Oddbean new post about login | logout Do you prefer Deontology, Consequentialism, or Virtue Ethics, among the three major philosophical schools of ethics? If you’re like “what, lol?” that is fine. I’ll have some long form content on this. But I figured I would gather Nostr feedback beforehand to be more useful or specific.
Virtue Ethics, gun to head forced to pick.
I like campfire conversations too.
🤷♂️ but I like the word consequentialism. Does that make me a consequentialist or is it inconsequential?
Deontology as a code of conduct.
I prefer the libertarian, “do unto others as you would have them do to you”. As I understand those listed schools, the Golden Rule doesn’t fit neatly in any of them.
Deontology is like “This isn’t Nam. This is bowling. There are rules.” Actually, I might prefer pragmatism: https://erraticus.co/2019/11/14/the-dude-abides-pragmatism-deontology-nihilism/ I suppose that’s a type of consequentialism, or Dudeism.
What I enjoy about virtue ethics is how its study can be be applied practically in one's life. What I dislike about about deontology is how granular it can become when you start looking at different levels of action and barriers to your actions. What I find interesting about consequentialism is how well it fits with an atheistic, deterministic world view, or even simulation theory.
I always aligned more strongly to virtue ethics during my philosophy study. On leaving university I realised that the trichotomy was limited, a “Western” take on ethics and became much more aligned to Vedanta, where ethics is an organic byproduct of metaphysics, not a separate course of study - and where philosophy and science were seen as two sides of the same coin, as they originally were in Greek thought also.
Virtue Ethics. I totally wonder how much this is regionally or culturally biased as a preference.
Can you even survive if you pick just one? You can only be manipulated if you attach your emotions to a belief system so complete indifference seems to be the best strategy.
Deontology - Who/what decided universal laws were moral? Who/what decided what morality was in the first place to base laws on? Consequentialism - Who/what decided that consequences, and which ones, were good/bad? If telling a lie would save person's life consequentialism says that it's the right thing to do. But what if that person you saved had murdered someone? What if you knew they had? Would it matter either way? If it wouldn't matter either way then how can you determine whether it was the right thing or not? If it would... well who/what decided that it would? Virtue Ethics - Who/what decided what is virtuous or not? Who/what decided to attribute virtue as a positive character quality? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Yes. Morality based on immorality is what I see today.
Consequentialism.
Your post is getting a lot of shares. Added to the https://nostraco.in/hot feed
For those readers who never took Philosophy, here's a TL;DR
Consequentialism: an act is good if it could be expected to have a good outcome. "Good" being your preferred ultimate end, often utility, but equality or souls saved are possibilities.
Deontology: an act is good if it is in accordance with your duties and other peoples' rights.
Virtue ethics: an act is good if it demonstrates virtue, or increases the virtue in the world.
Each Ethical tradition is consistent, logical and defensible from its own frame of reference.
As a practical guide to action, I feel that consequentialism is almost perfectly useless. Decision-makers' information is never as good as we think it is ("confirmation bias"), decision-makers are often limited by time and strong emotion, and humans are ludicrously prone to creative excuses - https://zero.sci-hub.se/5923/08375223c5d58fbba2606b668c8a6f74/snyder1988.pdf?download=true
You can justify almost anything as a Consequentialist. Covering up a paedophile priest? Maximises church attendance and souls saved, you know. Bombing a paediatrics ward? (I don't actually know how you excuse that, but the New York Times does.)
I preferred deontology, specifically Kant. You can't always steer a course of action that fulfils your duties and respects other persons rights, but you can try, and when you can't you can make a choice and own it.
We skimped terribly on Virtue Ethics, but I've started reading Epictetus' Enchiridion, and I'm liking it. That old pagan may make another convert yet... These are like religions. While religions are effective in bringing attention to some important choices in specific situations, they are also dangerous. That is because they present those choices as universal, and by that make them rules. The only things that I was not able to deny as universal yet are The Noble Eightfold Path, and the Three Poisons. Even these are universal only if not generalized, not elaborated, and not rephrased in any way. Even everything else in Buddhism is a religion and therefore dangerous. Sorry, I do not mean to be negative, but can't keep it to myself about deep principal mistakes.
You’re going the long , long route, imho. “In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching” P. D. Ouspensky, is a worthy start. If it isn’t your life path, I’ll buy it back from you.
