Virtue ethics, rules, and consequences: your description is understandable but leaves a lot unclear.
Has anyone written a book with cases (the way law books address these issues): provide a setting for a case and then argue how a virtuist (a virtuoso?), a rules ethicist and a consequentialist would act in these cases and why? Or perhaps several different strains of virtue ethicists, rules ethicists and consequentialists?
It is by the way nice that you mention Elisabeth Anscomb. I've read "The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics" by Benjamin Lipscomb. The women were up to something: raising hell about the honorary degree about to be issued to Harry Truman which, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were completely against. Anscomb is otherwise known for her vehement activism against female reproductive rights and especially against abortion. Not my ideal ally :)
I don't know of a case book like the one you describe. All the authors I mentioned do discuss specific examples in their books, though.
Yes, Anscombe and other virtue ethicists were Catholic, which is why they were attracted to Neo-Aristotelianism. But we can separate their specific theological and/or political positions from their work on virtue ethics.
Anscombe: ok, but then, the approach (virtue vs rules vs consequences) is perhaps less important than some underlying values. I mean, despite the strong case you make for virtue ethics (and the paradoxes that utilitarianism creates), I'd rather have JS Mill as the author of my constitution, my mayor, my neighbour or as my babysitter than Elizabeth Anscombe.
Are utilitarianism and consequentialism the same or is utilitarianism a special case?
I always thought of utilitarianism as an ethics ("greatest good for the greatest number") for public policy making. That sounds good until provided with all sorts of examples that make a joke of it. Imagine the mayor of a town facing a lynching mob. If the mayor resists, the mob goes wild. If he releases the innocent suspect of the crime that has caused their rage, that will cause his death and life will go on in town. The mayor could easily arrive at the conclusion that the second line is better on utilitarian grounds.
That's bad enough. But when utilitarianism is the basis for personal ethics, the innocent suspect should (SHOULD!) volunteer his own death.
Maurits, utilitarianism is a particular type of consequentialism. And yes, it is open to lots of counter-objections based on thought experiments like the one you describe. Here is a good article on the differences between consequentialism and utilitarianism: https://iep.utm.edu/consequentialism-utilitarianism/
Massimo would you talk a little about this concept of cause and effect,not just the flapping wings of that butterfly,just how it figures in the stoic view.
That's a huge topic for another post, maybe. The Stoic notion is that events are always caused, and very often co-caused, meaning that there are multiple causal paths. Some of these are local, other universal. Some external to us, others internal to the human body. Here is a good general introduction to the modern concept: https://iep.utm.edu/causation/
Massimo, any suggestion on modern authors that writes about virtue ethics? I would like to read something like Giovanni Reale's "Il pensiero antico", where he analyzes modern problems by Helenistic point of view.
It begins with a discussion of a number of contemporary authors, chiefly Elizabeth Anscombe, Bernard Williams, and Alasdair MacIntyre. I would absolutely add Philippa Foot, especially her "Natural Goodness" book.
Marc, I don't think it would be appropriate. Stoicism is definitely not deontological.
As for dogmatic, it depends on what one means. It is not dogmatic in the modern sense of inflexible, but it is in the ancient skeptic sense of articulating positive doctrines.
Regarding determinism, the Stoics are definitely determinists, in the sense that they believe that everything happens as a result of cause and effect.
My main problem with consequentialism is that it can be too easily bent into a way to rationalize present horrible behavior with some hypothetical future "greater advantage."
I don't think it's a coincidence that it is one of the most popular ethical frameworks for rich CEOs and billionaires.
Isn’t it interesting that it goes out the window by some when debating the consequences of man caused global warming? Or maybe even here they bend it by evoking economic consequences and finding the 3 scientists who disagree on the issue.
Davide, yup, a major problem with any kind of consequentialism, of which utilitarianism is an example, is that it is next to impossible to really predict the medium to long term consequences of our actions. So people rationalize.
Virtue ethics, rules, and consequences: your description is understandable but leaves a lot unclear.
Has anyone written a book with cases (the way law books address these issues): provide a setting for a case and then argue how a virtuist (a virtuoso?), a rules ethicist and a consequentialist would act in these cases and why? Or perhaps several different strains of virtue ethicists, rules ethicists and consequentialists?
