20 Virtue Ethics and Ethic of Care

With our subject of Virtue ethics we have arrived at a fairly new station along the tracks of modern theories of ethics. It is exciting to discover that it plays an important role in the debates on ethics of today.

This means that in the research in preparation of my lecture I run into an abundance of new issues, names, publications related to Virtue Ethics. And we first have to sort them al out to get to the heart of the debate.

For instance, in my former lecture I mentioned the author of 'Lack of Character (2002), John M. Doris. Further research showed that he is not just somebody.
http://moralpsychology.net/jdoris/

He also has written an article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy about Moral psychology. Let me quote him, so that you see how psychology and philosophy of ethics have become close connected these days.

-begin quote
To date, discussion of empirical psychology in philosophical ethics has tended to focus on moral character.

In contrast to Kantianism and Utilitarianism, which share an emphasis on identifying morally obligatory actions, the burgeoning tradition of contemporary virtue ethics emphasizes the psychological constitution, or character, of actors.

The central question for virtue ethics, so the slogan goes, is not what sort of action to do, but what sort of person to be. The importance of moral psychology to this tradition is not far to seek.

On the one hand, proponents of virtue ethics often contend that ethical theories focused on character manifest greater psychological realism than do their competitors .

On the other, there are masses of empirical research in personality and social psychology that appear directly relevant to familiar philosophical notions of character;

although the parallel was not much noticed until fairly recently, philosophers and psychologists had, to a considerable extent, been talking about the same things.
-end quote

And all this is mainly caused by Margret Anscombe 's article "Modern Moral Philosophy". Interesting to note, that when I was a philosophy student at the university in the early 70s, virtue ethics wasn't a subject at all.

The whole program was heavily leaning on deontological ethics, in particular Kant. In my program was some room for philosophers like Hare (emotivism) and Moore. Utilitarianism wasn't hardly mentioned, nor jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill.

So you can imagine that my "discovery" of virtue ethics (for me a logical outcome of our study of deontology and utilitarianism in all former lectures) is very exciting. In a way it fits into my personal ideas and frame of mind. On the other hand it opens all kinds of new perspectives and relations.

So lest summarize the potion we have reached once again. Moral theories are concerned with right and wrong behavior. This subject area of philosophy is unavoidably tied up with practical concerns about the right behavior.

However, virtue ethics changes the kind of question we ask about ethics. Where deontology and consequentialism concern themselves with the right action, virtue ethics is concerned with the good life and what kinds of persons we should be.

“What is the right action?” is a significantly different question to ask from “How should I live? What kind of person should I be?”

Where the first type of question deals with specific dilemmas, the second is a question about an entire life. Instead of asking what is the right act here and now, virtue ethics asks what kind of person should I be in order to get it right all the time.

Whereas deontology and consequentialism are based on rules that try to give us the right action, virtue ethics makes central use of the concept of character.

The answer to “How should one live?” is that one should live virtuously, i.e. have a virtuous character. [from IEP]

Another interesting aspect of our present subject is its relation with my former project on Women Philosophers. Not only because Margret Anscombe had a crucial influence in this matter. There is more. Just read this.

-begin quote
Over the past fifteen years, Carol Gilligan has been listening to women and men talk about morality. [In] her book, In a Different Voice (l982a), Gilligan describes a moral universe in which men,

more often than women, conceive of morality as substantively constituted by obligations and rights and as procedurally constituted by the demands of fairness and impartiality,

while women, more often than men, see moral requirements as emerging from the particular needs of others in the context of particular relationships.

Gilligan has dubbed this latter orientation the "ethic of care," and she insists that the exclusive focus on justice reasoning has obscured both its psychological reality and its normative significance.
-end quote

Because the relation between the theory of ethics ands psychology has become more tight due to the issue of virtue, there has developed also a feminist approach to ethics.

