19 Virtue Ethics continued

The most mysterious and inexplicable moment in evolution must have been the moment that a biological organism said to himself: "Here I am!", the emergence of self-awareness.

Probably the next question could have been: "And now What ???" I just do as it pleases me (moral subjectivism) or I feel myself as a subject of a greater Universe with its own laws, which I should obey (Deontic ethics).

Or I am just a member of the tribe and have to watch my actions, take care that they contribute not only to my personal wellbeing, but that of the tribe as well (Utilitarianism/Consequentialism);

Or I could say, 'No, it is not just about consequences. I have to go back to the source of them: me as an acting person. There I may find the answer on my "Now what?" (Virtue ethics)

In my former lecture I referred to an increasing dissatisfaction with the forms of deontology and utilitarianism and that neither of them, at that time, paid attention to a number of topics that had always figured in the virtue ethics' tradition,

— the virtues themselves, motives and moral character, moral education, moral wisdom or discernment, friendship and family relationships, a deep concept of happiness,

the role of the emotions in our moral life and the fundamentally important questions of what sort of person I should be and how we should live. What has Virtue ethics to say about this is our question of today.

Margret Anscombe states in her famous article "Modern Moral Philosphy" (1958) our problem as follows:

[One preliminary remark. To cheat is just behavior. To say that cheating is unjust is a completely different story]

-begin quote-
In present-day philosophy an explanation is required how an unjust man is a bad man, or an unjust action a bad one; to give such an explanation belongs to ethics; but it cannot even be begun until we are equipped with a sound philosophy of psychology.

For the proof that an unjust man is a bad man would require a positive account of justice as a “virtue.” This part of the subject-matter of ethics, is however, completely closed to us

until we have an account of what type of characteristic a virtue is—a problem, not of ethics, but of conceptual analysis— and how it relates to the actions in which it is instanced…
-end quote

You can find the original article of 1958 here : http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu/mleldrid/cmt/mmp.html#_edn5
It is not easy reading…

Keep in mind that it was 1958, when the ethical discourse was still dominated by deontological ethics and consequentialism. Psychology was still in its infancy.

Before starting a philosophical analysis of the concept of virtue we first need a 'sound philosophy of psychology' she says. What might that be?

Philosophy of psychology refers to issues at the theoretical foundations of modern psychology. Some of these issues are epistemological concerns about the methodology of psychological investigation.

Other issues in philosophy of psychology are philosophical questions about the nature of mind, brain, and cognition, and are perhaps more commonly thought of as part of cognitive science, or philosophy of mind.

After WWII moral behavior was no longer a subject of philosophical reflection only. It also became a subject of psychological research. One of the famous experiments is of course the Milgram experiment.

An experiment that tested the confiict between moral standards like "Thou shall not hurt your fellowman" and obedience.

Just do a google search on "psychological research on moral behavior" and you are right in the middle of the modern debate on ethics.

Just one exemplary search result of the present situation of ethical discourse. It is a book with the title "Lack of Character: Personality and Moral Behavior" by a John M. Doris (2002).

But when you read his opening sentences it is not just a John M. Doris. It is philosophically and scientifically an exciting John M. Doris.

-begin quote
I'm possessed of the conviction that thinking productively about ethics requires thinking realistically about humanity. Not everyone finds this so obvious as I do; philosophers have often insisted that the facts about human psychology should not constrain ethical reflection.

Then my conviction requires an argument, and that is why I've written this book. The argument addresses a conception of ethical character long prominent in the Western ethical tradition,

a conception I believe modern experimental psychology shows to be mistaken. If I'm right, coming to terms with this mistake requires revisions in thinking about character, and also in thinking about ethics.
-end quote

And read this review:
-begin quote
‘… Lack of Character is by far the best thing I know of written on the implications of recent social psychology for philosophical discussions of virtue and character.

The book refers to and assesses an extraordinary large literature in psychology, philosophy, and beyond, and works out in considerable detail one very plausible way of thinking of ethics in the light of the facts of psychology.’
Gilbert Harman, Stuart Professor of Philosophy, Princeton University
-end quote

For today I have to come to an end, but I am so excited about the results of my research on virtue ethics. It feels like a confirmation, that we followed the right track and really arrived at a station.

It was a woman philosopher(!), Margret Anscombe, who constructed the tracks. A John M. Doris, who claims that philosophers made a mistake by ignoring psychology in their philosophical debates on ethics.

