No

Virtue Theory > Kantian Deontology > Utilitarianism

translation?

^well said Bob. I couldn't agree more.

@Arya Why would you support Utilitarianism? its impossible to practically apply to any situation; there are too many variables. That's were Virtue theory is great, it lacks the tediousness of rule thoeries and doenst force you to find every possible consequence.

Utilitarianism: An action is right if and only if it produces the greatest happiness. Thus every action is only moraly correct if it results in the largest amount of pleasure, or happiness, and lack of pain, unhappiness.
WHen i say that there are too many variables, i mean practically, there is absolutley no way of knowing what the exact amount of happiness or pain is produced in any situation. If i take someone's pen, i may be a lot happier, because now i have a pen. but what if that person was going to take a test, and now they have no pen? (assuming they fail this test, or do worse because they dont have a pen at first) Their unhappiness far outways my happiness, thus taking the pen is not morally correct. what if, however, the roles are reversed and i have a test and someone else has a pen? The hapiness they have from that pen is less than the happiness generated if I took that pen and was able to do well on my test. Therefore, the moraly correct action would be to steal.
Again, my problem is that there is no way to measure the happiness generated: what if that pen was a family treasure and i stole it not knowing that? the unhappiness of [the person who owns this pen] would then be much greater. but greater than my unhappiness at failing a test? what if i cnat graduate now? or get into a good school? What if the whole test was canceld and it didnt matter anyway? all these variables must be considered by a utilitarian. And as you can probably see, I dont think that's practical at all.

the morally correct option would be to investigate the case a bit further, i.e. to ask for the pen

and if they dont give it to you? its true that its better to know more, my point is just that there are too many many unknowns. what if that pen is practically worthless-thus when you ask for it, it is given to you. But what if the next day, the pen is (and i dont know why) suddenly worth millions of dollars? Now you are very happy but the other person is very unhappy. But is there greater happiness than unhappiness? while this scenario is unrealistic, it shows that an action could change from morally correct to incorrect, and that there will always be things you cannot acount for

i guess virtue theory would assert that you just don't steal the pen whatever happens?
what about kantian deowhatever?

yeah virtue theory would basically say that a virtuous person would never steal. Even if that meant failing a test.however a virtuous person would have other qualiites- persistance determination intelligence, so they would probably be able to find a pen for themsleves without stealing. Or they would be forward thinking and just always have a pen on them. that sort of thing.
belgh Kantian deontology was annoying. Its more about human respect and actions judged within themsleves- Kant says that if your maxium (rule you act on) is bad, then it is morally wrong no matter what, even if there is some good from it. it's called the categorical imperitive. So if i say, "i will lie because i want something," and make this my maxium, that would be bad BecuasE my maxium should be able to stand as a universal law And if everyone acted on that maxium, then no one would be happy! no one would get what they want because everyone would be lying and thinking it was okay.
(I've made a lot of spelling errors, i realize that, but im too lazy to fix it.)
If you want a quality explanation, i would just research it online.

Kant's stuff is a bunch of rules of right conduct that you can't break. And like all rule-based systems of anything, they're inherently flawed due to the limits of their designers and thus cannot be a perfect system of morality.

And how can you even compare virtue theory with utilitarianism? They don't even ask the same question. Utilitarianism is "What shall I do?" Virtue theory is "What shall I be?" Different questions; they can't be weighted as better or worse.

What shall you be is directly related to what shall you do- thats how virtue theory solves problems. _because_ you are a certain way, you will always act a certain way, and the virtue ethicist would say you always act the moral way _because_ you are virtuous. Thus there they both end up answering what shall i do, Virtue ethics just says that you do in certain way because you are a certain way.

So what is the moral way? Utilitarianism and deontology provide means of following it. Where does virtue theory demonstrate the moral way?

That's were it's different. To be morally correct and to do the 'right' thing you must act virtuoulsy. That is, instead of generating happiness or respecting other humans, and about rules and motives being right and wrong (I dont know as much about/like Kant's deontology, you seem to know more), Virute ethics provides that an action is right if and only if it is what the virtuous person would do. Therefore, I believe that 'moral way' as you say would be that of living, in every aspect of your life, as a virtuous person would- then and only then would you be morally correct. was that your question?

That was, and it's leading to this follow up. What makes a virtuous person virtuous?

the characteristics they possess. As to actual, specific traits that can be called virtues, i think thats near immpossible to say. But i believe aristotle (or Plato) uses one of the Gods as their model, saying 'act like achilles would act to be virtuous'. thus a virtuous person would be one like achilles, and achilles would the be the epitome of moral beings.
Also, i forgot an important part of virtue ethics. The virtue ethicist believes that the virtuous agent will acheive eudaimonia, fufillment in their lives. This is important because a moral agent does not always just act on what makes them happy- in the long run this will not result in a truly 'happy' life. THat is to say, this person will not acheive eudaimonia. Virtues Ethics says a truly moral agent, if adhereing to correct moral actions, will achieve eudaimonia. so a virtuous person is therefore living a fufilled 'flourishing' life.

oops, thats not to say that achilles as a virtuous model is still valid. Just when the theory was created, that was the case.

in some sense, virtue ethics isn't incompatible with consequentialism. A person is good or bad because of his virtues or lack there of. fine. And if we as a society decide that it is a virtue to be utilitarian? It is the society which decides what count as virtues, so in that sense, it is culturally relativist.