Where such other moral theories as Kantian morality and utilitarianism demand impartiality above all, the ethics of care understands the moral import of ties to families and groups. It evaluates such ties, differing from virtue ethics by focusing on caring relations rather than the virtues of individuals.

Another result and modern development thanks to Margret Anscombe.

To be continued next week…………


The Discussion

[13:22] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:22] herman Bergson: If you have any questions or remarks, feel free.....
[13:23] Laila Schuman: how does this relate to politics
[13:23] Repose Lionheart: great stuff!
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:23] herman Bergson: Maybe this lecture gives little rise to debate, I know
[13:23] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:23] Gemma Cleanslate: i think it makes more sense
[13:23] Laila Schuman: what government should be
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: to have a set ready and not to have to decide with each act
[13:24] herman Bergson: Yes Laila... I read somewhere a reference to politics and virtue ethics....
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: hmm yes and that government make right decisions for people and not just for themselves
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: as is case at many places in the world
[13:24] Bejiita Imako: china ex
[13:24] Repose Lionheart: yeah, makes more sense
[13:24] Gemma Cleanslate: laila the government connection project has not started yet in full
[13:25] herman Bergson: Yes.. a peculiar phenomenon that a government is more interested in its own preservation than that of the people
[13:25] Gemma Cleanslate: that is so true
[13:25] Laila Schuman: true... but i was thinking of the difference that herman brought up between the masculine and feminist approaches
[13:25] Bejiita Imako: indeed, they feed themselves then either jail n execute people or let them starve to death, make me so sad
[13:25] Adriana Jinn: unfortunatly
[13:26] herman Bergson: But what is more important to learn is that the person is put again in the center of the debate on ethics
[13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: that is true yes
[13:26] herman Bergson: Not only the person, but also its psychology
[13:26] Bejiita Imako: ah yes
[13:26] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: even biology
[13:27] herman Bergson: I think we all have felt the cerebral character of discussions on deontological ethics and consequentialism
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:27] herman Bergson: yes Repose...
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: omg yes
[13:27] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: !!
[13:27] Repose Lionheart: too much so
[13:27] herman Bergson: And the fact that I kept saying... I am missing something in this debate...
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: we all felt so I think
[13:28] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:28] herman Bergson: I think that virtue ethics has put the discourse back on the right track
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: agreed!
[13:29] herman Bergson: If that is so Gemma, then we went trough a good learning process ㋡
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:29] herman Bergson: It is interesting to see that many important publications are from 2001 and after
[13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: i will always think of it as the cat chasing its tail lesson
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:30] herman Bergson smiles
[13:30] herman Bergson: Yes… something like that indeed
[13:31] herman Bergson: What is so interesting to me is that when I was a student virtue ethics just didnt exist
[13:31] herman Bergson: so Like I discovered evolutionary epistemology I now have discovered this issue
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: really?
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: but it seems to be rooted way back with Plato
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: no ancient analogs?
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes...GEmma
[13:32] herman Bergson: But due to centuries of christianity the aristotelian ideas of virtue were blacked out
[13:32] Repose Lionheart: ooh
[13:32] herman Bergson: Ethics became a matter of deontology.... a matter or rules following..
[13:33] herman Bergson: and this is related with the idea that these rules must come from a lawgiver...
[13:33] herman Bergson: and religion has such lawgiver in a god or revelation through the bible
[13:34] Repose Lionheart: theology dominated
[13:34] herman Bergson: the utilitarians tried to escape that lawgiver/deontic idea
[13:34] herman Bergson: they made use to calculators of happiness by evaluating consequences