To be continued……



The Discussion

[13:22] Alarice Beaumont: he sounds so right to me!
[13:22] herman Bergson: Who do you mean Alarice?
[13:22] oola Neruda: Herman... can human psychology be used as an excuse for immoral behavior? what about responsibility.. or am i missing the point
[13:22] Alarice Beaumont: ethics and character belong together.... in my humble opinion
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: true
[13:23] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice...
[13:23] herman Bergson: oola..you are moving way to fast....
[13:23] oola Neruda: adn self discipline
[13:23] herman Bergson: the only thing we can say is that there is a close relation between psychology and ethics
[13:24] herman Bergson: But those stories like..he killed his mother because he had a bad childhood so he is excused...that has nothing ot do with ethics
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: no .. i agree on that
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: and honestly i don't like that excuse
[13:25] herman Bergson: But what is interesting is for instance that consequentialists have endless debates on al kinds of cases...
[13:25] oola Neruda: am i not using the correct definition of ethics?
[13:25] Adriana Jinn: yes i think that it depend of each one of us to know what we find good or bad
[13:25] Alarice Beaumont: so easy to blame everybody else but not the guilty
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: does biological constraint on moral behavior mitigate moral responsibility, though?
[13:26] Adriana Jinn: what someone can find bad someone else will not
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: think oola is right
[13:26] herman Bergson: there is a huge difference between a psychological explanation of behavior and moral justification
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:26] Alarice Beaumont: uuhh sorrry for the typos :-(
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: In virtue ethics it is important to find out where psychology stops and ethics begins, I would say
[13:27] herman Bergson: Fact is that moral behavior has become a subject of investigation of psychology
[13:28] herman Bergson: before ..say 1950 this hardly ever had been the case
[13:29] herman Bergson: So now we have arrived at a station where the tracks split up into psychology and philosophy of ethics
[13:29] Alarice Beaumont: hmmm
[13:30] herman Bergson: The next step will be to discover the demarcation between the philosophical analysis of the concept of virtue and how psychology deals with it
[13:30] herman Bergson: To say it in another way....
[13:31] herman Bergson: when a psychologist starts a research on virtuous behavior he has to define his concept of virtue...
[13:31] herman Bergson: there is no scientific method for getting that definition...it is a philosophical analysis basically
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: ahhh...this is possibly circular?
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:32] herman Bergson: Well your remark point at the danger Repose...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: Has the Milgram experiment been replicated?
[13:33] herman Bergson: You could get into circularity here easily indeed
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:33] herman Bergson: Oh yes..many times and in many ways..outcome always the same...
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: seems to put the subjects under great moral stress
[13:33] herman Bergson: The Milgram experiment was to administer electric shocks to a person who gave wrong answers..
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:34] herman Bergson: the leader of the experimant stimulated the test person to obey the rules of the test..
[13:34] herman Bergson: wrong answer ..more voltage in the shock
[13:35] herman Bergson: about 62 % of the test persons did as ordered..even when they heard the 'victim' scream
[13:35] herman Bergson: But an anecdote...
[13:35] herman Bergson: Of all test persons who refused to go too far...
[13:36] herman Bergson: no one ever inquired about the condition of the electro tortured person
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: wow
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: depressing
[13:36] herman Bergson: check Milgram experiment in Wikipedia
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes… I was surprised to read that
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: thought about wath i'd do
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: pretty certain i'd not push the button
[13:37] herman Bergson: yes..Repose..my question too
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: but hard to know for sure
[13:37] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:38] herman Bergson: yes..that is the scary part
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: under the right circumstances
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: u can be made to do some pretty awefull things
[13:39] herman Bergson: so ..we have arrived at a crossroad of psychology and ethical theory...
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: that's why i read history
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: so i don't repeat it
[13:39] Adriana Jinn: right
[13:39] Repose Lionheart: if possible
[13:40] herman Bergson: Next time I'll dig into the philosophical analysis of Virtue and maybe we can see a connection with psychology then too
[13:40] Abraxas Nagy: ah interesting
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: yes!
[13:40] herman Bergson: How I see it is like this.....
[13:41] herman Bergson: After the exclusively philosophical theories on ethics we have arrived at the individual, the person...
[13:41] herman Bergson: the virtuous person...
[13:41] herman Bergson: that is what psychology is looking at too
[13:42] herman Bergson: the next level is to show that the individual person is a social person too
[13:42] herman Bergson: which has consequences for ethics
[13:42] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: oh, the rise of virtue ethics coincides with the growth of psychology?
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, a social ethic
[13:43] herman Bergson: then the final step could be to show that the person eventually is a social biological organism which places him in the line of evolution
[13:44] herman Bergson: so that willl be the conclusion of this project...
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: !
[13:44] herman Bergson: when we have arrived at the bilogical level
[13:45] Abraxas Nagy: ah
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: one possible empirical ground
[13:45] herman Bergson: yes Repose
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: ah
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: very cool
[13:45] herman Bergson: But you say 'ONE possible ground'
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: hehehe
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: could be another direction too
[13:46] herman Bergson: You mean to imply the possibility of other grounds too?
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: a further ground perhaps
[13:47] herman Bergson: ok..anything particular in mind?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: a religious or spiritual naturalism, maybe
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: logically compatible
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: i think maybe
[13:47] herman Bergson: Yes...we dont exclude that option
[13:47] Adriana Jinn: i was thinking of spiritual also yes
[13:47] Alarice Beaumont: uhm.. sorry.. have to go earlier today :-(
[13:48] Alarice Beaumont: cu on thursday :-)
[13:48] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Alarice
[13:48] herman Bergson: Bye Alarice..and thnx
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: bye!
[13:48] herman Bergson: We definitely have to come to terms with spirituality in relation to our ethical discourse
[13:49] herman Bergson: I'll keep an open mind to that option too
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: ok!
[13:49] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:49] herman Bergson: allthough I have my personal perspective on these matters...
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: But stick to your own too plz....
[13:50] herman Bergson: I take the privilige to be biased in these matters and expose my biasedness here
[13:50] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney !
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: a brave thing, i think
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:51] Adriana Jinn: biase ??????
[13:51] Abraxas Nagy: it sure is
[13:51] herman Bergson: I guess you would do the same Repose
[13:51] bergfrau Apfelbaum: hey :-) Rodney
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yes, i think so
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bergfrau
[13:51] herman Bergson: so a solid ground for a good exchange of ideas and discussion
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yep
[13:53] herman Bergson: So ..everyone..dont hesitate to give your opinion...
[13:53] herman Bergson: we are entering delicate grounds now ㋡
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: uuhhhmmn
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: lol
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: I'd say
[13:53] Qwark Allen: the least
[13:53] herman Bergson: But as I said before....
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: but doenst that make it more interesting?
[13:54] herman Bergson: You should all have your Personal Philosophical Program
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:54] Repose Lionheart: hmmmm
[13:54] herman Bergson: which means....your set of basic ideas....
[13:54] herman Bergson: dont question your basic ideas..they are yours...
[13:55] herman Bergson: but put them to the test....see if they hold in a good philosphical debate
[13:56] Qwark Allen: seems to me , always a work in progress
[13:56] herman Bergson: As JJC Smart said... Not everyone will be persuaded by his theory of ethics..
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: he was right
[13:56] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark...as long as you live it like that you are always on the right track
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Repose....
[13:57] herman Bergson: the expectation that we finally will find the ultimate truth, the ultimate answer is a lost cause
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: agreed
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: or maybe an ever distant goal
[13:58] herman Bergson: where we can play the logic trick by saying that that statement must be the ultimate answer ㋡
[13:59] herman Bergson: Yes Repose.. a Popperian approach....
[13:59] herman Bergson: from the very beginning of mankind...we always have tried to reach the horizon....
[14:00] herman Bergson: we are still on our way.. ㋡
[14:00] Adriana Jinn: sure
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: yep
[14:01] herman Bergson: Well..may I thank you for your interest and participation again....
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: thank you Herman
[14:01] Adriana Jinn: thanks herman it is really interesting
[14:01] herman Bergson: if you have no remaining questions about today's subject....class dismmissed ㋡
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor!
[14:01] CONNIE Eichel: thanks professor :)
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: great class
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[14:01] Justine Rhapsody: thanks Professor
[14:01] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: like always
[14:02] herman Bergson: You are welcome
[14:02] herman Bergson: It is pleasure to work for you
[14:02] Adriana Jinn: thanks again
[14:02] Adriana Jinn: see you on thusday
[14:02] Adriana Jinn: bye all
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: yep
[14:02] CONNIE Eichel: bye bye
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Adriana
[14:02] Qwark Allen: thank you
[14:02] herman Bergson: ok..Till Thursday
[14:03] CONNIE Eichel: till then :)
[14:03] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[14:03] Abraxas Nagy: see you all next time :D
[14:03] Qwark Allen: more interesting then ever
[14:03] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[14:03] herman Bergson: thank you Qwark
[14:03] Qwark Allen: hope to see you thursday
[14:03] Qwark Allen: ;-)
[14:03] Rodney Handrick: bye
[14:03] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ty!! herman! that you are, a piece of our way :-))
[14:03] Qwark Allen: indeed
[14:03] herman Bergson smiles..

