Unifying Kant's ethics and Virtue ethics.

Re: Unifying Kant's ethics and Virtue ethics.
Ray, what do you mean by Virtue ethics?

Ray wrote:

Good idea?

0 Replies

Quite often what is meant is that Excellence (of some type) is held as the goal in your ethical system.

Aristotle, perhaps giving us one of the most complete virtue ethics systems - see Nichomachean Ethics) thought that because humans are seperated from animals by thier rational thought that wisdom (thinking excellence) was the purpose (or telos) of humans. Thus what guides thier ethical system is this virtue. This lead Aristotle to believe that moderation (or the Golden Mean) was the way to achieve the most amount of happiness (he thought that every thinking being could see this once they thought about it enough.

So, humans should seek to be excellently moderate in thier ethical actions.

They are many other examples (Plato - Epicurus - The Stoics - typified perhaps by Epictetus and so on). Mostly they agree that the aim is right but disagree on how to get there. Epicurus for example thinks that pleasure (hedone) is the compass for knowing happiness (eudemonia).

Now to the post at hand:

Ray it would be a great idea if you could rectify Kant's Deontological methods of Ethics with Virtue ethics - but I think this task is impossible. Virtue ethics is a system that encompasses the life of the ethical agent. Deontological Ethics was a sort of short cut system to guide your ethical decisions - as if they were seperate from other portions of your life.

I have disliked Deontological ethics and Teleological Ethics for this reason for years - and find it unfulfilling.

But if you think you have a way of completley rectifying universibility and reversibility with the entire spectrum of virtue ethics - it would be a quantum leap in Ethics and is certainly needed to advance the science.

TTF

0 Replies

TFF
I think you should have explained, regarding Epicurus, what was his notion of pleasure. Many people still believe he promoted some sort of orgiastic life, and that is false.

The problem of virtue ethics, is that they must be justified with an external reason. What is virtue? That was the reason I asked Ray to explain his conception.

As I see it, Kant tried to create an Ethic without the ressource of external justifications, like God, the Absolute Good ... and I think he failed.
Any ethical theory that pretends to be absolute, like Kant's ethic, must have it's justification from the "outside". I mean by that a source that establishes the reason of the values, that will be part of the ethical system.
In a certain way, Kant's ethic is also an ethic of virtues. But those virtues are defined and justified within the ethical system. You must not lie, not because of divine laws or the nature of man, or the pure form of the Good, not because you love truth, but because if all people lies, there would be no possibility of truth, then a lie wouldn't be a lie.
Kant's ethic, in my opinion, would be adequated to a world of robots.

My point is that an ethical system that supposes absolute values cannot be justified in itself, but only in reference to an external source.

0 Replies

Val:

I was just giving examples - but the definition of Epicurean pleasure is 'the cessation of pain'. I think Epicurean markets are one of the most ironic human invention - in that Epicurus himself only ate bread and water and was quoted as saying ' Bring me a crock of cheese - so that I may feast anytime I like.' Not a feast by anyones standards - except the epicurean definition of hedone.

I am not sure that any Ethic needs outside justification - and I don't think Epicurus thought it needed it either. Remember he thought that God or God's were made of infinitely connected atoms that could not even converse with finitely connected atoms lest they be corrupted and made less than infinite.

Epicurus thought that his virtue ethics lead humans to a good life - not THE good mandated how to live. Epicurus thought that we needed to head to our nature - not our divine nature or our nature as it was created by the divine. The Stoics - however, saw nature as intertwined, with humans, with the divine fire - Aristotle as well connected his ethics with the unmoved mover.

Epicurus' arguments for the ethical foundations of hedone are that it is INTROspective and that all humans understand the obvious truth of pleasure being good and pain being bad.

I don't think all ethical systems (certainly not all virtue ethics systems - See the Cerianics, the Epicureans, and the Cynics) have a reference to an outside principle.

TTF

p.s. Sorry for misunderstanding your initial question.

0 Replies

Well you know, I don't mean to take every aspect of it and unify it, but take the main ideas and sort of merge it. I was thinking that since Virtue Ethics is agent-based, and Kantian ethics is sort of action-based & motive-based that maybe you could unify the two.

I am sort of a Kantian myself, and I do believe in sort of virtue, but not to the extent that virtue will always give you happiness, though it might, I do believe that virtue is its own reward.