[13:35] Alarice Beaumont: sorry... i have to go :-(
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: al
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: bye, Alarice
[13:35] herman Bergson: and virtue ethics goes back to the agent in all this, the acting human, and his psychology
[13:35] Bejiita Imako: bye Alarice
[13:36] Alarice Beaumont: bye :-)
[13:36] herman Bergson: Bye Alarice, be well
[13:36] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye :o) Ala
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: wow, 2000 year story arc
[13:36] herman Bergson: Yes indeed Repose...
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: ah yes and thats logical because as u said before, who we are determine how we act
[13:36] herman Bergson: amazing....
[13:36] Bejiita Imako: at least a great deal
[13:37] herman Bergson: Yes Bejita, that is becoming the focus of the debate now
[13:37] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:37] herman Bergson: We still have not zeroed in on the real matter of virtue, but we'll soon get to that
[13:38] herman Bergson: I think Next Tuesday we'll get to that in more detail
[13:38] Repose Lionheart:(^_^)
[13:38] Bejiita Imako: ah
[13:38] Adriana Jinn: ok
[13:39] herman Bergson: The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Stanford Encyclopedia both have very good articles on this subject.
[13:40] herman Bergson: I'll certainly will use these as sources
[13:40] Bejiita Imako: oki
[13:40] herman Bergson: Any questions left unanswered?
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: do you think virtue ethics is a deeper position than duty or consequestialist ehtics
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: ?
[13:41] herman Bergson: Personally I would say yes...
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:41] Gemma Cleanslate: at least it is understandable
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: it combines the strengths of both the other positions
[13:42] herman Bergson: My reasons for this are, that it has a closer link to realistic psychology
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:42] Bejiita Imako: that can be true
[13:43] herman Bergson: and that deontic theories are hard to hold, because we have lost our belief in who formulates the obligation, the laws
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: i see
[13:43] herman Bergson: and consequentialism is a too theoretical construct in my opinion...
[13:43] ZANICIA Chau: bravo
[13:44] Bejiita Imako: if the one making the rules have a bad personality everything he decide becomes wrong
[13:44] herman Bergson: the idea of pain and pleasure was well understood, but the theory is before the emergence of evolutionary theory and psychology
[13:44] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:44] herman Bergson: a good example of this is Jeremey Bentham, who made even pleasure/pain calculations
[13:45] herman Bergson: Mill dropped that idea, but yet it shows how theoretical the theory was
[13:45] herman Bergson: this does not mean that we should not think anymore about the consequences of our actions....
[13:46] Adriana Jinn: of course
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: that we must always do
[13:46] herman Bergson: but in virtue ethics we look at them from a different perspective
[13:46] Bejiita Imako: from who you are
[13:46] herman Bergson: yes Bejita
[13:47] Bejiita Imako: seems logical
[13:47] herman Bergson: Well I think that we have come a long way and really found something to work on...
[13:48] Adriana Jinn: hi rod
[13:48] herman Bergson: So.. I would like to thank you for your participation today and hope to see you next Tuesday
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: Hi Adriana
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: hmm ill try to come by then
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: :)
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: see you Tuesday
[13:48] herman Bergson: Rodney!! Right on time as usual
[13:48] Adriana Jinn: thank you so much herman
[13:48] Bejiita Imako: can be interesting
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: lololol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor!
[13:48] bergfrau Apfelbaum: daanke herman!
[13:48] Rodney Handrick: Hi Herman
[13:49] ZANICIA Chau: Thanks very much
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: well at least we know you are alive Rod
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: lol...hi Gemma
[13:49] Adriana Jinn: hihih
[13:49] Bejiita Imako: hi Rodney
[13:49] Rodney Handrick: Hi Bejiita
[13:49] herman Bergson: Class dismissed
[13:49] Jarapanda Snook: Thanks Herman
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:50] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:50] Bejiita Imako: interesting this
[13:50] Qwark Allen: thank you
[13:50] Bejiita Imako whispers: :)