18: Virtue Ethis, an introduction

Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism).

When the physician of the village is in great need the utilitarian would feel morally obliged to help him, if it were only for the consequence that the village will keep its physician, which contributes to the well being of everyone.

The deontologist would say "Do unto others as you would be done by" and uses that as his moral maxime to guide his actions and do good.

The virtue ethicist would regard it as a quintessential feature of being human, that you are charitable or benevolent and kind towards the other in need. It was already Aristotle who formulated these thoughts perfectly in his "Ethica Nicomachea" about 330 B.C.!

- begin quote
However, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of it is desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man.

For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, the good is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions, and has man none? Is he born without a function?

Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be?

Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Next would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse and every animal.

There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle. Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of this,

and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there is more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.
- end quote

It is historically interesting to see, that during the nineteenth century Aristotle's words were overshadowed by men like Kant with his deontic approach of ethics and in the Anglo-American philosophy by Bentham and Stuart Mill with their utilitarianism.

In our project on Women Philosophers we met Margret Anscombe. In 1958 she published the article "Modern Moral Philosophy", which lead to an increasing dissatisfaction with the forms of deontology and utilitarianism .

To quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia: "Neither of them, at that time, paid attention to a number of topics that had always figured in the virtue ethics' tradition

— the virtues themselves, motives and moral character, moral education, moral wisdom or discernment, friendship and family relationships, a deep concept of happiness,

the role of the emotions in our moral life and the fundamentally important questions of what sort of person I should be and how we should live."

And although I read this only today for the first time, you may recognize in this quote my increasing dissatisfaction with consequentialism,

my repeated remark, that I was missing something. And I think , that it was this that I was missing. This doesn't mean we have found the golden egg.

We still have to deal with serious questions like:
1. are the virtues natural or acquired?
2. are the virtues reliable?
3. what makes the virtues valuable? Are they instrumentally or intrinsically valuable?


