22 On Virtue Ethics

Virtue theory is the view that the foundation of morality is the development of good character traits, or virtues. A person is good, then, if he has virtues and lacks vices.

It is interesting to see that historically, virtue theory is the oldest normative tradition in Western philosophy, having its roots in ancient Greek civilization.

Aristotle is the man who in his Ethica Nicomachea gives an extensive account of what a virtue is. There he argues that moral virtues are desire-regulating character traits which are at a mean between more extreme character traits (or vices).

The virtue of courage thus is the mean between cowardice and rashness. He concludes that it is difficult to live the virtuous life primarily because it is often difficult to find the mean between the extremes.

By the late Middle Ages Aristotle's virtue theory was the definitive account of morality, especially insofar as it was endorsed by medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas.

With the waning of the Middle Ages and the rise of the Renaissance, the Scientific Revolution, and Enlightenment thought, the influence of Aristotle's virtue ethics declined.

So it was in the time that religion lost its leading position to science, that the theory of virtue was seriously criticized in particular by a Dutch philosopher, Hugo Grotius (1583 - 1645)

He was that man, who escaped from imprisonment in a castle by hiding himself in a bookcase. He was one of the supporters of the natural law theory. Like they discovered natural laws of physics, philosophers developed ideas regarding natural laws of morality.

For Grotius, morality involves conforming one's actions to moral laws which are fixed in nature and which even God cannot change. Grotius rejects the role of virtue assigned by Aristotle, and directly criticizes Aristotle's theory on three accounts.

First, Aristotle's doctrine of the mean fails to adequately explain basic moral concepts such as truthfulness and justice. A mean of what should such concepts be?

Second, in the case of justice, the person's particular motive does not matter. All that matters is following proper reason with respect to the rights of others. We'll get to this, when I'll discuss agent-based versus action-based ethics.

Third, contrary to Aristotle, the moral person does not have special moral insight simply because he is virtuous. Instead, morality is fixed in natural laws which can be rationally perceived by all.

Here you see how the virtue theory almost disappeared in the ethical discourse, on the one hand because of this natural law idea and the power of the ratio, which can obtain insight in these natural laws.

Of course you may see here the close link with Kantian philosophy and the deontological ethics. The Categorical Imperative, as Kant called it, was known by rational insight.

And on the other hand if you give primacy to the senses instead of the ratio you look at the effects of your actions and thus arrive at utilitarianism.

Here you see the quintessential meaning of virtue ethics. It is a critique of those theories of ethics, which leave out the "agent", as the acting person in ethical theory is usually called.

I am afraid, that you already have seen it coming. Grotius had a point: in matters of justice we don't judge a person by taking into account his virtuousness. We judge a person by his actions.

In the former lecture I mentioned Robert Loudon as the writer of the article on virtue ethics in the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In 1984 he published a book with the funny title "On Some Vices of Virtue Ethics". The content wasn't meant to be funny. It was one of the most systematic attacks on contemporary virtue theory.

Loudon has a long list of critiques of virtue ethics. To mention a few.: virtue theory is not designed to offer precise guidelines of obligation,

or the observation that character traits change, and unless we stay in practice, we risk losing our proficiency in these areas. This suggests a need for a more character-free way of assessing our conduct.

More serious questions are for instance : How do you determine who is virtuous? It does not help to look for some external criterion such as visible indications in the agent's action.

This all means that our next step will be an interesting one: what can be said in defense of virtue ethics. We are morally judged by our actions. Do we need virtue to decide whether something is right or bad?

How do we get to a moral judgement at all when we over-emphasize virtue? Is intention the link between virtue and action?

The big difference of approach in theories of ethics here is clear: “What is the right action?” is a significantly different question to ask from “How should I live? What kind of person should I be?” That is what it is all about.

If you have time, try to find out yourself how virtue ethics comes to a moral judgement. Next Tuesday we'll investigate what theory of ethics should prevail: agent- based or action-based theory. Or a combination maybe?