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

17 A defense of consequentialism

J.J.C.Smart, an Australian philosopher born in 1920, works in ethics and philosophy of science. His defense of utilitarianism in Utilitarianism: For and Against (1973), co-authored with Bernard Williams.

After distinguishing various types of utilitarianism, (and there are a dozen or so at least) Smart opts for actutilitarianism. He hopes that our widely shared desires to promote everyone’s happiness may lead others to become actutilitarians too.

I wondered what makes utilitarianism and consequentialism so popular among empiricist philosophers. The answer is quite obvious. It makes the notions of good and bad in fact 100% empirical.We all can see the consequences, don't we?

"Act-utilitarianism is the view that the rightness of an action depends only on the total goodness or badness of its consequences, i.e. on the effect on the welfare of all human beings (or perhaps all sentient beings).", is Smart's thesis.

He rejects the idea that act-utilitarian principles could be known to be true by intellectual intuition and holds the view that ultimate ethical principles depend on attitudes or feelings.

This is his first argument: ethical principles depend on attitudes or feelings and thus have no truth-value. This is what is called the non-cognitivist position in metaethics.

Smart: "In adopting such a metaethics, I renounce the attempt to prove the act-utilitarian system. I shall be concerned with stating it in a form which may appear persuasive to some people, and to show how it may be defended against objections."

And then he formulates his goal: "In setting up a system of normative ethics, the utilitarian must appeal to ultimate attitudes which he holds in common with those whom he is addressing.

The sentiment to which he appeals is generalized benevolence, the disposition to seek happiness or good consequences for all mankind, or perhaps for all sentient beings."

This is the quintessence of his position: he regards generalized benevolence, something like the attitude that eventually we would love to see everybody happy, as an empirical fact of being human.

And then he makes an remarkable statement about the defender of actutilitarism: "He will not be able to convince everybody, but that is not an objection. It may well be that there is no ethical system which appeals to all people."

Bentham evaluated the consequences just by their plain pleasantness, which is a hedonistic utilitarianism. Mill made a distinction in qualities of pleasantness: playing darts isn't just as pleasant as reading poetry for instance.

Moore believed that some states of mind, such as knowledge, had intrinsic value independent of their pleasantness. As if you could say that pleasantness combines with act of acquiring knowledge is a higher quality of pleasantness than winning a game of darts.

Smart: "I shall now state the act-utilitarian doctrine. (…) Let us say, then, that the only reason for performing an action A rather than an alternative action B is that doing A will make mankind (or, perhaps, all sentient beings) happier than will doing B.

This is so simple and natural a doctrine that we can expect that many readers will have some propensity to agree. For I am talking, as I said earlier, to sympathetic and benevolent men, that is, to men who desire the happiness of mankind.
(…)

The utilitarian’s ultimate moral principle, let it be remembered, expresses the sentiment not of altruism but of benevolence, the agent counting himself neither more nor less than any other person."

Smart: "The utilitarian position is here put forward as a criterion of rational choice. We may choose to habituate ourselves to behave in accordance with certain rules, such as to keep promises, in the belief that behaving in accordance with these rules is generally optimific (productive of the best outcome),

and in the knowledge that we often do not have time to work out pros and cons. The actutilitarian will regard these rules as mere rules of thumb and will use them only as rough guides. He acts in accordance with rules when there is no time to think.

When he has to think what to do, then there is a question of deliberation or choice, and it is for such situations that the utilitarian criterion is intended."

I almost hear David Hume say: "Custom is the great guide of life."

And here the final stand. Smart: "Among possible options, utilitarianism does have its appeal. With its empirical attitude to means and ends it is congenial to the scientific temper and it has flexibility to deal with a changing world.

This last consideration is, however, more self recommendation than justification. For if flexibility is a recommendation, this is because of the utility of flexibility."

Let me draw the picture: We live in an empirical world, in which is no such thing as an objective moral truth. What we have at the best is the empirical observation of the human attitude of generalized benevolence and the quality of rationality, since the utilitarian position is according to Smart a rational choice.

Based on that we have to keep a sharp eye on the consequences of our actions for them to stay in tune with our benevolence. If we do so we act morally right.

