Virtue Ethics and Situationism

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I was just reading an interesting text about how advances in situationism has cast doubt on virtue ethics. Basically, studies have shown that a person will behave in a certain way a given time based more on the situation (external conditions) than anything. That makes it hard to judge a person based on their internal "virtue" because whether or not a person behaves in a "virtuous" way or not depends on conditions not on the person's internal being.

What do you think?

My response is as follows:

I think any system of normative morality becomes pointless when you take a empirical look at the mechanics. People are just machines who react to stimulus.

Humans may value certain types of behaviors and psychological dispositions just as they may value different tasting foods. Since value is subjective, some of these values may differ greatly from person to person, while other values may be generally shared. For example, most people agree that ice cream tastes good and that murder is undesirable and preferably discouraged.

If morals are just a way of valuing people, then it may not be very helpful to use virtue ethics because apparently the differences are minor and indistinguishable (as you say the situation influences a person's actions more than the general mind-state of the person). However, if we want to use morals just to encourage people to certain behaviors, than virtue ethics by encouraging people to act according to certain motivations in certain ways.

What do you think? Do you think situationism contradicts virtue ethics?

[Slartibartfast]

Basically, studies have shown that a person will behave in a certain way a given time based more on the situation (external conditions) than anything.

I think I'd need to know more about the studies you are basing this on. Are there any that you might be able to link to the thread?

I do have two thoughts - but they might not be relevant to what you want to explore.

I find the first thought that occurs to me in any discussion of morality is whether it is simply self-interest. I'm reading Plato's Republic at present, and I actually find the 'straw man' argument that 'justice is the interest of the stronger' more convincing than the refutation.

Now, depending on the studies you mention, it would strike me that conforming to whatever is expected in a situation is explicable in terms of self interest, either on grounds that everyone benefits from stable arrangments in society or that expected actions may bring us benefits.

The second thought that occurs is whether the fact that people seem to be simply reacting to external triggers means they are just machines and morality is pointless. There seems to be two sides to this. A criminal can claim that he's not really bad, and just mechanically committing crimes because he has to. But a jury can equally claim that they have an equally mechanical 'obligation' to convict him.

I think the fact that people are able to consider these points suggests that change is possible. If we collectively feel some behaviour is bad, and that there's a reason why we should avoid it. That deliberative process may be mechanical, but from our point of view how would we be able to tell the difference between that and autonomous deliberation?