It is by the way nice that you mention Elisabeth Anscomb. I've read "The Women Are Up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics" by Benjamin Lipscomb. The women were up to something: raising hell about the honorary degree about to be issued to Harry Truman which, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki they were completely against. Anscomb is otherwise known for her vehement activism against female reproductive rights and especially against abortion. Not my ideal ally :)
I don't know of a case book like the one you describe. All the authors I mentioned do discuss specific examples in their books, though.
Yes, Anscombe and other virtue ethicists were Catholic, which is why they were attracted to Neo-Aristotelianism. But we can separate their specific theological and/or political positions from their work on virtue ethics.
Case book: pity.
Anscombe: ok, but then, the approach (virtue vs rules vs consequences) is perhaps less important than some underlying values. I mean, despite the strong case you make for virtue ethics (and the paradoxes that utilitarianism creates), I'd rather have JS Mill as the author of my constitution, my mayor, my neighbour or as my babysitter than Elizabeth Anscombe.
if you prefer Mill to Anscombe (as do I) you are evaluating their personal beliefs, not their philosophies. I'd rather have a virtue ethical Mill...
Are utilitarianism and consequentialism the same or is utilitarianism a special case?
I always thought of utilitarianism as an ethics ("greatest good for the greatest number") for public policy making. That sounds good until provided with all sorts of examples that make a joke of it. Imagine the mayor of a town facing a lynching mob. If the mayor resists, the mob goes wild. If he releases the innocent suspect of the crime that has caused their rage, that will cause his death and life will go on in town. The mayor could easily arrive at the conclusion that the second line is better on utilitarian grounds.
That's bad enough. But when utilitarianism is the basis for personal ethics, the innocent suspect should (SHOULD!) volunteer his own death.
Maurits, utilitarianism is a particular type of consequentialism. And yes, it is open to lots of counter-objections based on thought experiments like the one you describe. Here is a good article on the differences between consequentialism and utilitarianism: https://iep.utm.edu/consequentialism-utilitarianism/
That's a great link, Massimo, than you!
"deontology and consequentialism emphasize the nature of the action, while the attention in virtue ethics is squarely on the character of the agent"
Love this.
Massimo would you talk a little about this concept of cause and effect,not just the flapping wings of that butterfly,just how it figures in the stoic view.
That's a huge topic for another post, maybe. The Stoic notion is that events are always caused, and very often co-caused, meaning that there are multiple causal paths. Some of these are local, other universal. Some external to us, others internal to the human body. Here is a good general introduction to the modern concept: https://iep.utm.edu/causation/
🙏
Massimo, any suggestion on modern authors that writes about virtue ethics? I would like to read something like Giovanni Reale's "Il pensiero antico", where he analyzes modern problems by Helenistic point of view.
Victor, a good modern summary of virtue ethics can be found here: https://iep.utm.edu/virtue/
It begins with a discussion of a number of contemporary authors, chiefly Elizabeth Anscombe, Bernard Williams, and Alasdair MacIntyre. I would absolutely add Philippa Foot, especially her "Natural Goodness" book.
Grazie!
Prego!
So, would it be appropriate to say that Stoicism is not any of these 3D’s: not Deontologist, nor Dogmatic, nor Determinist?
Marc, I don't think it would be appropriate. Stoicism is definitely not deontological.
As for dogmatic, it depends on what one means. It is not dogmatic in the modern sense of inflexible, but it is in the ancient skeptic sense of articulating positive doctrines.
Regarding determinism, the Stoics are definitely determinists, in the sense that they believe that everything happens as a result of cause and effect.
I hope this helps!
Massimo, what about compatibilism?
Victor, compatibilism is the Stoic position on free will, and one that I endorse.
Thank you, Massimo!
My main problem with consequentialism is that it can be too easily bent into a way to rationalize present horrible behavior with some hypothetical future "greater advantage."
I don't think it's a coincidence that it is one of the most popular ethical frameworks for rich CEOs and billionaires.
Isn’t it interesting that it goes out the window by some when debating the consequences of man caused global warming? Or maybe even here they bend it by evoking economic consequences and finding the 3 scientists who disagree on the issue.
"Interesting" is definitely one way to put it...
Davide, yup, a major problem with any kind of consequentialism, of which utilitarianism is an example, is that it is next to impossible to really predict the medium to long term consequences of our actions. So people rationalize.
One of the best posts I've read in a long time.
Thanks Sam, much appreciated! 🙏