And here I rest my case………


The Discussion

[2010/01/19 13:26] Repose Lionheart: !
[2010/01/19 13:26] herman Bergson: And this leads to a room full of actutilitarians?????
[2010/01/19 13:26] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:27] Repose Lionheart: not me
[2010/01/19 13:27] Alarice Beaumont: i find this quite difficult today... my head is bursting
[2010/01/19 13:27] Abraxas Nagy: same here
[2010/01/19 13:27] herman Bergson: why not you Repose, what is missing in this argument?
[2010/01/19 13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: to many big words lol'
[2010/01/19 13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice, I understand
[2010/01/19 13:27] Repose Lionheart: i think the weakness is in making attitudes and feelings the basis of ultimate ethical principles --
[2010/01/19 13:27] Adriana Jinn: sorry i mist lots of it
[2010/01/19 13:27] Gemma Cleanslate: and ideas
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: why is benevolence compelling
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: ?
[2010/01/19 13:28] oola Neruda: is it really enough to "mean well"?
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: why not disgust?
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: i have to agree with that, Repose
[2010/01/19 13:28] Adriana Jinn: my english is not good enough today
[2010/01/19 13:28] Corona Anatine: what would you have as the basis instead
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: before that is
[2010/01/19 13:28] herman Bergson: I agree Repose..
[2010/01/19 13:28] Repose Lionheart: recall someone tried "disgust" once
[2010/01/19 13:28] Abraxas Nagy: it looks good to me Adriana
[2010/01/19 13:28] Gemma Cleanslate: the whole thing sounds very convoluted as ethics
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: Well..there is an empirical basis for that Repose
[2010/01/19 13:29] Repose Lionheart: oh
[2010/01/19 13:29] Adriana Jinn: nice for you abraxas
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: Humans all have the same facial expressions for instance when disgusting something
[2010/01/19 13:29] Adriana Jinn: yes
[2010/01/19 13:29] herman Bergson: for instance ... offering them to eat dog shit..
[2010/01/19 13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[2010/01/19 13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[2010/01/19 13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes, but the things that disgust them are culturally variable
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: some things not all
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: Or have them play with the idea that they have a mouth full of dogshit......
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: there are things that are of universal disgust
[2010/01/19 13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: yuck
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: There seems to be a general feeling of disgust
[2010/01/19 13:30] Corona Anatine: related to biology mostly
[2010/01/19 13:30] Repose Lionheart: don't feel it sufficient to found an ethics upon though
[2010/01/19 13:30] herman Bergson: yes Corona...and we are biological beings
[2010/01/19 13:31] Repose Lionheart: or benevolence
[2010/01/19 13:31] Corona Anatine: in vedic lore they present the student with a human turd on a dinner plate
[2010/01/19 13:31] Adriana Jinn: what is benevolence ?
[2010/01/19 13:31] Corona Anatine: to help contemplate the human condition
[2010/01/19 13:31] herman Bergson: I think I have the same feeling, Repose..... the missing of that something special of being human
[2010/01/19 13:31] Repose Lionheart: brb -- just got a tornado warning in rl
[2010/01/19 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: OMG!!!
[2010/01/19 13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: omg
[2010/01/19 13:32] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[2010/01/19 13:32] herman Bergson: benevolence is the feeling of the wish that everybody should be happy\
[2010/01/19 13:32] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: it is a feeling of kindliness adraina
[2010/01/19 13:32] herman Bergson: a tornado warning????
[2010/01/19 13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:32] Adriana Jinn: thanks you
[2010/01/19 13:32] Alarice Beaumont: omg
[2010/01/19 13:32] Adriana Jinn: ok
[2010/01/19 13:33] Corona Anatine: the problem then falls down to the fact that not everyone finds happiness in the same things
[2010/01/19 13:33] herman Bergson: yes....kindness...and isnt that a universaly recognized feeling?
[2010/01/19 13:33] Corona Anatine: gay sex for example
[2010/01/19 13:33] herman Bergson: No..Corona, but is that an objection to the general theory