@zoeoz

How can you say Utilitarianism has too many variables and then go on to say, " As to actual, specific traits that can be called virtues, i think thats near immpossible to say."?

'ie to ask for the pen'
zoeoz replied
'and if they dont give it to you?'

well if we assume they ar ealso guided by utilitraianism then it is the right thing to do by their judgement and we will have to settle for that.

Fortunately we can test this by studying the brain to see if the total happiness is actually increased, and test if they are being utilitarianist by asking them to justify their decision... if you can explain what consequences you've taken into account (like you not graduating) which they may not know about, then they are more likely to give you the pen... etc.

Utilitarianism does not mandate that one must go through detailed calculations of potential pain and pleasure and all possible permutations in every possible case. Utilitarianism suggests that you should only make calculations in-so-far as they're useful. It doesn't say, for example, that in an emergency you should ponder endlessly about all your possible choices of how to act.

This criticism is a rather common straw-man constructed against it. Utilitarianism only makes statements as to what is right or wrong. It doesn't say that determining right or wrong is always easy. To complain that figuring out what is right or wrong can be complicated is like complaining at the sky for raining. Having fixed rules about how to act may superficially 'simplify' life but they do not necessarily lead to moral outcomes (this is more a critique of Deontology).

At any rate, as others have pointed out, virtue theory does not really provide a practical guideline for how to act. No argument is given for why X or Y is a 'virtue', it's just asserted. You're essentially telling people to act according to abstractions which have any number of meanings and can vary from person to person or culture to culture. Calculating utils is far more concrete than this. And indeed, since utilitarianism puts a premium on 'usefulness' it is almost more useful by definition.

Virtue theory also appears to be completely inward looking and egotistical. It only matters that a person acts virtuously, doesn't necessarily matter if 'acting virtuous' ends up helping the world out at all. Who cares about one person's 'fulfilled life'? Why should this matter?

technically, Putin, I think it's not even necessary that a person act virtuously because the virtue is not in the action but inherent in the person's being. Of course that which is inherent in the person's being is not really open to verification, but the act is not a perfect indication of virtue or it's absence but has the status of something like a shadow cast by the virtue itself.
Usefulness can vary conceptually from culture to culture as well, and even person to person and for whom the act should be useful (the family? the neighborhood? the state? the world?) is variable. Imagine the religious zealot utilitarian terrorist who endeavored to maximize utility and happiness by sending the greatest number of people not past Go directly to heaven. Go ahead, Putin, drink the KoolAid. Though your criticism of Deontology is basically correct, I think it is the only way to produce a relatively pat answer about any given act. I don't need a pat answer myself though, if I can assert that an act is good or bad, and I can convince others, I'm happy, I don't ever need to state that anything is categorically right or wrong and if anyone tries a categorical argument with me, I'm not going to be very receptive.

This separation of being and acting doesn't make any sense to me. How can you 'be' virtuous without acting in accordance with said virtue? I think Zoeoz already made this point. All virtues reflect some kind of action. Say, X person is courageous and having courage is a virtue. Well what is courage? Courage is reflected in some kind of action. Having fear yet continuing to go forward with the plan.

The relativity of utility is not as great as you say. Utilitarianism mandates doing the greatest good for the greatest number relevant to the situation. When conducting domestic policy, the leader of a state should act to enhance the welfare of every person who it is responsible for - meaning the entire population of the state. In dealing with matters pertaining to family, the head of household should act in such a way that is beneficial to everyone under his or her responsibility - the household.

Of course there are times when responsibilities overlap, and of course one must prioritize according to one's preferences and primary responsibilities.

The issue of spiritual vs physical pain/pleasure is an interesting one. In general I believe utilitarianism dwells within the realm of the physical and material, so in this way it sidesteps the quandary of the zealot who murders people for some kind of spiritual purpose. This is a weakness, obviously, but I don't think a fatal one. "Pain/Pleasure" are physical feelings, and I've never heard of spiritual pain or spiritual pleasure. In fact many religious zealots would completely reject "pleasure" and "happiness" as sinful and accept "pain" as spiritually necessary.

Ultimately I believe these three systems come down to this.

Deontology prioritizes the principle.
Virtue prioritizes individual character.
Utilitarianism prioritizes the aggregate.

To me basing morality on the aggregate is much more compelling than basing it on an individual or basing it on abstract principles. Especially since an individual's character and abstract principles are meaningless outside of the society that produces them.
Character only matters to the extent that it is social. Most 'virtues' reflect a person engaging in and helping society. So the aggregate is morally prior to the individual. Principles are meaningless if they do not in fact act to protect and help society. So the aggregate once again is morally prior to principles.

