Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories!

06-24-2016 , 03:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeeDDzz`
It fits beautifully in there, while providing the kind of meaning that utilitarianism and deontology could only dream of.
Right but ethics isn't meant to make you feel good or give you meaning in the same way physics isn't meant to make you feel good or give you meaning.

You are not doing yourself any favors by factoring in the "meaning you get" from something when deciding its truth or usability for certain applications.

edit: I take that back. you are doing yourself a favor if the "meaning you get" is more valuable to you than reducing chances of error
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 12:59 PM
Strength-based psychology. Social skills, self skills, life skills...

Virtues, strengths, skills. Oh my.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
Well, I still stand by what I said about the ring of gyges but I think were pretty far off and at an impasse here.
We're not at an impasse, or at least shouldn't be. You made a specific claim about Socrates/Plato's philosophy:

Quote:
Ryanb9:
Socrates didn't start with a virtue and derive an ethical philosophy from it. If he did he would not be remembered. He was more interested in the exact opposite.

Instead of praising the man who claimed to have the virtue of being a just man, he invoked the ring of gyges thought experiment to show that the just man was not a just man, but rather acting in his own self interest which happened to produce the beneficial side-effect of making him appear to be a just man. However when the situation changed, making his cost-benefit analysis come to a different conclusion, the just man and the unjust man were no different.
But, this is just wrong. The Republic is the story of a conversation between Socrates and a local notable and some other philosophers/sophists. It starts with the question of what is the just life. The other people in the conversation give their own theories, which under questioning by Socrates are claimed to be insufficient. Then Glaucon presents as the culmination of these other views a theory of justice as a social construct that doesn't ultimately have to do with moral truth and uses the Ring of Gyges story as an argument for this view in opposition to Socrates' own view of the just life. The rest of the book is Socrates laying out his theory of justice in reply. But you are claiming that the Ring of Gyges is Plato/Socrates' own view of justice.

Here is a link to book 2 of the Republic. If you think you are correct, show me in the text.

I would actually say your claiming we are at an impasse is an indication of a lack of intellectual virtue on your part...
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 05:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
We're not at an impasse, or at least shouldn't be. You made a specific claim about Socrates/Plato's philosophy:



But, this is just wrong. The Republic is the story of a conversation between Socrates and a local notable and some other philosophers/sophists. It starts with the question of what is the just life. The other people in the conversation give their own theories, which under questioning by Socrates are claimed to be insufficient. Then Glaucon presents as the culmination of these other views a theory of justice as a social construct that doesn't ultimately have to do with moral truth and uses the Ring of Gyges story as an argument for this view in opposition to Socrates' own view of the just life. The rest of the book is Socrates laying out his theory of justice in reply. But you are claiming that the Ring of Gyges is Plato/Socrates' own view of justice.

Here is a link to book 2 of the Republic. If you think you are correct, show me in the text.

I would actually say your claiming we are at an impasse is an indication of a lack of intellectual virtue on your part...
I have read the republic once and listened to an audio book of it a second time. This was roughly 10 years ago. I would like to revisit it now that I am talking about it again but you will have to give me some significant time. I am currently in uni and trying to fit 1.5 years into 1 so that I can graduate in spring. When I was talking about it I was talking in reference to what I remember about it from a while ago, but I still think its the case.

I think the main problem here is that we are talking about two different things. We can sort this out if you answer this question:

Did Socrates do ethics by staring with some list of virtues and determining if an action was ethical or unethical based only on whether or not the action conformed to one of those predefined virtues?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 05:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
I'm not sure what goes on in their head ... maybe the analysis is done subconsciously. I do think, however, it's safe to say that some cost-benefit analysis is done. That cost-benefit analysis can be seen in action if, for instance, you punish a dog every time he does some action that he enjoys doing. Sometimes you can see that the dog wants to do the action but then remembers he will be punished for it and begins to whine while looking nervous and, at least to me, appears to be going back and forth and trying to decided which is the correct decision: if the punishment he knows he will get will be worth doing the action he wants to do.
<snip>
I still don't know if you are correct because you haven't presented any evidence.