[2010/01/19 13:33] Repose Lionheart: back, all ok
[2010/01/19 13:33] Paula Dix: i dont know... if parents are "benevolent" toward children, the children wont grow being egocentric without responsebility?
[2010/01/19 13:34] herman Bergson: Here we have the problem Paula....an endless discussion about the meaniing of benevolent
[2010/01/19 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: well that is an expression of helping the child grow to mature understanding
[2010/01/19 13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: of right and wrong
[2010/01/19 13:35] Paula Dix: then benevolent will also be a emotional moral idea?
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: happiness is such a low goal, though
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: why is that compelling?
[2010/01/19 13:35] herman Bergson: But Smart explicitely states that there are no absolute moral standards
[2010/01/19 13:35] Corona Anatine: what would a mature understand of right and wrong be ?
[2010/01/19 13:35] Repose Lionheart: what about joy
[2010/01/19 13:35] Corona Anatine: why do you consider happiness to be a low goal
[2010/01/19 13:35] herman Bergson: Here again Repose.....
[2010/01/19 13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: tht is the problem here lol
[2010/01/19 13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: ethics
[2010/01/19 13:36] herman Bergson: the problem with all such theories is the meaning of the concepts
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: in my experience joy is so much better
[2010/01/19 13:36] Paula Dix: i cant accept the dismissal of emotions. Throw out half of you and use the rest to be happy? makes no sense
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: yes, Prof
[2010/01/19 13:36] Corona Anatine: if you were happy all th e time would it have any meaning
[2010/01/19 13:36] herman Bergson: that is one of the reasons why this whole debate in literature on consequentialism is littered with casuitic
[2010/01/19 13:36] Repose Lionheart: oh
[2010/01/19 13:37] Corona Anatine: surely part of happiness lies in the contrast with when you are not
[2010/01/19 13:37] herman Bergson: when you take position A, there always is someone who comes up with a case in which position A leads to odd results
[2010/01/19 13:38] herman Bergson: same with pleasure and pain Corona
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:38] Paula Dix: exact, corona mentioned it, you cant never be sure of where will it end
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: a, not a
[2010/01/19 13:38] Repose Lionheart: maybe duty and consequestialist ethics are two parts of a whole
[2010/01/19 13:38] herman Bergson: To be honest...that is what makes me so tired of all these debates between consequentialists
[2010/01/19 13:39] Paula Dix: well in this sense of happiness, i guess the idea would be to raise the lower limit, like you will never remove completely poverty, but the lower limit can be raised
[2010/01/19 13:39] Corona Anatine: you find them inconsequential ?
[2010/01/19 13:39] herman Bergson: Worth a thought Repose..indeed
[2010/01/19 13:39] Paula Dix: lol corona
[2010/01/19 13:39] Corona Anatine: : )
[2010/01/19 13:40] Repose Lionheart: hehe Corona
[2010/01/19 13:40] herman Bergson: maybe you are right Corona
[2010/01/19 13:40] Corona Anatine: raising the flow limit would be one answer
[2010/01/19 13:40] herman Bergson: What I completely miss in the utilitarian approach is man himself
[2010/01/19 13:41] Corona Anatine: but first you would need to define how that could be done
[2010/01/19 13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes, a strength of duty ethics though right?
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: Like you find since Aristotle....virtue, duty, conscious
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: things like that
[2010/01/19 13:41] herman Bergson: Like Moore already stated... knowledge isnt just pleasure
[2010/01/19 13:42] herman Bergson: knowledge or love have an intrinsic value, other than pleasue
[2010/01/19 13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:42] herman Bergson: Like the example I gave in a former lecture
[2010/01/19 13:43] Corona Anatine: they might have value but it would be a vector not a scalar
[2010/01/19 13:43] herman Bergson: When my wife falls ill seriously and I need to offer a lot of care, (which is not always pleasant) that doesnt change the value of my love for her
[2010/01/19 13:43] Repose Lionheart: :-)
[2010/01/19 13:43] Paula Dix: exact, emotions must be part of the equation
[2010/01/19 13:44] herman Bergson: I can still lov eher or even love her more because what she has to endure