The Discussion

[13:25] herman Bergson: So much for today....
[13:25] Qwark Allen: ;-))
[13:25] herman Bergson: However, I want to add something to it.
[13:25] herman Bergson: I just stumbled on the problem
[13:26] herman Bergson: Virtue ethics leans heavily on education of character
[13:26] herman Bergson: as you know.....the chances to get a good education may depend on where you were born
[13:26] Corona Anatine: and when
[13:27] herman Bergson: And if this is the case... we get differences in character....differences in virtuousness...
[13:27] herman Bergson: Now we introduce the concept of Moral Luck
[13:28] herman Bergson: I wont say anything more about it, but you have to think about this problem
[13:28] herman Bergson: you find Moral luck as an entry in the IEP
[13:28] Corona Anatine: msiles - i see major problems in diff between agnet and action based
[13:28] herman Bergson: Thomas Nagel has a very clear theory about it
[13:28] Repose Lionheart: virtue results from "education" understood broadly, right?
[13:28] Corona Anatine: no
[13:28] herman Bergson: yes
[13:28] Corona Anatine: disaggree
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: but, yes, "moral luck"
[13:29] herman Bergson: not just school, but also by learning from rolemodels etc
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:29] Repose Lionheart: life
[13:29] Corona Anatine: not viable at least not fully
[13:29] herman Bergson: Yes..it is about life long learning
[13:29] Corona Anatine: because oftewn
[13:29] Corona Anatine: children rebel agiant parental values
[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:30] Corona Anatine: so a child of veggies might take up meat eating
[13:30] oola Neruda: what about the changes in society... what was expected when i was young has changed with the women's movement and other social evolution
[13:30] Repose Lionheart: i've wondered about the Achilles' Heel of philosophers
[13:31] oola Neruda: even in one person ... it gets confusing... let alone a society/culture
[13:31] herman Bergson: Yes oola , a good point
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: they seek greater clarity
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: as much clarity as possible
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: Loudon may be seeking too much
[13:31] Repose Lionheart: only as much clarity as can be achieved can be achieved
[13:32] Corona Anatine: the agent / action thing is problematic because it is possible to envisage a nazi who is kind to chidren
[13:32] herman Bergson: AVirtue ethics began as a protest against ethical theories that claimed that you can explain morality by usinfg one principle... rules
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Corona....
[13:32] Corona Anatine: yes because rules have to have something to measure
[13:33] Corona Anatine: it is more like aglebra than arithmetic
[13:33] herman Bergson: That is in fact a kind of comment Loudon gave too....
[13:33] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:33] herman Bergson: are virtues remaining and stable qualities of the person or can they disappear?
[13:34] Corona Anatine: are the personality aspects of anyone unchanging
[13:34] herman Bergson: Rules tell us what to do, independent of our character…
[13:34] herman Bergson: that makes rule based theories so attractive
[13:34] Corona Anatine: yes but the rules come from where?
[13:34] Corona Anatine: peoples virtue
[13:34] Corona Anatine: so
[13:35] herman Bergson: Virtue ethics doesnt primarily look at specific cases...it looks at life itself
[13:35] Corona Anatine: vitrue makes for virtue
[13:35] Corona Anatine: it is a large circle
[13:35] herman Bergson: Yes Corona....rules come from where....That is why the rule based theories got criticized
[13:36] herman Bergson: The idea of a transcendental Lawgiver is not acceptable anymore as an explanation or justification
[13:36] herman Bergson: That doubt about that Lawgiver started already around 160
[13:36] herman Bergson: 1600
[13:36] Corona Anatine: and even if such an entity is accepted it is impossible to know if they are virtuous
[13:37] herman Bergson: In fact, virtue ethics goes back to the old Greek ideals
[13:37] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes, god is does not necessarily lead to god is good
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: has a good basis then
[13:37] Corona Anatine: would it be any better to define what is unvirtuous
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: 2 sides of same coin, maybe
[13:38] herman Bergson: I dont see the difference in defining A or not-A
[13:38] Corona Anatine: which brings in context
[13:38] herman Bergson: they imply each other
[13:39] herman Bergson: One important characteristic of virtue ethics is that it doesnt claim to be one monolithic theory of ethics
[13:40] Corona Anatine: an agent if defined as virtuous by their actions
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: we know something of virtue -- in a way, psychology is a "science" of moral management
[13:40] herman Bergson: moral action is situation-related for instance...
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: but not a "heard" science
[13:40] Repose Lionheart: hard
[13:40] Corona Anatine: or more particular the end results of actions
[13:40] herman Bergson: that means that indeed that ethics is not science
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:41] Paula Dix: btw, why psychology isnt a science? I dont understand that
[13:41] herman Bergson: Nor is it an absolute theory, like a rule based theory can be
