Modern virtue ethics... or Can you smell what the ethicists are cooking!

A modern virtue ethicist might view ethics like some people view cooking.  A rule of cooking is that adding salt to soup makes it better.  However, how much salt you add depends entirely on your experience with cooking, your familiarity with the recipe, your own ideas of how salty you want your food to taste, the kind of soup you are making, or the people for whom you are making the soup.  So even though the rule "Add salt to soup to make it better" is true, putting the rule into practice is based entirely on ideas that are non-rules (our own personal taste)

But my non-rules are still rules!

Let's start applying this idea to ethics.  There may be a rule that says "Don't kill."  In order to follow that rule, you need to following a rule that says, "Listen to the rule that says, 'Don't kill'."  In order to follow that rule, you need to follow a rule that says, "Listen to the rule that says, 'Listen to the rule that says, "Don't kill"'."  Ad infinitum.

A more modern virtue ethicist would say that this is precisely where purely rule-based ethics break down.  While rules are useful and necessary, we don't apply just because they are the 'rules', rather we apply them according to ideas that are non-rule-based.  So a cookbook is a good guide, but it's not the only way to make soup.  A moral rule may be a good guide, but there can be more than one way live it out because we all have different tastes!  Ta daa!

So what are these things that are non-rule-based?  Different ethicists disagree (surprised?).  Some have said compassion, another said the idea of 'caring' and 'caring for' others, and others have said that we have a 'fellow-feeling' for one another.

These ideas of modern virtue ethicists are, well, modern.  So how could their ideas have been missed over the past +2000 years of ethical rule-based theories?  I smell a thought experiment coming up.

Let's see what happens when you plug your nose, close your 

mouth, put your fingers in your ears and then sneeze.

Let's say that Group A is a group that has been raised in an environment that emphasizes competition, contests, hierarchies, and ranking.  Would you expect that their ethics would be rule-based and an emphasis on following the rules?  Let's also say that Group B has been raised in an environment that emphasizes group success, community projects, and maintaining relationships.  Would you expect that their ethics would have more of an emphasis on interdependence, working together, and group success?

Of course you would.  So one thing that has been noticed over the history of ethical theorists is that most (if not all) of them have been men.  And men are typically more rule-based and define success as 'following the rules correctly'.  Women, on the other hand, are typically more concerned with working together, group success, and all that jazz.

Now a modern virtue ethicist would not put one way of thinking over and against another.  All they are claiming since most of the famous ethical theorists have been men, it's no surprise that they missed this 'key ingredient' that was found in the 20th century.

So true.

So "Don't kill"?  Great!  But putting it into practice will require some non-rule-based idea such as compassion or kindness.  The exact way to carry out that compassion and kindness is up to the individual.

But what if someone doesn't share the same standard of compassion that I do?  Well, the best you can do is to try to make them feel the same way as you do.  This idea does overlap with emotivism (all moral expressions are just reflections of your feelings), but a modern virtue ethicist wants to keep rules, thinks we should follow them, but they still need some interpretation.

A Christian Response

So what can one make of this silliness?  As a Christian I have no problem with rules and virtues.  God as certainly told us rules that He wants us to follow (I can think of about ten of them off the top of my head).  These rules are not just arbitrary ideas that He came up with out of thin air, rather they are based on His character (which can described with words that describe virtues).

The problem that these modern virtue ethicists have is that they have no firm basis on how we are to apply the 'rules'.  They leave it up in the air and say that just like there can be more than one way to season a soup properly, there can be more than one way to be compassionate over a situation.  The problem is that they have no ultimate standard upon which to rest.  The best they can do is to plant their feet firmly in mid-air and make some subjective claim.

Isn't it interesting that they claim that we should be compassionate and care for others?  I wonder where they got that idea?  ;)

Thanks for reading.

Virtue Ethics... or Be good for goodness sake!

So there you are in the hospital and a friend comes to your room and cheers you up.

 Yes, the 1977 cast of General Hospital is your friend.

You thank him for coming over and he replies, "Well, I actually didn't want to come here at all.  But I calculated the happiness I would cause and I decided that I had better."

You'd feel kind of weird, right?  You were thinking that your friend came over because he was, well, your friend for goodness sake!  Him following a rule (a utilitarian one at that) seems to have taken away from your experience.

Aww, I wanted the Kool-Aid man.

So far this semester I've only been writing about rule-based ethical theories.  Egoism says you must always do what is in your best interest.  Social contract theorists say that once the contract is agreed upon you must follow it.  Utilitarians say that you need to calculate the greatest possible happiness and then you must do it.  A follower of Immanuel Kant would say that there is an absolute standard that exists.  In any of these theories you MUST follow the rules, if you don't you are acting  immorally.