Virtue ethics
We covered Deontology, Consequentialism and Virtue Ethics in my managerial ethics & business environment class last month. Recently and very reluctantly so :) sat down with a cup of coffee in hand, to listen to my audio feedback for assessment from uni on this very topic. I did ok and passed👍, although I agree with my lecturer that the assignment could’ve been stronger with the examples. However, I was travelling overseas the following week for some filmmaking work and was a bit distracted with prep. All in all, I found weaknesses of deontology could be the fostering of a legalistic approach where rules are mechanical and possibly be detached from powerful emotional dynamics at play, and that solely focusing on principles can downplay the importance of outcomes. Consequentialism is important when connecting the dots of the bigger picture, broader context and the consideration of many stakeholders. Being a retail worker, since a kid, you could learn the most at the frontline, which can assist with new processes. For me, it wasn’t just about espousing organisational values and principles. It was instead about asking why are we performing these tasks, can they be improved and what was the inherent outcomes from different stakeholder point of views as a result. Risks of this theory could be short-term thinking and results only driven behaviour with disregard to conduct and virtue character behaviour such as integrity and honesty. A new introduced 4th strand of moral ethics theory, is care and communitarian ethics. Places emphasis on community and relationships and very much linked to organisational culture and what we are seeing with social networking at the moment. It has its weaknesses too though, as favouritism can neglect ethical principles or desired outcomes.
If I wasn't as regarded as I am I'd slay TF outta this question. nostr:note1pexuem64y7p56u0r495w7r0uk8j3e7a22m0wqwrv6sdy73xx5k6qfxx4jr
Virtue ethics I’d choose
Ethics is like tradition. It is peer pressure from dead people.
Found a cure https://i.nostrimg.com/1f399785612348fcd15ff42be9fce98c0b525bd661442d363c9e8bd39ae77d34/file.jpeg
https://i.nostrimg.com/673fdce361b1f425aa145961192d3732961751d7b5cefbd9ccc4442cfec81ae0/file.jpeg
I think I am European, created by Sina for #mainvolume 💡
The Idea of studing ethics in philosophy is ridiculous to me. We live either in a religious world or in a world of atoms banging into each other. Therefore, its either religion or moral psychology.
what, lol?
At work: deontology At life (sometimes): consequentialism But I prefer: Virtue Ethics
Had to research a bit, not sure understood them correctly to the bits of it. But a mixture of deontology and virtue signaling, like today. There needs be a set of rules, for example so people will not cross red lights and get punished only when they cause a car accident, this seems a bit foolish. And virtue signaling, because you can’t write rules for everything and people should have an effective example for good behavior like it is showed in the bible and religion. Hope I got them correctly.
Virtue ethics. The rest hardliners only get extreme problems in the end.
My wife has drug me down the stoic rabbit hole, so I have to vote for virtue ethics…
Ive been thinking about and reading/listening to a number of anarchist perspectives recently, especially perspectives on mutual aid and collective freedom. It was a fun exercise chatting to GPT about anarchist criticisms and sympathies to the three options you offered. Going back to my university where the Phil. department had a deep Ethics focus, I was struck then as I am now that the exercise of weighing up these approaches against eachother with the goal of choosing the best is at most a fun intellectual game. Life is too messy for a rigid dogmatic ethical preference system. More importantly for me, Im deeply skeptical of how each of Deontology, Consequentialism & Utilirarianism, and Virtue Ethics allow space for political and social power structures to manipulate the rules, valued outcomes, and what counts as virtue in our society. Through the lense of anarchism, this was fun to think about (with GPT as a socratic aid) ### 1. Deontology - **Critique**: Anarchists typically critique deontology for its emphasis on absolute moral rules and potential to justify authoritarian structures. - **Alignment**: However, certain aspects of deontological ethics, like the emphasis on principles and the intrinsic value of human beings (as seen in Kant's idea of treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means), can resonate with anarchist values. Anarchists might appreciate the deontological stance against using people merely as tools for an end, aligning with their respect for individual autonomy and dignity. ### 2. Consequentialism - **Critique**: Anarchists often criticize consequentialism for its potential to overlook individual rights in pursuit of a greater good, leading to authoritarian outcomes. - **Alignment**: There is, however, potential sympathy in the idea that the outcomes of actions matter, especially in terms of promoting overall freedom and reducing suffering. Some anarchists might align with a form of consequentialism that prioritizes the dismantling of oppressive structures and the enhancement of collective well-being, provided it doesn't infringe on individual autonomy. ### 3. Virtue Ethics - **Critique**: While anarchists are wary of how virtues are socially constructed and potentially reflective of hierarchical values, they are not entirely dismissive of virtue ethics. - **Alignment**: Anarchists might find significant alignment with virtue ethics, particularly in its focus on personal moral development and integrity. They may advocate for virtues that foster individual autonomy, mutual aid, empathy, and resistance to unjust authority. This synergy is seen in the anarchist emphasis on building a new society within the shell of the old, through the cultivation of personal and communal virtues that challenge existing power structures. -- So while each approach has a valuable perspective to offer, my primary concern would be ensuring that adopting any of these theories does not lead to frameworks for justifying authoritarianism and that the choice genuinely promotes mutual-aid as well as individual and collective freedom.
I Kant help you there
Not heard of these, had to check the meaning of Deontology and presume the others follow the meaning of their names. Await further details in the long form. Follow Ayn Rands Objectivist philosophy. Virtues as so far determined: - Rationality - Independence - Integrity - Honesty - Justice - Productiveness - Pride
I took, and failed, Ethics in college. I just can't accept that there is a "one size fits all" ruleset in any scenario.