[13:41] Corona Anatine: because to be a science the experimental results have to be reproducible
[13:41] herman Bergson: Psychology is a science....
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: it has scientific aspects...
[13:42] Corona Anatine: and can that be said of ethics?
[13:42] herman Bergson: well...so it is accepted
[13:42] herman Bergson: but it is a statistical science....
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:42] Paula Dix: i see
[13:42] herman Bergson: in fact close the ethical theory in that respect...
[13:42] Paula Dix: yes, statistical, i thought that :))))
[13:42] Adriana Jinn: yes
[13:42] Corona Anatine: hmm statistical ethics
[13:42] herman Bergson: unable to come with laws of nature like statements about the human being
[13:42] Corona Anatine: a wonderful term
[13:43] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:43] Paula Dix: lol corona, interesting
[13:43] Adriana Jinn: indeed
[13:43] herman Bergson: you were to quick with your observation Corona
[13:43] herman Bergson: Ethics isnt a statistical science
[13:44] Paula Dix: yes i can see where psychology and ethics are related, very interesting
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ethics is about our judgements of right and wrong
[13:44] Corona Anatine: yes
[13:45] herman Bergson: Although we have empirical material...the moral action , statistics do not apply....
[13:45] herman Bergson: However!
[13:45] Corona Anatine: then it could easily be said that ethics is as fluid as language
[13:45] Paula Dix: yes, ethics itself isnt statistical, but to apply statistics to it surely would give interesting results
[13:45] herman Bergson: Just do a search on MORAL PSYCHOLOGY
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:45] herman Bergson: There is a lot of research on moral behavior....
[13:46] herman Bergson: Remember the Milgram experiments I mentioned before!
[13:46] Corona Anatine: at any momen of time a language works in and of itself
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: 1,620,000 results on Google
[13:46] herman Bergson: WOW
[13:46] Corona Anatine: but over time it becomes incomprehensible
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: yes!
[13:46] herman Bergson: This proofs that ethics IS a subject of psychological research
[13:47] Gemma Cleanslate: OH YES
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:47] herman Bergson: However, you first have to define what your theory of ethics is before you can do the research
[13:47] Adriana Jinn: certainly
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:47] Corona Anatine: one way perhaps would be to study how other social species interact
[13:47] herman Bergson: and here we are again at the beginning of thinking: philosophy
[13:48] Corona Anatine: [thinking mainly of vertebartes here not bees etc]
[13:48] herman Bergson: It may be interesting to investigate whether psychological research assumes deontological or consequentialist concepts
[13:49] herman Bergson: Or does it investigate character, personality traits related to moral actions and judgements
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:49] Gemma Cleanslate: will have to watch
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:49] herman Bergson: Always interesting when you read about such research
[13:49] herman Bergson: Milgram tested obedience
[13:50] herman Bergson: in fact he tested how strong the deontological ethics of a person was
[13:50] Adriana Jinn: interesting but not easy because many theories
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: You ought to obey (authority/ rules of the game etc)
[13:51] Corona Anatine: [as an aside -doesnt dawkins god delusion mention some research that was done into morality]
[13:51] herman Bergson: Well....the present landscape of ethical theories is covered by the distinction deontological/consequentialist/virtuous theories
[13:52] herman Bergson: Your task is to think for yourself, where you stand and why
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: good question
[13:52] herman Bergson: May I give you this assignment for the weekend ? ^_^
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: ohoh
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: hehe
[13:53] Qwark Allen: AAHH!!!
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:53] Corona Anatine: smiles -not heard those words since i was at uin
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ok
[13:53] Corona Anatine: UNi
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Corona I am a little old fashioned
[13:53] Paula Dix: lol good to prepare me for next semester starting in 15 days :)))
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lolol
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: not at all, Prof
[13:53] Corona Anatine: old ways are the best sometimes
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: hurry we have to go lol
[13:54] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:54] herman Bergson smiles
[13:54] Qwark Allen: l ☺☺☺ l
[13:54] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:54] herman Bergson: We covered a lot of ground today....
[13:54] Corona Anatine: one thougth comes to me
[13:54] Qwark Allen: indeed
[13:54] herman Bergson: Next lecture will be on the defense of Virtue ethics
[13:55] Corona Anatine: before we can define virtuous dont we have to define how such can be measured - what is a theft or a lie
[13:55] herman Bergson: So I think it is a good moment to dismiss class unless you still have questions left