Some have said that people just following rules are missing something.  Rules fail to capture the essence of ethics.  It's not that other rule-based theories are completely wrong, it's that those theories are inadequate for human life.

The only thing that rules do is to summarize (though incompletely) our experience, but they are not how we live our lives.  So rather than develop the right rules, we should instead develop virtues in our character and then act them out.

Some days are just like having a tree grow out of your back

while being stuck inside a giant walking egg that people are

trying to break into with a giant knife as a tadpole armed with

a sword tries to attack you, right?

So what the heck is a virtue?  I'm glad you read that sentence and were subsequently forced to ask the question even if you didn't really want to.  A virtue is a general character trait, a description of who you are.  Virtues are the traits that would make us want to seek out or keep the company of another person if they also kept those traits.

There have been many different lists of virtues and much discussion about what should be on those lists, but if you can imagine lots of 'nice' things and you'll probably hit the basics: honesty, loyalty, courage, etc.  Aristotle said that virtues are the middle ground between two extremes.  For instance, courage is the middle ground between cowardice and foolhardiness.

Where does one get virtues?  The virtues are learned in childhood through our experiences.  They are best learned through non-controversial cases.  As you grow up you can rely on the virtues you learned as a child when you are faced with controversial/difficult ethical decisions.

For instance, as a child your friend asks you to take care of his Gameboy.  You protect it, hold on to it, and then give it back once he asks for it.  You have now learned about loyalty, honesty, and faithfulness.

Later as an adult, a friend of yours asks you to hold onto a gun for him.  You protect it, hold on to it, and you notice as he asks for it back he appears very angry muttering, "I'm going to kill him."  So because you are a loyal, honest, and faithful person you give it back.  Or would you?  This is a much more controversial decision and thankfully you are an adult and have had a virtuous upbringing so you know that maybe giving the gun back wouldn't be a good idea.

But what if you didn't have a virtuous upbringing?  As these virtues are universal, because they were true today means that they were true before this time.  If you don't "get it", then that's just your bad luck.

It has seemed to some virtue ethicists that all ethical dilemmas are usually between two competing virtues, rather than between what is right or wrong.  Take the case of your angry friend who wants his gun back.  You know that you should be a faithful friend and give him his property back, but at the same time you have the urge to protect others and not want to give the gun back.  Both actions are virtuous but what does one do?  The virtue ethicist would say to trust yourself and let the chips fall where they may.

Now this does NOT mean that you can do anything you want.  Remember, these virtues are universal and true for all people (though ironically virtue ethicists differ on which virtues to put on their lists), and there can be more than one way to make a right decision.  Some things are certainly wrong, but as long as you are acting from a virtue, you'll be just fine.

Some people find the whole style of virtue ethics attractive because it does seem to match situations where there does not seem to be many decisions in life where you are torn between two virtues.  Virtue ethics does seem to mirror how we learn ethics and make ethical decisions.  For instance, we learn not to lie as a child and then are able to apply that knowledge in our adult life with more difficult decisions.

Other people do not like virtue ethics simply because there is more than one right way to do things!  There ought to be one correct decision in any matter that comes up in life.  And others do not like that there is no universally agreed upon list of virtues.  There is no way to check if you did the right thing because there is no certain thing to fall back upon.

A Christian Response
As I was sitting in class I was wondering what does the Christian make of all of this?  The teacher had us look at my textbook's list of virtues...

benevolence           fairness                patience
civility                     friendliness          prudence
compassion            generosity            reasonableness
conscientiousness   honesty                self-discipline
cooperativeness     industriousness     self-reliance
courage                 justice                  tactfulness
courteousness        loyalty                  thoughtfulness
dependability         moderation           tolerance

...and I thought, "You know, these are all attributes of God!"  There IS a reason why we are obligated to act this way because our thoughts and attitudes are to mirror the thoughts and attitudes of God.  It may be tough to find an example of God acting courteously or being tactful, but generally God told us through Paul...

Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.  Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:8-9)

It may seem like Paul was a virtue ethicist, after all he encourages the congregation in Philippi to think about what they have learned and then put it into practice.  But unlike modern ethical philosophers, at least he had the sure foundation on which all virtues rest - God's character.

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other. (Galatians 5:22-26)

In summary, I can see some attractiveness to virtue ethics.  After all it says to be good for goodness sake ...  subsequently leading everyone to argue about what is and is not 'good'.  This is the failure of virtue ethics.  It is a system that correctly recognizes that there are universal virtues but has no foundation for them.  That they are able to recognize virtues at all is only because God's law is written on their heart.  Seems like  I can't have a single post without reference to that!

Thanks for reading!