Is virtue ethics the best ethical theory?

I took an ethics class and I liked Virtue Ethics the most out of all the other types.

>don't just do good deeds, be a good person

File: atu_xxi__strange_aeons_by_tillinghast23-dkruk3.jpg (257KB, 753x1061px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 753x1061px

>>2222469
So this is a really complex subject.

I don't think it's the 'best' but all corners of ye olde ethics triangle have issues.

For Virtue Ethics it comes down to inflexibility and the risk of viewing one's self as primordially correct. This leads to abuse of position and frivolous claims of misconduct (see: EPA under Reagan). Moreover, a person may want to do good but not really have any functional clue how to be good. Virtue systems tend to devolve into circularity faster than deontological or utilitarian systems. The simplicity of virtue and it's location based context don't render it effective for more complex decisions across cultural concepts. "Fair" isn't always fair, for example, monetary recompense for the loss of cultural or historical items or landmarks. In an administrative (business or otherwise) context this becomes much more of a problem because it gets hard to distinguish where the private citizen and the private employee starts or ends. Self-righteousness can therefore lead to undermining organizational codes and goals, even if actually in the best interest of the serviced.


Deontological arguments suffer from the same rigidity just in a different direction. Organizational rather than cultural. On the other hand, utilitarianism simply can't be qualified outside of small-scale cultures, and can suffer from unrealistic or unsound propositions (same expectations of "happiness" and "benefit" between different groups...again this brings up the problem of culture, though it's a super flexible system).

An ethical actor should be virtuous but not ONLY virtuous. One needs to be incredibly reflexive if they're going to root action in a single corner of the ethics triangle.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (49KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 1280x720px

What is vitrue ethics solution to this?

>the necessity to value comes from the necessity to act in order to ensure our survival, since our nature is that of destructible beings that need to use reason in order to live
>thus, good values are those that ensure our survival
>virtue is a generalization of a given good value

Virtue ethics is the only demonstrably true and valid approach to ethics.

Virtue ethics is a good foundation for any moral being.

How can we know what is virtue and what is not? Is sense of humor a virtue, for example?

>>2222562
Yes.

>>2222543
>>thus, good values are those that ensure our survival
Sounds way more pragmatic/utilitarian to me.

>>2222548
Yes, but a foundation with no Temple is but a platform.

>>2222562
Intuition and culture, mostly.
The Eightfold Path of Buddhism is not the same value cluster as Plato's five cardinals, though there's a splash of overlap. Beyond that there's mindfulness and metaphysics, but these personal revelations wind up extrapolated by culture (see Greek v. Roman civic virtues, etc.).

>>2222520
But isn't virtue about knowing what is right in any given situation? Doesn't that lends itself to reflexiveness and flexbility?

Being virtuous requires the right degree of modesty, prideful self-righteousness.

>>2222592
Actually, I think the correct application of virtue ethics leads to generalized conclusions about correct behavior.

For instance, there is almost no way murder can be considered virtuous. Between callous disregard and oversentimentality, there is an appropriate degree of compassion that would never allow murder under normal circumstances.

Then you consider all the reasons people would want to murder someone, and almost none of them are good.

>>2222610
modesty, *not* prideful self-righteousness*

>>2222610
>isn't virtue about knowing what is right in any given situation
They all are, but virtue relies heavily on intuition. "I know what I must do", etc., arise from within. This boils down to the 'ethic' arising from internal character rather than a professional code or a utility analysis.

Integrity is good, don't get me wrong here. I just think it's incredibly difficult to decouple accountability and the desire for ideological/political (not just legislative, but in-group politics) when we take an approach rooted most deeply in virtue.

How, then, could we hope to analyze pursued ends if one's own ideological preferences or values differ from values that have been authoritatively and legitimately established through this or that process?

Being loyal may not be the best option when being courageous is what's needed...if virtue is weakly developed, the intuitive approach can be rendered so simplified that actual ethical/moral content and consideration gets bleached away, promoting virtue only to avoid punishment or embarrassment.

>>2222641
>For instance, there is almost no way murder can be considered virtuous
I mean, I tend to agree here, I'm not saying value based systems suck, just that you need care in execution.

It may be completely within someone's debased yet systematized Satanic ethic to cull the herd. This is still a virtue based decision, debased as it is. Another good example is particular strains of Wahabi/Salafist/Khawarij abuses of the concept of Jihad, or even the religious wars inside of Europe of centuries past. All of these murderous actions were rooted in virtue based systems of ethic.

>>2222656
Well, I think all of this problems can be solved. After all, Aristotle believed that ethical behavior should be viewed and achieved within a political context, a city state or civil society.

If we acknowledge that social stability and authority figures are vital to the flourshing of all, and acknowledge that no one is perfectly virtuous, this should enable the modesty of being able to defer certain judgements to others.

>>2222678
Well, if I understand Aristotle correctly, we are not to assume that any rendition of virtue is equally valid. In fact, if eudaimonia is about cultivating habitual and intellectual virtues, then the habitual virtues should also reflect on the intellectual ones. What would be a good intellectual reason to accept some kind of debased, Satanic ritual?

>>2222469
Only if it's consequentialist virtue ethics (which Aristotle's is).

>>2222678
To be clear, I'm talking mainly about Nichomachean virtue ethics.