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: what is the assignment
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: defense??
[13:55] herman Bergson: the assingment is multiple...
[13:56] herman Bergson: check out moral luck
[13:56] Repose Lionheart: ok
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:56] herman Bergson: check out where you stand
[13:56] herman Bergson: check out what is virtue
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: right here lol
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: ok
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[13:56] Gemma Cleanslate: all see you tuesday
[13:56] Corona Anatine: did you mean to write moral luck or did you mean moral lack
[13:56] bergfrau Apfelbaum: bye bye Gemma :-))
[13:56] Paula Dix: bye!
[13:56] Adriana Jinn: bye bye
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: you can come to the party
[13:57] herman Bergson: and Yes corona....one of the critiques of virtue ethics is: how to measure virtuousness...That was what Loudon already said
[13:57] Corona Anatine: ah ok
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: Luck, i think
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: ok how to measure
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: 1,600,00 entries on google
[13:57] Corona Anatine: to be read by tuesday ?
[13:57] herman Bergson: for moral luck, Repose?
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: yes, prof
[13:58] herman Bergson: did you an advanced search....
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: nope
[13:58] herman Bergson: otherwise it hits on luck and on moral equally
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...
[13:58] Repose Lionheart: sec
[13:58] herman Bergson: if you do an advanced search it takes the both words as one search key
[13:58] Paula Dix: i guess if you use "" also
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: sorry, 1.600,00 was for moral psychology
[13:59] herman Bergson: in a normal search it takes moral luck, luck and moral as three keys
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: fewer than 200,00 of "moral luck"
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: for
[13:59] herman Bergson: very good repose!
[13:59] Corona Anatine: thinking of virtues /morality
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: put "moral luck" in quotes
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: holds the two words together
[14:00] Corona Anatine: i saw a u tube thing a while ago about south american amazon rtribes
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: oh
[14:00] herman Bergson: Google has an option called advanced search
[14:00] Repose Lionheart: hmmm...will check it out
[14:00] Corona Anatine: in which children are buried alive for the good of the tribes survival
[14:01] Corona Anatine: thast would make for an interesting moral choice
[14:01] herman Bergson: which may be effective indeed: one mouth less to fill
[14:01] Corona Anatine: cant be an esy thing to do tho
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: that should have been 200,000 and 1,600,000 above
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: that
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: buried alive
[14:02] Paula Dix: corona i saw that recently too
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: shudder
[14:02] herman Bergson: I gathered that already
[14:02] Paula Dix: a helper who took a girl who was buried for having some defect
[14:02] Paula Dix: and took her home
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: oh
[14:02] herman Bergson: The romans acted similar....
[14:02] Repose Lionheart: was the helper a member of the tribe?
[14:02] Corona Anatine: it highlights the shifting nature of morality
[14:03] Paula Dix: its totally horrible, they just bury the children alive!
[14:03] Paula Dix: no, helper from city
[14:03] Repose Lionheart: oh
[14:03] herman Bergson: Creepy idea.....
[14:03] Repose Lionheart: yes
[14:04] Paula Dix: could at least kill person first, in a more human way
[14:04] Corona Anatine: inded given they have good poisons
[14:04] Paula Dix: romans also didnt kill, right? just put children there to die?
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: and the Spartans
[14:04] Corona Anatine: but it is their morality
[14:04] herman Bergson: Yes Paula... something like that
[14:04] Repose Lionheart: yeah
[14:04] Paula Dix: funny how to them that probably made it morally right
[14:05] bergfrau Apfelbaum: ...... ich must go:-( .....................thanks, for the interesting lection mr. professor :-) see to YOU all tuesday
[14:05] Corona Anatine: Romans did not see babies as children until about a month old
[14:05] Paula Dix: it wasnt them killing, was gods or something
[14:05] Repose Lionheart: bye, bergfrau
[14:05] herman Bergson: yes... but that is why you have to look at moral issues situation - related
[14:05] Paula Dix: bye berg!
[14:05] herman Bergson: Bye Bergie
[14:05] herman Bergson: Thaank you all for your participation
[14:05] Adriana Jinn: bye and thanks a lot
[14:06] bergfrau Apfelbaum: byebye herman,paula,oola,repose, adriana and corona :-)
[14:06] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor
[14:06] Corona Anatine: ty Herman - interesting dicussion
[14:06] oola Neruda: baieee
[14:06] Adriana Jinn: bye all
[14:06] Paula Dix: just to add, that helper had a ton of problems because what she did, but is proud of doing it :)
[14:06] oola Neruda: baieeeee
[14:06] Repose Lionheart: oh
[14:06] Corona Anatine: bfn