Quote:
edit: In lecture, it was the exact opposite of what you are saying. Even my book said that virtue ethics was starting with virtues and deriving what is an ethical or unethical action from that. Now i am getting suspicious of you after having remembered that...
Okay. As I said, read the article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Virtue Ethics. Or from IEP.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 06:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
I have read the republic once and listened to an audio book of it a second time. This was roughly 10 years ago. I would like to revisit it now that I am talking about it again but you will have to give me some significant time. I am currently in uni and trying to fit 1.5 years into 1 so that I can graduate in spring. When I was talking about it I was talking in reference to what I remember about it from a while ago, but I still think its the case.

I think the main problem here is that we are talking about two different things. We can sort this out if you answer this question:

Did Socrates do ethics by staring with some list of virtues and determining if an action was ethical or unethical based only on whether or not the action conformed to one of those predefined virtues?
No. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did Aristotle, Aquinas, Epictetus, MacIntyre or any other virtue theorist. For instance, the Republic is in part an exploration of the virtue of justice. Plato starts by exploring different definitions of justice, some arguing that it is virtuous, others that it isn't. Then, on the basis of claims involving his political philosophy, metaphysics, and epistemology, Plato argues for a particular conception of justice as a virtue and how that manifests in action.

Similarly, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle begins with an exploration of the nature of the good more generally, and from that derives an account of the virtues.

Now, you answer a question. Did Socrates invoke the ring of gyges thought experiment to show that the just man was not a just man, but rather acting in his own self interest which happened to produce the beneficial side-effect of making him appear to be a just man?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 06:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
No. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, did Aristotle, Aquinas, Epictetus, MacIntyre or any other virtue theorist. For instance, the Republic is in part an exploration of the virtue of justice. Plato starts by exploring different definitions of justice, some arguing that it is virtuous, others that it isn't. Then, on the basis of claims involving his political philosophy, metaphysics, and epistemology, Plato argues for a particular conception of justice as a virtue and how that manifests in action.

Similarly, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle begins with an exploration of the nature of the good more generally, and from that derives an account of the virtues.

Now, you answer a question. Did Socrates invoke the ring of gyges thought experiment to show that the just man was not a just man, but rather acting in his own self interest which happened to produce the beneficial side-effect of making him appear to be a just man?
Right then its not virtue theory / virtue ethics as I understand it. We are talking about two different things with the same name to signify it. Ours is a hopeless situation.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 09:21 PM
Innocence virtue is innocent.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-24-2016 , 10:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
Right then its not virtue theory / virtue ethics as I understand it. We are talking about two different things with the same name to signify it. Ours is a hopeless situation.
I find your responses frustrating. You've made specific claims about Socrates/Plato that are provably false, and easily so (which I did). You've characterized Virtue Ethics in an inaccurate manner, which I pointed out and referred you to authoritative sources to confirm my comments.

Your responses has been to claim that we are stuck in a hopeless, relativistic quagmire and so we should just drop it. This is just not true. We are not stuck. You've made factually false claims, which I showed to be false. There is nothing preventing you from acknowledging this except your own pride.

Also, you are not talking about something else, you are talking about something that doesn't exist - at least, not as part of western philosophy. If you think differently because of what your professor said, show me the evidence he provided. What textbook described virtue ethics in the manner you described it? What sources did your teacher refer to as being exemplary of the kind of virtue ethics you are referring to?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-25-2016 , 08:11 PM
What makes a good virtue that isn't directly related to what a person says makes them feel and reason being virtuous?

Accessibly is a quality to examine.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-26-2016 , 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
I find your responses frustrating. You've made specific claims about Socrates/Plato that are provably false, and easily so (which I did). You've characterized Virtue Ethics in an inaccurate manner, which I pointed out and referred you to authoritative sources to confirm my comments.

Your responses has been to claim that we are stuck in a hopeless, relativistic quagmire and so we should just drop it. This is just not true. We are not stuck. You've made factually false claims, which I showed to be false. There is nothing preventing you from acknowledging this except your own pride.