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:44] Adriana Jinn: yes sure
[2010/01/19 13:44] herman Bergson: so I think, pleasure and pain are an unsufficient ground for moral choices
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:44] Paula Dix: true
[2010/01/19 13:44] Corona Anatine: indeed
[2010/01/19 13:44] Adriana Jinn: surely
[2010/01/19 13:44] Repose Lionheart: and you've used love to demonstrate that
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: in your example
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: you lower your happiness to increase her
[2010/01/19 13:45] Repose Lionheart: more than a coincidence i believe
[2010/01/19 13:45] Corona Anatine: there are some who might argue that would that be right if the sum total of happiness overall was less
[2010/01/19 13:45] herman Bergson: yes....I think that is the missing part in utilitarianism and consequentialism....these specific (human) attitudes/traits.
[2010/01/19 13:46] herman Bergson: I have no idea how to calculate with happiness
[2010/01/19 13:46] Corona Anatine: nor i
[2010/01/19 13:46] herman Bergson: Bentham did it in absurdum...
[2010/01/19 13:47] Corona Anatine: how then to be certian of raining it
[2010/01/19 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: some would calculate it being alive at this point after being under concrete for 6 days
[2010/01/19 13:47] Corona Anatine: raising
[2010/01/19 13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: with not water or food or anything
[2010/01/19 13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes, Gemma
[2010/01/19 13:47] herman Bergson: yes happiness is just that then
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: but that misses the point slightly
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: that is adding context
[2010/01/19 13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: :-0
[2010/01/19 13:48] herman Bergson: Well, according to Smart, the moral debate is context related indeed
[2010/01/19 13:48] Corona Anatine: it can only really be said that for each person there are condiitons that will increase or decrease happiness
[2010/01/19 13:49] Corona Anatine: to state what condition they are is to value judge
[2010/01/19 13:49] herman Bergson: Yes and the moral debate is about the cosequences of my actions related to this increase or decrease
[2010/01/19 13:50] Corona Anatine: which make action difficult
[2010/01/19 13:50] Corona Anatine: because you can only be sure of the coseqquens to happiness if the other person was the same as you
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: Here we go again...
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: This is not necessarily so...
[2010/01/19 13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:51] Corona Anatine: partly why we have religious wars
[2010/01/19 13:51] herman Bergson: stealing somene's food is independent of his bein glike me
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: yes
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: but
[2010/01/19 13:52] herman Bergson: there are things that transcend personal feelings....like killinfg for instance
[2010/01/19 13:52] Corona Anatine: if you stole an anorexics food you would increrease their happines in the short term
[2010/01/19 13:52] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:53] herman Bergson: here you could say, and that is suggested with the idea of generalized benovolence, we are all the same
[2010/01/19 13:53] Paula Dix: like forcing children to school lower happiness at first
[2010/01/19 13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: oh dear
[2010/01/19 13:53] herman Bergson: yes but for real happiness you have to look at the longterm effects of course
[2010/01/19 13:53] Corona Anatine: the way forward might be to envisage happiness asa circle - the closer tot eh centre the more universal and important the things are
[2010/01/19 13:53] Paula Dix: consequences? :)
[2010/01/19 13:53] Alarice Beaumont: but there can be a common happiness..... look at the football world champion chip in germany
[2010/01/19 13:54] Corona Anatine: the ones at the outer edge ar e thoese less universal or fundamental
[2010/01/19 13:54] herman Bergson: But footbal (soccor) doesnt make me happy Alarice
[2010/01/19 13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: me either
[2010/01/19 13:54] Paula Dix: lol
[2010/01/19 13:55] Paula Dix: or me
[2010/01/19 13:55] Abraxas Nagy: me neither
[2010/01/19 13:55] Adriana Jinn: hihiih
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: nor does it a lot of the fans
[2010/01/19 13:55] Alarice Beaumont: lol.... but the whole spirit here did... even ppl who usually do not look football or are interested in it