My preference, Virtue Ethics with a strong thread of Deontology. FYI. I had to ask ChatGPT for definitions. Deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics are three prominent normative ethical theories that propose different criteria for what makes actions morally right or wrong: 1. **Deontology**: This theory argues that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It emphasizes the importance of duty and rules. A well-known deontologist, Immanuel Kant, argued that we should act according to maxims that we would want to become universal laws. 2. **Consequentialism**: This theory asserts that the morality of an action is contingent on the action's outcome or result. The right action is the one that produces the best consequences. The most famous form of consequentialism is utilitarianism, which suggests that actions are right if they promote happiness or pleasure, and wrong if they promote unhappiness or pain. 3. **Virtue Ethics**: This approach focuses on the inherent character of a person rather than on specific actions. According to virtue ethics, morality is about building good character traits, such as kindness, honesty, and courage. Actions are not evaluated in isolation but as part of a life lived well. This theory is associated with the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who emphasized the importance of developing virtuous habits. Each of these theories provides a different perspective on ethics and is used in moral philosophy to analyze various moral dilemmas and questions.
Virtue ethics
I’m all about self accountability, not sure where that actually fits. A little off topic, I wanted to thank you for the reference to the Stormlight Archive, just started book 1, perfect for Maine winters.
Consequentialism is a cute thought experiment, but not more than that since outcomes are always unknown. Deontology would be nice, because there would be consistency in the performance of life’s (and the individual’s) moral duties, once they were established. There is a comfort in simply following rules, but history has shown humans aren’t reliably good at doing so. Virtue Ethics is the best we have but, sad to say, requires a level of thoughtful and empathetic analysis which I think is only interesting to an insignificant minority.
Natural law ethics
The Ethics of Liberty
Deontology (Kant) “closes the door to reason“ according to Ayn Rand. Consequentialism suffers the problem of being self effacing. And virtue ethics doesn’t deal well with situationist problems. But being a bitcoiner I see where you could be going with this so I’ll take the rules based approach. 😃
https://image.nostr.build/4d3b93af2be436098bb68ff9df60de68501af819f9b572888f4e6ff0bf1dbd11.jpg I thought bitcoiners and nostriches —ethic mattered— were fundamentally of philosophical skepticism, starting out by the `don't trust verify' statement
Really all of these ideas do not capture the entire picture as they are just ideas from different people in history. The reality is DO NO HARM to other Living Sentient Beings. Meaning, the initiated stealing of an innocent, living, sentient being’s property will trigger Natural Law (A Law built into Nature) consequences to the negative for the initiator and will induce harm, which creates suffering for the victim. Listed below are the initiated ways of stealing that will always produce harm then suffering for the victim : 1.) Murder/Assault (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s life, body, and mental integrity, which is their property) 2.) Trespass (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s peaceful domicile in their home or body, which is their property) 3.) Theft (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s peacefully acquired property) 4.) Rape (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s choice to sexually relate, which is their property) 5.) Willful Lying (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s complete information in order for them to make an informed decision, which is their property) 6.) Coercion (Stealing an innocent, living, sentient being’s free will choice, which is their property) To be in harmony with one’s self and the Creation of the Universe and to eliminate suffering caused by harm, is to align one’s life to NOT break these Natural Law principles. The last step is then to NOT participate in any institutions (governments, religions, organizations, mind controlled world views, etc.) that break these Natural Law Principles. If we all understood this and DID it, this would create Freedom on this Planet in an instant!
I follow the teachings of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Creator of all things.
All three! I'm flexible! Case by case basis subsumed in experience based reflex
nostr:note1pexuem64y7p56u0r495w7r0uk8j3e7a22m0wqwrv6sdy73xx5k6qfxx4jr Deontoogy is having someone else giving you the standard upon which you look at right and wrong... To me, it's the same for Virute Ethics.. Some one or group is throwing a standard out there you have to adhere too... Now Consequentialism to me is having to be responsible for your actions vs the whole.. Sort of like ad libbing. I want to say inate feeling of right and wrong are at play.. Deontology & Virtue Ethics you're being guided, told. Consequentialism not so much.. How many times did I just contradict myself? 😉
Consequentialist, Jeremy Bentham allowed me to bring an understanding to the morality I felt but couldn't articulate. While understanding my humble animal brains ability to think on the fly.
Deontology, obviously. Consequentialism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Divine command is all that matters. Ethics is inherently meaningless without God.
Reject the premise. Ethics evolved through natural & group selection which suggests they are consequentialist at root. Society is a complex system in a complex environment, so consequentialism is impossible to enact in practice. Deontologic rules developed to codify best practices; bit those best practices become pathological if conditions change. So then character variance serves the role of recombination and mutation so the evolving system can react to changes in technology and environment. Even character traits like psychopathy are valuable and celebrated in society in certain situations.