Also, you are not talking about something else, you are talking about something that doesn't exist - at least, not as part of western philosophy. If you think differently because of what your professor said, show me the evidence he provided. What textbook described virtue ethics in the manner you described it? What sources did your teacher refer to as being exemplary of the kind of virtue ethics you are referring to?
Will respond later. Currently doing family stuff / first half of summer finals (im on fast-tract in order to graduate this coming spring). Just didn't want you to feel that I was blowing you off. My summer vacation is this weekend and I'm trying to enjoy it best I can.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-26-2016 , 09:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryanb9
Will respond later. Currently doing family stuff / first half of summer finals (im on fast-tract in order to graduate this coming spring). Just didn't want you to feel that I was blowing you off. My summer vacation is this weekend and I'm trying to enjoy it best I can.
Fair enough, take your time.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
06-30-2016 , 02:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
Fair enough, take your time.
In the meantime if you're bored, what might Aristotle say about trolleys?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 02:25 PM
He'd probably get very excited about advances in science and technology.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original Position
He'd probably get very excited about advances in science and technology.


Do you think the virtue ethics tradition has something on offer to address the trolley problem and its cousins? Or are these not properly ethical problems for virtue ethicists?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 03:42 PM
Philippa Foot was a virtue ethicist.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 04:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
Philippa Foot was a virtue ethicist.
Does she say switch and if so why?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 04:39 PM
To clarify, I'm not actually that interested in a specific answer about what virtue ethicists suggest to do in trolley cases (I accept that virtue ethics tends not to be about abstractly justifying actions), but I don't know what virtues if any are relevant to deciding the trolley cases, so if there is an ethical dilemma in the trolley cases then it doesn't concern virtues.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 05:12 PM
Like the consequentialist, who Foot is attacking with the trolley problem, the virtue ethicist also tries to answer the question "how should I behave" and answers that actions are good insomuch as they reflect the behaviour of a virtuous person.

But virtuous behaviour is generally situational and so the virtue ethicist may deny that there's a general answer such as those that can be deduced from consequentialist or deontological principles but that the virtuous person will act according to the situation

Last edited by dereds; 07-01-2016 at 05:21 PM.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
But virtuous behaviour is generally situational and so the virtue ethicist may deny that there's a general answer such as those that can be deduced from consequentialist or deontological principles but that the virtuous person will act according to the situation
I don't have a problem with virtuous behavior being situational or with the lack of generalized principles for behavior. I'm just asking for the trolley problem specifically, if you're the virtuous person having to decide whether to switch, which virtues or what notion of flourishing could be relevant to informing your decision?

Last edited by smrk2; 07-01-2016 at 05:45 PM.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 05:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smrk2
I don't have a problem with virtuous behavior being situational or with the lack of generalized principles for behavior. I'm just asking for the trolley problem specifically, if you're the virtuous person having to decide whether to switch, which virtues or what notion of flourishing could be relevant to informing your decision?
With the trolley problem, the most virtuous would purely depend on calculation of lives saved/lost without concern for their own mental well-being or the opinions of others.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 05:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
With the trolley problem, the most virtuous would purely depend on calculation of lives saved/lost without concern for their own mental well-being or the opinions of others.
Isn't that just a utilitarian position? Are you implying that the virtuous person knows when to be a utilitarian and when not to be?
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
With the trolley problem, the most virtuous would purely depend on calculation of lives saved/lost without concern for their own mental well-being or the opinions of others.
This seems like almost the opposite of virtue ethics.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 06:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrianTheMick2
With the trolley problem, the most virtuous would purely depend on calculation of lives saved/lost without concern for their own mental well-being or the opinions of others.
The virtue theorist will deny that the virtuous person does a cost benefit analysis in approaching these situations and instead act through phronesis.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote
07-01-2016 , 06:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smrk2
I don't have a problem with virtuous behavior being situational or with the lack of generalized principles for behavior. I'm just asking for the trolley problem specifically, if you're the virtuous person having to decide whether to switch, which virtues or what notion of flourishing could be relevant to informing your decision?
I'm not sure I can pick out the specific virtues it seems more that the virtue theorist rejects the idea of an ethical theory having rules that direct acts rather than requires the moral agent to apply the practical wisdom derived from being virtuous to specific situations as they are encountered.
I give you a sexy news article, you defend/refute it using certain ethical theories! Quote

      
m