The Discussion

[13:22] Myriam Brianna: (damn, gotta go already)
[13:22] herman Bergson: sorry for the confusion..I hope you still could understand me..
[13:22] Repose Lionheart: :(
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:23] Paula Dix: lol yes
[13:23] Abraxas Nagy: I do
[13:23] Justine Rhapsody: yes
[13:23] Corona Anatine: for 1 i would say - surely like all human charactristics - a bit of both
[13:23] herman Bergson: ok.. so much for an introduction of this subject
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: great stuff
[13:24] herman Bergson: not consequences but virtue are now our focus
[13:24] Alarice Beaumont: think so
[13:24] Corona Anatine: ??
[13:24] herman Bergson: What astonishes me are the words of Aristotle
[13:24] Corona Anatine: vitrue without context?
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: virtue becomes primary, but consequences are not denied, right?
[13:25] herman Bergson: A man who lived in a completely different time..no information technology, no easy access libraries...only his brilliant mind
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: i wonder how he would state it if he weer alive today
[13:25] herman Bergson: of course not Repose...
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:25] Repose Lionheart: right
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes Gemma...That would be something
[13:26] herman Bergson: Well..we still have to find out what virtue is...
[13:26] herman Bergson: one interesting question to begin with...
[13:26] herman Bergson: is it innate or acquired...
[13:27] herman Bergson: so is it nature or nurture...!
[13:27] herman Bergson: and here is the next step to link up with biology and ethology I think
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: Darwin awakes again
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: its aquired
[13:28] herman Bergson: ok..thnx Abraxeas
[13:28] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:28] Corona Anatine: i would disagree in part
[13:28] herman Bergson: Well...just kidding
[13:28] Paula Dix: lol
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:28] Corona Anatine: acquiring requires that the acquiring is possible
[13:28] herman Bergson: First we have to get a clear idea of what virtue is
[13:29] Abraxas Nagy: ah... isnt it a concept?
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Corona…there has to be a fertile soil...
[13:29] herman Bergson: A concept...I would say..it is not an abstraction…
[13:29] herman Bergson: it IS observable behavior
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: virtues are defined by the society... groups of people
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: and they must be accepted by the majority
[13:30] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:30] herman Bergson: There is the behavioral component.....
[13:30] herman Bergson: Socially accepted behavior
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: maybe biological too
[13:30] herman Bergson: YEs repose...
[13:30] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. sounds good
[13:31] herman Bergson: that leads to the question of universality
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: but doesnt that vary from culture to culture?
[13:31] Corona Anatine: it has to be so- as all consider themselves virtuous - it is for others to decide if that is true
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. it varies... depending on culture
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: notuniversal
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...there is something coming up in my mind all the time...
[13:31] herman Bergson: about immoral behavior...
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: that's why so different groups are spreading over the world
[13:32] Paula Dix: i guess the biological thing would be universal?
[13:32] herman Bergson: let me give you the story...
[13:32] herman Bergson: yes paula I would assume that
[13:32] herman Bergson: but the story...
[13:32] herman Bergson: in war...
[13:32] herman Bergson: a village is taken by the enemy...
[13:33] herman Bergson: all men are killed and all women are raped by the conquerer...
[13:33] herman Bergson: how to understand this behavior
[13:33] herman Bergson: we would say...war crime...
[13:33] Gemma Cleanslate: happened over and over and still does
[13:33] Alarice Beaumont: i think power andhumiliation
[13:33] herman Bergson: senseless murdering and raping..
[13:33] herman Bergson: but someone gave this explanation..
[13:34] herman Bergson: this behavior is very basic....
[13:34] herman Bergson: you kill the men...so stop procreation of that tribe
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: right
[13:34] herman Bergson: and rape all women to bring in your genes in that tribe
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: going on in where ?? congo now???
[13:34] Abraxas Nagy: nowadays yes
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: or next country
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: biological imperative then...
[13:34] herman Bergson: this is almost universal behavior
[13:35] Corona Anatine: your overlooking one item of fact - in early times it was not the women who were raped it was everyone
[13:35] Corona Anatine: it was a humiliation thing
[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: yes you are right Herman... unfortunately
[13:35] Paula Dix: lions do that also
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: yes, Corona
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: still corona
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: it is definitely a power thing
[13:35] herman Bergson: The men may be raped too Corona, but then killed I guess
[13:35] Corona Anatine: definitly
[13:35] Abraxas Nagy: exactly
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[13:36] Corona Anatine: if you reread bible
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: that was a grim laugh
[13:36] Corona Anatine: it was women killed too
[13:36] herman Bergson: I was flabbergasted by this explanation especially while it sounded so obvious
[13:36] Corona Anatine: only preteens were spared
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: or left to bear a child who was not the pure tribe
[13:36] Paula Dix: yes scary!
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: cooperation, kindness and love have evolved in us too
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: yes of course
[13:37] herman Bergson: what I want to say is that related to virtue ethics our basic ethical drives could be innate
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmmm
