.
To talk of Interests, a stake in the state of affairs, as ''objective'' raises problems, because in order to have interests you need to be able to experience the state of affairs - have sentience (qualiative 'what it's like' conscious experience). And conscious entities (Subjects) will have some similarities, but also different types of interests, and different priorities. Even amongst humans. So some flexibility and freedom makes sense when looking at it this way. Hard and fast rules and virtues don't automatically confer this, they often need caveating, if consequences are prioritised.
I think the virtue of kindness is a good fit with consequentialism, because it entails considering the Interests of others, even if they aren't identical to our own (unlike the Golden Rule for example). Other Virtues like Truthfulness, Temperance, Courage will generally hold, but there will be times when they lead to consequences which harm the interests of others or the virtuous person herself. They aren't foolproof from the perspective of consequences for subjects with interests. And should be tested against that touchstone imo.
'The wellbeing of conscious creatures' (subjects with interests), as Harris puts it, provides the appropriate consequentialist grounding for morality imo. And Virtue Ethics and Deontology are good for thinking about how to put our moral principles into practice, but without the foundational touchstone of Consequentialism they can go astray.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8265
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Huh? Being violent is empirically observable. Is it a "virtue"? As to the latter, there probably are.hegel wrote: ↑November 29th, 2020, 11:53 pmPattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 28th, 2020, 1:03 pm
So a virtue ethicist is someone who promotes doing what is good. An exemplar of virtue is surely someone - anyone - who believes that they know what is good and right, and is willing to tell others of it. I.e. most humans! This is an arbitrary thing, that many philosophers would style 'subjective'.
Is the virtue of not being violent subjective? Are there people who think being violent is always good?
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Huh?Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 30th, 2020, 5:21 amHuh? Being violent is empirically observable. Is it a "virtue"? As to the latter, there probably are. 😦
How do you observe violence empirically? Explain.
-
- Posts: 77
- Joined: March 29th, 2020, 1:17 pm
Re: Virtue Ethics - what is an objective definition of virtue?
Depends on how virtue ethics is defined. For Aristotle, ethics is not about innate goods but is based on actual observations of people's behavior.
Aristotle associates virtue with happiness. Is President Trump happy? He looks to be miserable all the time. One would conclude that being a jerk and selfish is not virtuous--not a behavior to be copied.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023