Anyways to what I think.

The problem with Kantian ethics is that it can sometimes contradict itself, but I believe that that is something that can be solved.

Here's what I got so far.

Every decisions that we have to make, we must make rationally. Reason, however must be based on something. What must it be based on? It must be based on what is "right". How do we determine what is "right"? Well first we must look to our own nature. We know that life is right for to think that life isn't right, that means that we deny or desire death. Thus our conscious life is "right". We also know that pain is a signal to avoid harm, and thus it is "right" to not desire pain and to not cause pain unless it is necessary as in going to the dentists. It is also "right" for us to be autonomous and not be slave to people and it is "right" to not mutilate our own body.

Now this is where Kantian ethics come in. The law of universability. Not quite the same as in the original sense but in the sense that reasonably speaking, everyone "matters" since they also exists, and thus everything that we consider right must also apply to them. We also have a duty to this because this is what we came up with our reason and it is "right". We can only conceive of we and the truth via our reason and so to deny this duty is to deny reason itself whcih would make "you" a slave to your own desires and emotions. This is where Platonic virtue comes in. Reason must have control over desires and emotions. This is where Aristotlean virtue comes in. We must develop virtue within ourself and one of the reason is that since we are rational beings to develop virtue is to be in accordance with our reason, and thus to be in accordance with the truth and with ourselves. So this is what is called "fluorishing" and this in turn would make a person happy in a way. Anyways I'll finish this later, but you see where I'm getting at.

I do think that I can make a philosophy out of this. I just need more people to see this. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Every decisions that we have to make, we must make rationally. Reason, however must be based on something. What must it be based on? It must be based on what is "right".

It is upon this mistake that the rest of your argument founders.

Kant certainly never made the mistake of suggesting that reason is based on "right," since "right" (or "good") is, according to him, ascertainable by reason. To hold that reason is based on right, then, would be to engage in an impermissible bootstrapping argument: we base reason on right, and we know what's right based on our reason.

0 Replies

Joe is right. It seems to base or rationality on the right / good is a circular argument and could perhaps be begging the question.

TTF

0 Replies

TFF

I always admired the ethics of Epicurus, but until reading your reply I never thought that, in fact, Epicurus doesn't support his ethics on external values. You are quite right. That's why he considers the cessation of pain - "pain" being also hunger, thirst, to feel cold - the greatest possible pleasure. His graduation of the desires -natural and not natural, like the desire of power or glory - is justified by the nature of man - although I think he only sees the animal nature of man.

Regarding Kant, I think it is impossible to unify his ethics with a virtue conception. We must remember that Kant didn't consider Jesus actions as moral ones, because they were based in the love of mankind. But for Kant a moral decision must not be motivated by any other reason, except the rationality of the moral choice itself. The moral man, according to Kant, is not virtuous. I would even say that, if that man was possible, he would be a monster. Solidarity, love, generosity would be excluded in his choices. I repeat the example: if asked by the Gestapo if his neighbour was jew, an adept of Kant should answer "yes", in order not to lie. (assuming that the neighbour was jew, of course).

0 Replies

Val - do you think the Cereanics or the Cynics had an outside reference point for thier virtues. I am asking because I cannot decide. I have been thinking about your post and coupled with the very little we have left of thier philosophy I have been wondering.

It seems the cynics do have an outside reference for thier philosophy and that is other men. Whatever is popular - withdraw from that - but that seems like a different outside reference than what you were mentioning above - i.e. God or The Good.

Just wondering about your two pennies.

TTF

0 Replies

Quote:

Kant certainly never made the mistake of suggesting that reason is based on "right," since "right" (or "good") is, according to him, ascertainable by reason. To hold that reason is based on right, then, would be to engage in an impermissible bootstrapping argument: we base reason on right, and we know what's right based on our reason.

To me, the "concept" of right can be "found" by reason, but the reality of what is "right", is there. Too many loopholes I know, but that's my foundation for now. Besides why can't two things simultaneously leads to one another? Maybe I should say that reason and empiricism leads to what is "right"?

I'll just stick with the sort of Platonic view for now.

Quote:

Joe is right. It seems to base or rationality on the right / good is a circular argument and could perhaps be begging the question.