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: oh, yes
[13:37] Corona Anatine: has this not be shown to be the case?
[13:37] herman Bergson: like our bad habits are to...like greed and selfishness
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: in that case, some may be more evolved than others
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: evolved
[13:38] herman Bergson: that is not abnormal...
[13:38] herman Bergson: some are more intelligent than others..
[13:38] Paula Dix: very interesting Herman!
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: maybe you know the Gauss graph
[13:38] Paula Dix: no
[13:38] Abraxas Nagy: yep
[13:38] Corona Anatine: yes
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: no
[13:39] Corona Anatine: also called a normal graph
[13:39] herman Bergson: When you test human abilities...doesnt matter what..also physical features you get as a graph of the score a Gauss graph
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:40] herman Bergson: in simple terms...
[13:40] Alarice Beaumont: most are in the middle
[13:40] herman Bergson: only a few are really stupid...the majority is average and only a few are really clever
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: oh, right
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: got it
[13:41] herman Bergson: I'll bring a picture with me next time
[13:41] Abraxas Nagy: the bell shape graph
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:41] Corona Anatine: yeh
[13:41] herman Bergson: so maybe this also applies to virtues
[13:41] Paula Dix: oh, i get it now
[13:41] herman Bergson: if they are innate for instance
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:42] herman Bergson: in other words...it is not surprising that we have criminals in our society...
[13:42] Corona Anatine: before you build a bell curve of virtue you would first have to assign them numerical values
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: mm.. how do you mean it applies to virtues?
[13:42] herman Bergson: nor Nobel prize Winners for science
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well Alarice..a virtue like courage is a personal trait..like benevolence is
[13:43] herman Bergson: as are vices like selfishness and sadism
[13:43] Paula Dix: i see, some no virtuous at all, most average, some very virtuous
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: and there would be a moral average (to which politicians appeal)
[13:43] herman Bergson: yes Paula...
[13:43] herman Bergson: Good point Repose
[13:44] Paula Dix: and that would apply to every conceivable virtue
[13:44] herman Bergson: I would say so yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: on the other hand...if we look at the nature / nurture debate...
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: allows for a social ethic, policy creation and an attention to outcomes...
[13:45] Paula Dix: lol yes, you would "distort" the curve with culture
[13:45] herman Bergson: Even Aristotle knew that virtue is also a product of education]
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: blends duty and consequence
[13:45] herman Bergson: Like Corona already remarked
[13:45] herman Bergson: there has to be the seed...education grows the plant
[13:46] Corona Anatine: tho to make another analogy it is like a vessel being filled with water
[13:46] Corona Anatine: which allows for the vesel to be of differing shape
[13:47] herman Bergson: yes Corona..
[13:47] Paula Dix: interesting idea Corona
[13:47] Corona Anatine: the vessel being the socail structure
[1[13:47] herman Bergson: like the Gaussian Curve shows
[[13:47] Repose Lionheart: agree, Corona
[13:48] Corona Anatine: so perhaps an idea of virtue is innate
[13:48] Corona Anatine: but what is seen as vitruous varies
[13:48] herman Bergson: This discussion is a wonderful prelude of the three final lectures of this project
[13:48] Paula Dix: and we would have all trends of virtue around on every society
[13:48] herman Bergson: in the next lecture we will dig into the concept of virtue
[13:48] Paula Dix: only some being enhanced and others not
[13:48] Corona Anatine: which often conflict paula
[13:49] Paula Dix: yes :)
[13:49] herman Bergson: then in the next we'll put it in the social context by loking at the ethics of pragmatism
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: good ㋡
[13:49] herman Bergson: and finally I'd like to investigate the bounderies of ethics and biology/ethology
[13:50] Corona Anatine: would that be a partical demonstration : )
[13:50] Paula Dix: :)))
[13:50] herman Bergson: and thus we have come far from our startingpoint: moral relativism
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:50] Paula Dix: now it starts to make sense :)
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:51] herman Bergson: yes Paula..that was what I said to myself too ^_^
[13:51] Paula Dix: lol
[13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: LOL
[13:51] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:51] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:51] herman Bergson: So class dismissed ..time to celebrate
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: ty herman
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[13:52] Corona Anatine: ty Herman
[13:52] Paula Dix: yay!
[13:52] Justine Rhapsody: thank you Professor
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: yay
[13:52] Corona Anatine: will it be a virtuous celebration or an immoral one
[13:52] herman Bergson: I prefer the virtuously immoral one, Corona
[13:53] Corona Anatine: lol
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:53] Paula Dix: lol
[13:53] Corona Anatine: hmm virtuous immorality
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: there's a wonderful concept
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: are we gonna party Qwark?
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: find in believe in it
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[13:53] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ehehehe
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: i
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: w0oh0o!
[13:53] Qwark Allen: at relaxation
[13:53] Corona Anatine: doing immoral actions for virtuous reasons
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ;-)))
[13:53] Abraxas Nagy: :D
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:53] Qwark Allen: now that you talk about it
[13:54] Qwark Allen: need to get ready
[13:54] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:54] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:54] Corona Anatine: sounds good to me