21 On Intention

Before we begin I did an interesting observation. As a student I bought The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, publisher MacMIllan, in 1973. It was the reprint 1992 of the first edition of 1967.

There is no article on Virtue Ethics in the encyclopedia, not even a reference in the index of it. In 2006 was published the 2nd edition of this encyclopedia and it has an article on virtue ethics, written by Robert Loudon (1998)

This is how fast things go in philosophy. It all began in 1958. In 1967 it still wasnt worth a place in the encyclopedia. Forty years later an article was written to be published in the 2nd edition 2006.

There was deontological ethics. There was utilitarianism and consequentialism and then a new theory emerges: virtue ethics. To fully understand it, we have to go back to its roots, its origin.

As a human being we are an endless stream of actions. We act, yet stronger, we are even unable not to act. It is like existing, you cant escape it.

Like the man in the courtyard of the hotel in the novel of Simone de Beauvoir "Tous les hommes sont mortals" (1946) [All men are mortal] tries to do.

Our actions don't come out of the blue. Closely related to them is the concept of "INTENTION". we speak of ‘events in a man’s history’ as intentional actions, of the intention with which an action is performed,

and of the expression of intention, or of the corresponding ‘pure’ intention for the future, which may exist though no action has yet been done with that intention.

Of course not all our actions are intentional, but we could say that an action is intentional when it is subject to a certain form of explanation,

or as Margaret Anscombe puts it , when ‘a certain sense of the question "Why?" has application’ to it.

What we have to figure out is, to which actions this particular "Why?" can be applied. It is obvious, that it doesn't apply to actions we are not aware of. Body language is a great example of such actions.

It also doesn't apply to actions of which you become aware of, all of a sudden. You walk to pace, pondering about a problem, and all of a sudden realize that you are walking your room back and forth now for at least half an hour.

Or I know that I am doing something, although I have no clue why I am doing this. Maybe caused by some external power source or maybe hypnosis. Something that can manipulate your central nervous system.