Utilitarianism fails because it does not take into account the fact that "happiness" or "utility" varies immensely from person to person, regardless of material circumstances. In the pen example, objectively, giving me the pen that allows me to pass my exam may result in greater benefit than you would have received by keeping it. However, perhaps you are The Underground Man, and receive great pleasure from withholding it, purely out of spite. Without standardized human pleasures that do not vary, it is impossible to judge what will make different individuals happy, as if they do not enjoy the same things, enjoyment cannot be quantifiably measured or compared. People cannot necessarily be trusted to act rationally, or egotically rational, anyway.
just read Dostoyevski -- he says it so much better :) or zoeoz

It seems to me that while virtue theory and deontology try to steer away from consequentialist value judgements, they can't help but use such ideas when deciding which virtues or maxims to pursue. It also seems to me that a utilitarian could adopt some seemingly deontological behaviours (in practice, not in justification) if they realized in the long term, consistency might produce superior results.

I must agree with Putin that it seems to me strange to base a moral system on the individual, when ethics only holds sway over the interactions between more than one moral agent. Ethics is completely inconsequential if you're the last person on Earth.

It's funny that if you regard all these ethical systems as at least logically consistent, that you can rank them in order of value. This suggests a sort of meta ethical system that can be used to judge the value of ethical systems. I suppose this would be our innate ethical sense, that arises out of cultural norms as well as an evolutionary panoply of emotions that haphazardly come together to create our moral sense. I'm not even sure we could design a logically consistent ethical system that did not lead to some specific conclusions that would be absurdly dissonant with our primitive sense of morality, because I don't think that our innate sense of morality is at all logically consistent. I personally wonder if we ought to let a logically consistent ethical system supersede our innate moral sense anyway.

Whoa, this blew up. No time now to make a worthy contribution, but I'll be back on this once I get the chance.

"Morality can be practiced, that's why morality creates hypocrisy, morality creates false faces. Religion creates the authentic being, it cannot be practiced. How can you practice the 'being'?" - Osho

What a load of hot air all that analysis is!
You know right from wrong. Your concience & upbringing tells you good from evil.
It is down to you what type of character you choose to develope into by the descisions you make as you progress through life.
I believe that doing what you believe is right thing to do is to be virtuous.
Being virtuous is not easy & does not make you happy for doing what is the right thing to do. In fact it is usually detrimental to where or what you would have achieved or been by not doing the right thing.
It is down to self respect & concience that you suffer for choosing to do the right thing.
It is against your human nature to be selfless.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs (pyramid) tells us that unless we meet our personal needs first nothing else takes priority.
Thus basic human nature/survival leads us to be selfish & not selfless.
Because of this our brain develops/allows us ways to excuse ourselves from doing what is the right thing to do, in order that we can do what is best for ourselves & those we love rather than what was the right thing to do.
So it all depends on the level of concience you can live with in order to sleep & have respect for yourself.
It is much easier to lie to ourselves & reap the enjoyable things that make us feel happy in life than to do the right thing & choose to missout & suffer as a result.
They say virtue has its own reward. They say the weak will inherit the earth.
Yes, I believe they end up in a paupers grave if that makes them happy.

"I believe that doing what you believe is right thing to do is to be virtuous."

I agree with that sentiment, but how do you know what is the right thing to do? What makes it right? You're not really formulating an ethical system as much as you're saying that yes, we ought to behave ethically.

Virtue theory considers the person in its being. The person is virtuous and his or her actions are virtuous by extension. No action is virtuous that doesn't come from a virtuous person. Putin says "All virtues reflect some kind of action." but Virtue theory says the opposite: All actions reflect some kind of virtue but not perfectly. You cannot know if an action is virtuous simply by looking at the isolated action. Deontology and Consequentialism by contrast consider the action and measure the person in the light of his or her actions.

zoeoz confuses the issue at moments but says correctly "Virtue ethics provides that an action is right if and only if it is what the virtuous person would do." And I would further argue that two people may act identically in a particular situation but one might be virtuous and the other not. And this only makes sense, there can be any number of motives for taking a particular action, but only some of those motives are found in a virtuous person.

"To me basing morality on the aggregate is much more compelling than basing it on an individual or basing it on abstract principles."
But virtue ethics isn't really based on the individual, for it is the community which decides or identifies who the virtuous person is. Hence, as I said before, it is cultural and it is culturally relativist.

"Of course (in utilitarianism) there are times when responsibilities overlap, and of course one must prioritize according to one's preferences and primary responsibilities." Therein lies a world, and can we not be said to always carry a responsibility as a member of the human race which is always prior or superimposed onto any other? I feel such a responsibility. But if someone is faced with a choice between saving a bus load of strangers or saving his or her child, who has the balls to say one of those choices is wrong? And a masochist? A drug addict? How can we make such a thing as pleasure our goal, especially when there is almost no experience of pleasure that isn't of necessity tinged with pain? And back to the status of spirituality, is it a spiritual question for a leader to wonder which is better, a population of happy sleepy-minded slaves, or a population that is awake and vital and aware of the misery of its condition?

"What a load of hot air all that analysis is!" How... precognitive.