16 Consequentialism

Before we pay attention to a defense of consequentialism, we fist have to get clear what exactly is consequentialism. We have a nice -ism here, so we also are inclined to think that it refers to a clearly defined theory. If that were true...

Any consequentialist theory must accept the claim that certain normative properties depend only on consequences. If that claim is dropped, the theory ceases to be consequentialist.. So, it is all about consequences. Let's focus on that.

Our starting point could be thus: whether an act is morally right depends only on consequences as opposed to the circumstances or the intrinsic nature of the act or anything that happens before the act.

But you could narrow that down to for instance the actual consequences as opposed to foreseen, foreseeable, intended, or likely consequences.

You also could say that moral rightness depends only on which consequences are best as opposed to satisfactory or an improvement over the status quo.

We also could take into account that the consequences should effect to ALL people, not just yourself or your family or your tribe or the present people.

And then, how to evaluate the consequences? The Hedonist utilitarian says, that the value of the consequences depends only on the pleasures and pains in the consequences as opposed to other goods, such as freedom, knowledge, life, and so on.

But who decides on the quality of the pleasure. In the debates on consequentialism the idea emerged that whether some consequences are better than others should not depend on whether the consequences are evaluated from the perspective of the agent as opposed to an observer.

In other words one way or another the consequences should be evaluated by some kind of ideal observer: impartial, not involved , rational, etc.

And then there is the other issue that not only the consequences have to be counted for but also the act. I mean, when I blow up the tax office, killing a number of people in the process,

the consequences might be that you don't need to pay taxes for a whole year. Aren't we happy then? At least the greatest number of people.

The philosophical floor is littered with dozens of (counter)examples to show that focussing on consequences to morally justify an act, is not coherent.

Take the "sheriff example": a sheriff in a small town knows that there will be riots in which dozens of people will be killed. He can prevent this massacre by convicting an innocent person: a scapegoat.

What about the consequences? The death of many people on the one hand, injustice to an innocent person on the other hand. If people would find out, their belief in the justice system might be shocked.

You may say I am biased and I'll immediately admit it, but the more I dig into consequentialism, the more I feel lost. Take this example for instance from IEP…

-begin quote
For a more extreme example of meddling (into other people’s business.), suppose that by using your grandmother’s pension to contribute to efficient and thoughtful charities you can develop permanent clean water supplies for many distant villages,

thus saving hundreds of people from painful early deaths and permitting economic development to begin. You need only keep her bound and gagged in the cellar and force her to sign the checks.

Consequentialism would seem to say that you should do this, but moral common sense says that you should not. Hence consequentialism is opposed to common sense and is probably wrong.
- end quote

You might reply to such odd and extreme cases: Moral common sense is shaped by and for the demands of ordinary moral life and so common sense may not be very reliable in odd cases.

Hence the fact that consequentialism disagrees with common sense about odd cases is no disproof of consequentialism.

Maybe true, but I am not convinced. However, I still have the article of J.J.C. Smart on the shelf, in which he defends consequentialism. WIll he convince me, you, are you already convinced?