If a piece of behavior passes these tests, it is an intentional action, unless perhaps it is a case of ‘mental causality’, like a startle response when you hear a sudden sound.

I walk side by side with my friend and I may strike him intentionally, or I could stumble and my hand hits his face unintentionally. These are not two distinct actions of mine.

Actions are thus intentional only ‘under a description’. What is given in answer to the question ‘Why?’ is in fact often a further description of the same action.

A series of such questions will thus reveal an order among many of the descriptions true of an action:

‘Why are you pushing that thing?’ -‘because I am shoveling snow - ‘But why are you shoveling snow?’ - ‘Because I am clearing the pavement in front of my house’.

This chain of questions ‘Why?’ may often be pressed into the future, and thus beyond any description of what is now happening;

the responses will then merely express the intention with which the action mentioned earlier is performed.

An important conclusion it, that this knowledge one has of one's intentional actions is not achieved by empirical observation of these actions.

Ascombe calls this "practical knowledge", where, I suppose, the word practical relates to the greek verb 'prattein', which means 'to act', so what is meant here is "knowledge of our actions".

She famously compares the relation that practical thought bears to action with the relation a shopping list bears to the contents of the shopper’s basket.

The corresponding model of non-practical or ‘speculative’ thought is given by the relationship between the same basket and the list of its contents constructed by the detective who follows its owner.

The difference is in ‘direction of fit’, as it is now called: the detective amends a mismatch between list and basket by altering his list, the shopper by altering the contents of the basket.

These are the basic ideas of Margaret Anscombe in her book "Intention" (1957) and now you can imagine how the story will go on in her famous article "Modern Moral Philosophy" of one year later (1958)

Neither in a deontological ethics or in consequentialism is relevant what a person intends to do. In a deontological ethics a (divine) lawgiver tells what 'ought' to be done and in consequentialism you just look at the effect of actions.

Now it may also be clear why Anscombe pleaded for a real philosophy of psychology, because from her perspective we have to investigate , that what generates his intentions,the psychology of the person.

Again we didn't elucidate the concept of virtue, but had to pay attention to preliminary issues. What is clear now is, that the foundation of ethics is in human action which is closely related with human intentions.

Thus the justification of moral actions comes from within and is based on, as Margaret Anscombe concluded, on very specific human traits, called virtue.

To be continued…….