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: as is it the football
[2010/01/19 13:55] herman Bergson: but maybe it does for the greatest number
[2010/01/19 13:55] Corona Anatine: or the sense of belonging
[2010/01/19 13:55] herman Bergson: so we are the succer minority
[2010/01/19 13:56] Paula Dix: wouldnt the first moral rule be survival?
[2010/01/19 13:56] herman Bergson: against the soccer majority
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: i found out they have it in sl now and i have to do a story about it lolollo
[2010/01/19 13:56] Paula Dix: lol football in sl should be funny
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: i saw a little this morning
[2010/01/19 13:56] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:56] Abraxas Nagy: HUH ??
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: Yes....there was a soccerfiled in the next sim in 2005
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: just practice
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: football in sl?
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:57] Corona Anatine: easily done
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: o no
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yep
[2010/01/19 13:57] Corona Anatine: you just need aprim sphere
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: Pulsia sim ... now it is gone
[2010/01/19 13:57] Paula Dix: physical ball...
[2010/01/19 13:57] Adriana Jinn: i have a friend that plays football on sl
[2010/01/19 13:57] Alarice Beaumont: well.. wasn't actually talking about soccer... lol more about the happiness all the ppl felt during that time^^
[2010/01/19 13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[2010/01/19 13:57] Abraxas Nagy: ah yes and some script
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: yes a physical prim sphere...
[2010/01/19 13:57] herman Bergson: not even script Abraxas...
[2010/01/19 13:58] Abraxas Nagy: oh?
[2010/01/19 13:58] Paula Dix: maybe gestures to kick
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: just a goal and a ball
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: could help...a gesture...
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: wel i think they are scripted
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: somehow
[2010/01/19 13:58] Corona Anatine: or instead we coild dicuss paint drying
[2010/01/19 13:58] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[2010/01/19 13:58] herman Bergson: I guess so too
[2010/01/19 13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[2010/01/19 13:59] Abraxas Nagy: a sphere wont act like a (foot)ball
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: Well I think it is time to look at the consequences of our debate and dismiss class
[2010/01/19 13:59] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[2010/01/19 13:59] Alarice Beaumont: lol sorry Herman about the distraction i caused lol
[2010/01/19 13:59] Paula Dix: lol paint drying is a cool theme :)
[2010/01/19 13:59] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: paint frying?
[2010/01/19 13:59] Paula Dix: :)))
[2010/01/19 13:59] herman Bergson: drying I mean
[2010/01/19 13:59] Adriana Jinn: thank you herman sorry not to participate more
[2010/01/19 14:00] herman Bergson: Dont worry Adriana
[2010/01/19 14:00] herman Bergson: I thank you all for your participation
[2010/01/19 14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[2010/01/19 14:00] Corona Anatine: well many people spend hours dicussing art
[2010/01/19 14:00] Abraxas Nagy: thank you herman
[2010/01/19 14:00] Repose Lionheart: yes, thank you
[2010/01/19 14:00] Alarice Beaumont: have a good evening all.... thanks Herman.. and bye for tonight :-)
[2010/01/19 14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: btw feathers boa has a wonderful exhibit
[2010/01/19 14:00] Paula Dix: yes, im not joking when i say paint drying is a cool theme
[2010/01/19 14:01] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Alarice
[2010/01/19 14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: i can give you a lm i f you like
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: when will the next project start?
[2010/01/19 14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: it is worth the trip
[2010/01/19 14:01] Paula Dix: i want Gemma!
[2010/01/19 14:01] Abraxas Nagy: see u all next time (i hope) :D
[2010/01/19 14:01] Adriana Jinn: next course ?
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: yes
[2010/01/19 14:01] herman Bergson: In one or two weeks max.
[2010/01/19 14:01] Repose Lionheart: ok ^_^

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