The discussion


[2010/01/12 13:08] herman Bergson: The situation is becoming more and more interesting.
[2010/01/12 13:18] Gemma Cleanslate: sounds like going around in circles the cat chasing the tail
[2010/01/12 13:19] BrainCrave OHare: re: pension example, a moral wrong does not make a moral right - simple
[2010/01/12 13:19] Adriana Jinn: not evident to me
[2010/01/12 13:19] herman Bergson: you could say that Gemma
[2010/01/12 13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: i did
[2010/01/12 13:19] Paula Dix: :)
[2010/01/12 13:19] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/12 13:19] freereed Freenote: ummm... i got a true story bout morality and consequences....
[2010/01/12 13:19] herman Bergson: ok freereed
[2010/01/12 13:19] freereed Freenote: from Sumatra round 1921
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: a missionary... christian
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: who was also a zealot
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: attracted crowds upwards of 15,000 people
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: riots ensued
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: 10,000 people lost their lives
[2010/01/12 13:20] Paula Dix: wow
[2010/01/12 13:20] freereed Freenote: i know the son of this missionary
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: who was killed and made a martyr
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: is also recounted in the book on ghandhi
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: from which the film was made
[2010/01/12 13:21] freereed Freenote: end story
[2010/01/12 13:21] BrainCrave OHare: your discussion here reminds me of a book called Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (http://jim.com/econ/contents.html). he says this: "...the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."
[2010/01/12 13:21] herman Bergson: dont do that Brain
[2010/01/12 13:21] BrainCrave OHare: give a quote?
[2010/01/12 13:22] herman Bergson: check the rules behind me.
[2010/01/12 13:22] Paula Dix: freereed, whats the point on consequentialism on the story? i dont get it
[2010/01/12 13:23] herman Bergson: My problem with consequentialism is that it is about consequences and not about the person as a moral subject
[2010/01/12 13:23] Paula Dix: also, you cant ever be sure of the final consequences of anything, right?
[2010/01/12 13:23] freereed Freenote: the missionary;'s intention and christian morality... thru his being a zealot... resulted in the loss of more than 10,000 lives
[2010/01/12 13:23] Repose Lionheart: perhaps you could give more moral weight to the consequences of keeping your grandmother bound in the basement than to the effects of a redevelopment project, however many lives it might (or might ot) save
[2010/01/12 13:23] Repose Lionheart: not
[2010/01/12 13:24] Paula Dix: oh i see it freereed, thanks
[2010/01/12 13:24] herman Bergson: Well as the consequences are weight in respect to the happiness the bring...
[2010/01/12 13:24] Paula Dix: (on my anti-catholic thin king for geographical reasons there was no contrast on the story :))) )
[2010/01/12 13:25] Repose Lionheart: don't know how you judge between moral consequences, except perhaps deontologically
[2010/01/12 13:25] herman Bergson: IS any of you convinced that indeed only the consequences of our acts can determine the moral rightness or wrongnes of our actions?
[2010/01/12 13:25] Repose Lionheart: not me
[2010/01/12 13:25] Paula Dix: no
[2010/01/12 13:26] Aya Beaumont: No.
[2010/01/12 13:26] freereed Freenote: not me
[2010/01/12 13:26] Adriana Jinn: not either
[2010/01/12 13:26] Paula Dix: that would be the same as telling the ending is all that matter, not the in between
[2010/01/12 13:26] Aya Beaumont: The ends do not justify the means.
[2010/01/12 13:26] herman Bergson: Yes it seems to be a big chapter in present day debate on ethics
[2010/01/12 13:26] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[2010/01/12 13:26] Paula Dix: yes, you said it better Aya :)))
[2010/01/12 13:26] herman Bergson: it is opposed to deontological ethics
[2010/01/12 13:27] Paula Dix: and again, you can never the sure what the end is
[2010/01/12 13:27] herman Bergson: That Aya refers only to the result of consequences
[2010/01/12 13:27] Aya Beaumont: The more I think about it, the more I feel that several criteria are necessary to make a good act...
[2010/01/12 13:28] Paula Dix: and in the end we are never sure? :)
[2010/01/12 13:28] herman Bergson: Yes...if you talk about ends for instance there has to be intentionality too
[2010/01/12 13:28] Aya Beaumont: You need to have a good goal for it. You need to be a rather accurate judge of the consequences, and they need to be reasonably good in your eyes.
[2010/01/12 13:28] freereed Freenote: i have seen it played out many many times in real life and in history "beware them who come to do good"
[2010/01/12 13:28] Aya Beaumont: Making most actions morally neutral, of course.
[2010/01/12 13:28] Paula Dix: whats the difference between the consequence and the result of the consequence??
[2010/01/12 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: oh yes
[2010/01/12 13:29] herman Bergson: the consequence can be a fire..the result is ashes
[2010/01/12 13:29] Aya Beaumont: Ends presuppose a goal, yes. Not necessarily one that is reached either.
[2010/01/12 13:29] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/12 13:30] herman Bergson: Yes and I miss all these ideas in consequentialism
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: Indeed.
[2010/01/12 13:30] Paula Dix: herman, that wouldnt be a consequence of a consequence? you shouldnt take that into account when planning? all the line of consequences?
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: You can't. Your every action has consequences, an infinity of them.
[2010/01/12 13:30] herman Bergson: As you may have noticed..the very concept of consequence is already a candidate for long debates
[2010/01/12 13:30] Aya Beaumont: Your responsibility ends somewhere.
[2010/01/12 13:31] Paula Dix: i dont know, i feel i would never do anything if i would consider consequences only, because of this infinite progression
[2010/01/12 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: well you can try to see what you will accomplish
[2010/01/12 13:31] herman Bergson: Yes GEmma and the balance in the debate could be
[2010/01/12 13:31] herman Bergson: should we evaluate your intention
[2010/01/12 13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes, if consequence is so imprecise, perhaps it is not a primary category of moral understanding
[2010/01/12 13:32] herman Bergson: or ignore that and just evaluate the consequences of your action
[2010/01/12 13:32] Paula Dix: yes i liked that Repose
[2010/01/12 13:32] Aya Beaumont: You need to do both.
[2010/01/12 13:32] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: Yes Repose... I feel pretty uncomfortable with the consequentialist approach
[2010/01/12 13:33] Repose Lionheart: consequentialism seems to work best with large numbers, public policy?