The Discussion

[13:30] Gemma Cleanslate: i will be very happy not to see this word again
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: consequentialism
[13:31] Abraxas Nagy: oh?
[13:31] herman Bergson: I understand Gemma
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: so is she saying it is almost genetic?
[13:31] Gemma Cleanslate: or instinctual?
[13:31] herman Bergson: Well...that depends on the analysis of the concept of virtue
[13:32] herman Bergson: to some extend that is a psychological matter
[13:32] herman Bergson: In fact, virtue ethics is the only approach to the moral question that takes human psychology into account
[13:33] herman Bergson: the quintessence is intention
[13:34] ZANICIA Chau: ergo- nothing to do with genetics
[13:34] Gemma Cleanslate: ys
[13:34] herman Bergson: Anscombe judged Truman negatively because the approved the use of nuclear bombs on Japan
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:35] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:35] Repose Lionheart: why?
[13:35] Justine Rhapsody: but doesn't genetics have something to do with our ability to have intentions of some kinds/
[13:35] herman Bergson: she saw it as a result of a consequentialist approach of the moral question here
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: probably was
[13:36] ZANICIA Chau: yes
[13:36] Repose Lionheart: little bit i have seen about it
[13:36] herman Bergson: She wrote an article about it..Truman's decree it is called I believe
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: re these books and articles available now?
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: are
[13:37] herman Bergson: The main question is ..where do our intentions come from..
[13:37] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:38] herman Bergson: When you are luck Yes Repose...
[13:38] Repose Lionheart: ㋡
[13:38] herman Bergson: the 1958 article Modern Moral Philosophy for instance is on the Internet
[13:38] herman Bergson: This Truman article might be too...
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: hmm.. doesn't it come down the what you learned.. what one experiences..... and then on draws a conclusion
[13:39] herman Bergson: where do our intentions come from.. is the question....the answer is from our virtues
[13:39] herman Bergson: That is the point Alarice.....
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: ah yes
[13:40] herman Bergson: what is nature and what is nurture in our behavior
[13:40] herman Bergson: Is the respect for life a product of nurture/education or an innate quality
[13:40] herman Bergson: even if we often ignore this inner quality
[13:41] Repose Lionheart: is it only a virtue if it is innate?
[13:41] ZANICIA Chau: Alarice was covering nuture- we are moulded from birth, surely?
[13:41] herman Bergson: No, not necessarily I would say
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: not totally I would think
[13:42] herman Bergson: But yet this poses another problem.....cultural differences
[13:42] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: no.. i think not innate...
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: Well..scientifically we have the fact that all humans have two legs..an 'innate' quality...
[13:43] ZANICIA Chau: every culture possesses a fundamental conscience of right and wrong- or how to behave
[13:43] Alarice Beaumont: there are some which are worldwide.. and others depending on culture
[13:43] herman Bergson: humans have a central nervous system....
[13:44] herman Bergson: yes Alarice..but all humans have a central nervous system...
[13:44] herman Bergson: and heroine works on all people allover the world the same
[13:44] herman Bergson: so there must be some universality in the characteristics of the central nervous system
[13:45] Repose Lionheart: movie ET = Christ myth, big seller in Islamic countries too
[13:45] herman Bergson: as the CNS is the power behind out actions.....well...think for yourself :-)
[13:46] Repose Lionheart: well, myth of the dying god...
[13:46] Gemma Cleanslate: very interesting
[13:46] herman Bergson: So innate or nurture....
[13:46] herman Bergson: Where is the border between the two?
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: if nurture works in us, we have an innate capacity for responding to it maybe
[13:47] Repose Lionheart: maybe chicken and egg here?
[13:47] herman Bergson: So..is some virtue innate?
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: I don't know
[13:48] Gemma Cleanslate: yes repose lol
[13:48] herman Bergson: When we get to the analysis of the concept of Virtue we may be able to give some answers here
[13:48] ZANICIA Chau: lol
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: ahhhh
[13:48] herman Bergson: who is the chicken and who the egg repose?
[13:48] Repose Lionheart: :-)
[13:49] Repose Lionheart: nature and nurture
[13:49] herman Bergson: I wouldnt say that....
[13:50] herman Bergson: Nurture only modifies the system of behavior of the individual and learns it new behaviors
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: oh
[13:50] Repose Lionheart: you believe nature is primary?
[13:50] herman Bergson: Behavior based on nature will be there without learning....say instinct for instance
[13:50] herman Bergson: it can be trained...but basicly it is there
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: agree, i think
[13:51] herman Bergson: Yes..nature has to be first before you can have an educator