Perhaps, but my stance is that the "right" can be "found" by reason but it does exist. A being without reason can not fathom what "right" is but we with reason can see what is "right" for the being to do.

Quote:

Regarding Kant, I think it is impossible to unify his ethics with a virtue conception. We must remember that Kant didn't consider Jesus actions as moral ones, because they were based in the love of mankind. But for Kant a moral decision must not be motivated by any other reason, except the rationality of the moral choice itself. The moral man, according to Kant, is not virtuous. I would even say that, if that man was possible, he would be a monster. Solidarity, love, generosity would be excluded in his choices. I repeat the example: if asked by the Gestapo if his neighbour was jew, an adept of Kant should answer "yes", in order not to lie. (assuming that the neighbour was jew, of course).

I seem to have read somewhere though, that there are kantians who are noting that Kant had virtue as one of the aspect of his ethical theory. Confused

However, if Kant did think that virtue is not "good" then I think that he is very well mistaken. To base virtue on the good will and the value of humanity is what I think as good.
Also, he also seemed to have missed the, what I would call, "value" of rational beings. My philosophy based ethics on conscious life, and more importantly "rational" conscious life.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

To me, the "concept" of right can be "found" by reason, but the reality of what is "right", is there.

Where?

Ray wrote:

Too many loopholes I know, but that's my foundation for now.

It is a foundation built in mid-air.

Ray wrote:

Besides why can't two things simultaneously leads to one another? Maybe I should say that reason and empiricism leads to what is "right"?

When two things simultaneously lead to one another, neither can be the basis for the other. To argue otherwise (as you have done) would be to bootstrap.

Ray wrote:

Perhaps, but my stance is that the "right" can be "found" by reason but it does exist. A being without reason can not fathom what "right" is but we with reason can see what is "right" for the being to do.

Are you claiming, then, that "right" exists independent of reason?

0 Replies

Joe:

He said above that he is staying with the platonic concept of truth. That concept is tacitly outside of humans and independant of thier reason - to be discovered through thier cognative faculties.

Ray:

I agree with Joe - and I think it has been the historical problem of platonism - where is this right located and how do we get to it? Aristotles argument for abandoning Platonic logic is that is was empty when it came to explaining how one got to the truth. Inner and outer dialectic just didn't cut it.

To say, furthermore, that emperical truth and platonic truth are easily rectified is, to say the least, an overstatement. This is what lead Aristotle to believe that universals were simply the faculty of active nous. He couldn't see 'crowness' inherent in the crow - humans just placed that on them after seeing a thousand of them.

I think you are attempting to argue too much. You could argue that humans can measure what is best for them - but you better figure out a way for them to ascertain how to break a tie if you choose that route. (This is why the virtue ethicists of ancient athens had a single telos that all others were subordinate to.)

TTF

0 Replies

TFF

About Cereanics I think it is very difficult to know exactly what was their theory. Aristipo claimed that happiness was in the pleasure, and it is possible that he admited only three states in man: pleasure, pain and peace (absence of pleasure and pain). In this case, he was not far from Epicurus. But later, Teodorus spoke about happiness as wisdom and sadness as foolishness. Here, we see that external values (what is wisdom?) give the foundations to ethics.

Regarding the Cynics, I have no doubt they conceived a "natural ethic", based in a materialistic conception of the human being. Remember that Antistenes and Diogenes, both rejected the socratic concept of soul, and reject all science and mathematics. They refused the culture itself. In such a case it is impossible to find external values. They saw the man as an animal, and tried to rationalize animal behaviour. If Cynics considered freedom the greatest value, they were thinking in freedom in itself, not as a mean. Freedom was nothing but to live according to our animal nature. The example of Diogenes marturbating in front of the Parthenon is very characteristic: he showed no shame, no bashfulness. To him it was nothing more that a corporal need that he must satisfy immediately in order not to be bothered by it.
I am not sure if Cynics had a real moral. Or even a theorie. Perhaps their theory was in their lifes, the way they showed themselves to the others.
And Socrates saw this, when he said to Antistenes: the holes in your mantle are as large as your pride!

0 Replies

Quote:

Where?

In the universe, in the nature of life itself.

Quote:

Are you claiming, then, that "right" exists independent of reason?