[2010/01/12 13:33] Repose Lionheart: messy things
[2010/01/12 13:33] Aya Beaumont: No. That they use it is the reason we're losing our liberties today.
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: Of course we always think about the consequences...
[2010/01/12 13:33] herman Bergson: but is that the moral evaluation of our action?
[2010/01/12 13:34] herman Bergson: the complete evaluation?
[2010/01/12 13:34] Repose Lionheart: interesting point, Aye
[2010/01/12 13:34] freereed Freenote: well... gramma's rights were ignored when ye tied her up...
[2010/01/12 13:34] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/12 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: no one gets that pension!!
[2010/01/12 13:34] Aya Beaumont: Consequentialism is very closely related to pragmatism, or as it's also put, Realpolitik.
[2010/01/12 13:34] herman Bergson: That is the point freereed....
[2010/01/12 13:34] freereed Freenote: thank you, herman
[2010/01/12 13:35] Paula Dix: yes i still like ethics more as reference
[2010/01/12 13:35] herman Bergson: And indeed we end up with Real politics
[2010/01/12 13:35] Aya Beaumont: If you're a politician, it's comfortable.
[2010/01/12 13:35] Aya Beaumont: For everyone else, it's probably less than optimal.
[2010/01/12 13:36] Paula Dix: there are politicians that work for things like "common good"? I feel not...
[2010/01/12 13:36] herman Bergson: My problem is the evaluation of consequences.. using the pleasure /pain criterium
[2010/01/12 13:36] Paula Dix: that would be *the* consequence, isnt?
[2010/01/12 13:37] herman Bergson: The common good could be the greatest happiness of the greatest number...
[2010/01/12 13:37] freereed Freenote: hmmm... i thought was plato said the good government, just society based on Community of pleasures and pains
[2010/01/12 13:37] Paula Dix: yes, but i dont see politicians doing it. at least not here
[2010/01/12 13:37] Aya Beaumont: Plato is also one of the greatest enemies of the free society.
[2010/01/12 13:37] Paula Dix: its always acting for the party, for their group...
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: or themselves
[2010/01/12 13:38] herman Bergson: That is because the politicians think that they are the greatest number I guess
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/12 13:38] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: why Aya??
[2010/01/12 13:38] Aya Beaumont: Did you read his view of what the perfect society should be like?
[2010/01/12 13:38] Aya Beaumont shudders.
[2010/01/12 13:38] freereed Freenote: when mario cuomo ran for president he used plato's community of P&P and said the citizens are a Family
[2010/01/12 13:38] Paula Dix: lol ok
[2010/01/12 13:39] Aya Beaumont: Cute ideas like "the state's first priority is to do what's best for the state"
[2010/01/12 13:39] herman Bergson: ANd who is the state?
[2010/01/12 13:39] Paula Dix: yes! would he like Machiavelli??
[2010/01/12 13:40] Aya Beaumont: Machiavelli was quite a bit too liberal for Plato, I would say.
[2010/01/12 13:40] Repose Lionheart: probably not, but you'd have had it made if you were a Philosopher „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:40] Paula Dix: he was more practical than plato?
[2010/01/12 13:40] herman Bergson: Anyway... this is al I can make of consequentialism today
[2010/01/12 13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: the cat is still running
[2010/01/12 13:41] Adriana Jinn: lol
[2010/01/12 13:41] herman Bergson: When you read the articles...for every example is a counter example of consequences...
[2010/01/12 13:41] Paula Dix: for machiavelli i guess was easier to answer who is the state, it was the prince...
[2010/01/12 13:41] Aya Beaumont: No, oddly I mean that seriously. I read the Prince recently. I was quite surprised to see that the BEST society he could see was one where a democratic parliament held the king's power in check.
[2010/01/12 13:41] Paula Dix: nice!
[2010/01/12 13:42] herman Bergson smiles
[2010/01/12 13:42] Paula Dix: i never read him, only read a nice book about him and da Vinci, i liked the image of him there
[2010/01/12 13:42] herman Bergson: political philosophy might be a nice subject
[2010/01/12 13:42] Aya Beaumont: Machiavelli also (probably without noticing it) lays down principles for leadership that include a very strong tone of predictability.
[2010/01/12 13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes, political philosophy
[2010/01/12 13:43] Aya Beaumont: A precursor to the views of the violence monopoly of the state and some principles of the rule of law.
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: WEll...
[2010/01/12 13:43] Paula Dix: thats what i got from that book, he was a practical thinker
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: next time I'll present a defense of consequentialism by JJC Smart...
[2010/01/12 13:43] Repose Lionheart: „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:43] herman Bergson: His approach is interesting from a scientific/philosophical point of view
[2010/01/12 13:44] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/12 13:44] herman Bergson: Maybe he will convince me (tho I already read his etxts „ã°
[2010/01/12 13:44] herman Bergson: texts
[2010/01/12 13:45] Paula Dix: lol its curious that someone thinks it can be defended, cant wait for that
[2010/01/12 13:45] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[2010/01/12 13:45] herman Bergson: I would suggest to get together next Thursday and see what will happen then
[2010/01/12 13:45] Aya Beaumont: A philosophy that can tell you it's right to kill a healthy person to donate his organs to help three ill ones... nice...
[2010/01/12 13:45] Abraxas Nagy: sounds like its gonna be interesting
[2010/01/12 13:45] Paula Dix: yes, like that movie Brazil :)))
[2010/01/12 13:45] herman Bergson: Yes Aya..that is one of those dilemmas they struggle with
[2010/01/12 13:46] Aya Beaumont: Can't think why. =)
[2010/01/12 13:46] herman Bergson: I'll give JJC Smart a fair chance to make his point
[2010/01/12 13:47] herman Bergson: So I would say...enjoy your day and see you next class:)
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: ‚ô• Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ‚ô•
[2010/01/12 13:47] Aya Beaumont: Thank you.
[2010/01/12 13:47] herman Bergson: and thank you for your participation
[2010/01/12 13:47] Abraxas Nagy: thank you
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: thursday hope so
[2010/01/12 13:47] Ze Novikov: yes, ty Herman
[2010/01/12 13:47] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Prof. Great stuff!
[2010/01/12 13:47] Abraxas Nagy: as always
[2010/01/12 13:47] Paula Dix: hope i can be here thursday, this is great!
[2010/01/12 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: lol yes
[2010/01/12 13:47] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman
[2010/01/12 13:48] herman Bergson: My pleasure
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: thank you
[2010/01/12 13:48] Qwark Allen: nice to be back
[2010/01/12 13:48] Adriana Jinn: have a good evening
[2010/01/12 13:48] herman Bergson: Bye Adriana