[13:51] Repose Lionheart: question then is...what are we?
[13:51] herman Bergson: We are a specific realisation of nature, called Mind
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: indeed
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: hmmm
[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: everyone of us is formed by nature, ppl, culture
[13:52] herman Bergson: we are the only creatures that have a mind
[13:52] ZANICIA Chau: some of us-------
[13:52] Alarice Beaumont: ^^
[13:52] Repose Lionheart: lol
[13:52] Abraxas Nagy: Dolphins maybe
[13:52] herman Bergson: you have small minds and great minds Zanicia ㋡
[13:53] Alarice Beaumont: dolphins are intelligent animals
[13:53] herman Bergson: difficult discussion...for now we gonna fight about what intelligent means....
[13:53] herman Bergson: let's not do that
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: lol we did that already
[13:53] Repose Lionheart: yes
[13:54] herman Bergson: We all have our sins...
[13:54] Abraxas Nagy: it means us
[13:54] herman Bergson: Ok....
[13:54] herman Bergson: I think the picture is clear....
[13:55] herman Bergson: Actions are motivated by intentions and intentions are derived from our virtues
[13:55] herman Bergson: the moral question is the Why did you do that question and the justification/description you can give
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: that's what children ask all the time and never stop
[13:56] Alarice Beaumont: you answer one "why" and get 10 others lol
[13:56] herman Bergson: So our next station is the philosophical and maybe also psychological question: what is virtue?
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: wow
[13:57] Alarice Beaumont: that is going to be difficult
[13:57] Repose Lionheart: cool!
[13:57] Abraxas Nagy: a construct of mind
[13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Alarice.....that is a fascinating phenomenon
[13:58] Alarice Beaumont: and again different interpretations too
[13:58] herman Bergson: But that has more to do with understanding the world tha with a moral question at that age
[13:59] herman Bergson: Oh yes..be prepaired for the philosophical disappointment that there are theories and counter theories and counter counter theories here too
[13:59] herman Bergson: But we'll find our way through that forrest
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: hope so
[13:59] Repose Lionheart: also cool!
[14:00] herman Bergson: We may leave a trail of bread crumbs…
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: oh oh -- we know what happened to Hansel and Gretel
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: time to go
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: :_0
[14:01] herman Bergson: If you have no further questions...?
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday!
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:01] Repose Lionheart: Thank you, Professor!
[14:01] Abraxas Nagy: c ya Gemma :D
[14:01] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[14:01] Qwark Allen: THANK YOU
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜
[14:02] Qwark Allen: Hey! ABRAXAS
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: thanks Herman :-))
[14:02] ZANICIA Chau: Thanks very much prof!
[14:02] Justine Rhapsody: Thanks Professor :)
[14:02] Abraxas Nagy: Hey Qwark m8
[14:02] herman Bergson: See you next class then .... class dismissed and thank you for your participation
[14:02] Laila Schuman: baiieeeee to those who are heading out
[14:02] Qwark Allen: PAARTY TIME\o/
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: bye Qwark... bye Gem :-))
[14:02] Qwark Allen: ♥☺☮☺♥!!!Alarice !!! ♥☺☮☺♥
[14:02] herman Bergson: Rodney is late today
[14:02] Qwark Allen: laila
[14:02] Qwark Allen: l ☺☺☺ l
[14:02] Qwark Allen: lol
[14:02] Qwark Allen: how typical
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: lol
[14:03] herman Bergson: Did you get may reply Alaricce
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: yes I did Herman :-)
[14:04] Alarice Beaumont: thx... I really found a Tugenethik
[14:04] herman Bergson: I find the german term Tugendethik very suspicious
[14:04] Alarice Beaumont: but I'm confused with it... wondered if it Moralethik in german
[14:04] herman Bergson: Whenyou read articles on that, Alarice
[14:04] Abraxas Nagy: see you all next time :D
[14:04] herman Bergson: check in the literature references if Margaret Anscome is mentioned
[14:05] herman Bergson: Be wel Abraxas
[14:05] Alarice Beaumont: yes.. i acutally found her name... and aristoteles
[14:05] ZANICIA Chau: Bye - and thanks again
[14:05] herman Bergson: If she is mentioned, you are probably on the right track
[14:05] herman Bergson: Well Ari isnt a 100% guarantee...Anscombe is
[14:06] Alarice Beaumont: ah ok... i wanted to understand the lecture... but somehow and did not get the connection really
[14:06] herman Bergson: Maybe todays lecture helped a little?
[14:07] Alarice Beaumont: yes... think so... and i think the next one will even help more
[14:07] Alarice Beaumont: ok.. i will read what they say about tugend ethik then
[14:07] Alarice Beaumont: thx Herman :-))
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: see you on thursday :-)
[14:08] herman Bergson: good luck Alarice
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: :-)
[14:08] Alarice Beaumont: bye Laila :-)

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: :)

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..