Certainly the "concept" of right is found with reason, but what is "right" does not depend on reason itself. People can steal and then "reason" that it's not wrong to steal, but who's to say that his reasoning is wrong? Certainly he thinks that his reasoning is right, yet it is still wrong to steal.

Quote:

where is this right located and how do we get to it? Aristotles argument for abandoning Platonic logic is that is was empty when it came to explaining how one got to the truth. Inner and outer dialectic just didn't cut it.

Well, it is in my firm belief that right is inherent in the universe and reason is what finds it.

Quote:

To say, furthermore, that emperical truth and platonic truth are easily rectified is, to say the least, an overstatement. This is what lead Aristotle to believe that universals were simply the faculty of active nous. He couldn't see 'crowness' inherent in the crow - humans just placed that on them after seeing a thousand of them.

Certainly, I don't quite believe that universals exist independent of an object, but I do believe that universals exists in objects. The crowness of the crow is all the patterns and molecular bonds, photons release, etc that makes a crow, a crow. If humans do not exist, then certainly the patterns, molecules, etc, that makes the crow there, is still there. Thus it is independent of us.

Quote:

I think you are attempting to argue too much. You could argue that humans can measure what is best for them - but you better figure out a way for them to ascertain how to break a tie if you choose that route. (This is why the virtue ethicists of ancient athens had a single telos that all others were subordinate to.)

You're right. I think I'll just stick to analyzing reason and base ethics on that, for now.

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Certainly the "concept" of right is found with reason, but what is "right" does not depend on reason itself. People can steal and then "reason" that it's not wrong to steal, but who's to say that his reasoning is wrong? Certainly he thinks that his reasoning is right, yet it is still wrong to steal.

You seem to be saying that reason can lead you to right and wrong - and to the person arguing the can be equivocated. This seems to be treating truth as both universal and a relative. Bad ju ju.

TTF

0 Replies

Ray wrote:

Certainly, I don't quite believe that universals exist independent of an object, but I do believe that universals exists in objects. The crowness of the crow is all the patterns and molecular bonds, photons release, etc that makes a crow, a crow. If humans do not exist, then certainly the patterns, molecules, etc, that makes the crow there, is still there. Thus it is independent of us.

How many sand molecules make a pile? What about a heap? I don't think that anywhere in nature there is a definition of 'heap' inherent in the thing being called a heap. Crows are just a collection of unknowing atoms - than when constructed a certain way - or close enough - we call a crow.

I think if you could point to the 'crowness' and make it clear and distinct from other birds - it woudl gain a definition. Tell me this - is there a thing inside humans that make them 'African American' or is it simply slightly different allels on the DNA chain?

TTF

0 Replies

I have used Kant for many LD debate case in the following years. the only reason it works so good is because LD Debate is a value debate and theory can be accepted as fact almost. Kant's maxims are good in theory but i have never trully felt they could be applied to the real world.

0 Replies

Debater:

I think Kant falls short because his axioms are a case by case axiom - but are not appliable to a persons life a s a whole. I think you are going to see a come back of virtue ethics.

TTF

0 Replies

Quote:

You seem to be saying that reason can lead you to right and wrong - and to the person arguing the can be equivocated. This seems to be treating truth as both universal and a relative. Bad ju ju.

I was saying that people can be wrong in their reasoning and be lead to the wrong answer. They think their reasoning is right but yet it is not. Truth is universal, however, people may have the wrong concept of what they think to be the truth.

Quote:

How many sand molecules make a pile? What about a heap? I don't think that anywhere in nature there is a definition of 'heap' inherent in the thing being called a heap. Crows are just a collection of unknowing atoms - than when constructed a certain way - or close enough - we call a crow.

I think if you could point to the 'crowness' and make it clear and distinct from other birds - it woudl gain a definition. Tell me this - is there a thing inside humans that make them 'African American' or is it simply slightly different allels on the DNA chain?

Crows are a specific collection of unkowing atoms that makes a pattern and a being. Just because there is no one to distinguish the crow from other birds, it does not mean that the difference isn't there. Thus, the crowness is still inherent in the thing itself.

Anyways, that's what I think.

Virtue ethics is becoming more popular, but Deontology is still a prominent force. So it will be interesting what philosophy is going to come next. I really disliked existentialism, power theorists, and egoism. Moral relativity is also not something that I like.

0 Replies

Unifying Kant's ethics and Virtue ethics.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know