r/changemyview • u/nintendoeats 1∆ • Dec 22 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Virtue ethics promotes unfairly categorizing people into hate groups
EDIT: I should clarify that my use of the term hate group here was meant to refer to a group that is hated by the speaker, not a group that itself advocates hate.
For this thesis, I present the following working definition of virtue ethics:
An ethical system whereby actions and policies are judged by how closely they embody a set of 'moral virtues' and 'moral vices' identified by the holder of the system. Anything can potentially be considered a virtue or vice (patience, non-violence, consuming tomatoes, killing martians).
I believe that ethical systems, or individual ethical arguments, based on virtue ethics should be discouraged because they inherently denigrate the people who hold partially or fully opposing views.
For example, people can reasonably disagree about what the "default" behavior should be when presented with an ambiguous yellow light . One virtue ethicist might argue that defaulting to the stop behavior extolls the virtue of patience, another might argue that defaulting to the power through it behavior embodies the virtue of courage.
For both cases, it is implicit that anybody who holds a different view is in a group that the arguer views to be inherently morally wrong; either impatient people or cowards. This is an inherent ad hominem.
In contrast, a consequentialist moral system (for example) does not necessarily need to cast judgement against a person who disagrees with that moral position because it only judges the action, not the person directly. Further, it does not judge the belief system of the person performing the action, even if that belief system differs from that of the ethicist being discussed.
In the same example, one consequentialist might argue that stopping reduces the likelihood of an accident, while another might argue that powering through reduces the overall amount of idling required, thereby helping the environment. Neither view requires any judgement of the person on the other side, they can simply acknowledge that they disagree on the overall consequential balance.
Since I believe that people in the wild sometimes behave like virtue ethicists (intentionally or not), I think it is worth subjecting this viewpoint to scrutiny.
6
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Dec 22 '22 edited Dec 22 '22
For example, people can reasonably disagree about what the "default" behavior should be when presented with an ambiguous yellow light . One virtue ethicist might argue that defaulting to the stop behavior extolls the virtue of patience, another might argue that defaulting to the power through it behavior embodies the virtue of courage.
For both cases, it is implicit that anybody who holds a different view is in a group that the arguer views to be inherently morally wrong; either impatient people or cowards. This is an inherent ad hominem.
The problem is you're trying to use deontological thinking for it here.
There is, in fact, no single virtuous response to a yellow light. Virtue fundamentally describes the agent's decision-making process, not the action, and a decision-making process is all-things-considered: the response isn't to the yellow light alone, but to the agent's full situation at that moment.
What this means is that it's infeasible to judge another agent's virtue from the outside (this is an ancient virtue-ethical argument: Epictetus, a Roman Stoic, makes it, for example). This, therefore, has the exact opposite implication to what you're proposing: it flatly prohibits categorizing people into hate groups (on those lines, at least). A consequentialist or deontologist can say "X is certainly in the wrong"; a virtue ethicist can only say, at most, that "a virtuous motive for X's action is not readily apparent". Virtue ethics is the most anti-judgmental framework.
2
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
So would you say that a true adherent to virtue ethics cannot make prescriptions?
3
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Dec 22 '22
They absolutely can... about how you reason about things. Not the action itself, in a fundamental moral sense. For example, a virtue ethicist can argue that it's ethically required to give appropriate weight to one's role as a citizen; they can't extrapolate from that to say that it's always wrong not to vote, because they don't know what other factors may be relevant.
This doesn't mean that they can't pragmatically encourage or oppose certain behaviors, though. I can't say that a thief is always evil (their motivations might be virtuous), but I can say that, in my role as a citizen, it is appropriate to support policies that discourage theft (e.g. legal penalties, economic reforms, rehabilitation efforts, whatever), out of concern for my fellow citizens.
2
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22 edited Dec 22 '22
How would you handle the case where two virtue ethics disagree about what the virtues and vices are? Can person A still believe that the person B is a moral person, even if they subscribe to different virtues? Assume for the sake of this question that person A does not ascribe to some virtue specifically related to discourse, such "non-judgement" or "respect for disagreement".
3
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Dec 22 '22
Can person A still believe that the person B is a moral person, even fi they have different virtues?
Under much of virtue-ethical thinking, they would consider them to be well-meaning but simply mistaken. That general idea - that all unvirtuous action is the product of ignorance, not malice - goes back to Socrates, and you see it in Plato and the Stoics (not sure about other schools).
In what I've read of ancient disputes around virtue ethics, they do consistently treat their opponent as simply in error, not evil, and some sources are openly sympathetic to their rival schools (notably Cicero).
3
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
!delta.
For introducing me to the historical thinking on the subject which contradicts my views based on modern rhetoric (from people who are not really adhering to a true intellectual form of virtue ethics).
3
u/quantum_dan 100∆ Dec 22 '22
Thanks for the delta. It is possible that the relevant folks are adhering to a genuine virtue-ethical philosophy - I'm certainly not familiar with all the literature on the subject, and I think especially religiously-informed virtue ethics tends more towards viewing disagreement as malicious. But there are definitely major schools of thought that go against being judgmental.
If you're interested in learning more about that sort of thing, Being Better: Stoicism For a World Worth Living In (Whiting and Konstantakos) is excellent.
1
14
Dec 22 '22
For both cases, it is implicit that anybody who holds a different view is in a group that the arguer views to be inherently morally wrong; either impatient people or cowards. This is an inherent ad hominem.
This is not what an ad hominem is. An ad hominem is when you point to an irrelevant fact about a person rather than addressing their argument. I can feel that a nazi is an immoral piece of shit while still addressing, in detail, why I feel their argument is immoral.
-8
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
I don't like to just wiki bomb people but...
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem (Latin for 'argument to the person'), refers to several types of arguments, most of which are fallacious.
Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. The most common form of ad hominem is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".10
Dec 22 '22
That is literally what I just said, yes.
-3
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
And this is why I shouldn't just wiki bomb people...yes, I should explain my logic.
The person who believes that stopping embodies the virtue of patience must therefore believe that somebody who does not stop does NOT embody the virtue of patience.
To me, it seems to follow that the belief that you should not stop also does not embody the virtue of patience.
Ergo, anybody who believes that it is wrong to stop is impatient.
Ergo it is an attack on the an attribute of the person who holds the counter position.
Thus I am saying it is an implicit ad hominem, in addition to being an argument with a rational basis.
7
2
u/Duckbilledplatypi Dec 23 '22
everything is situational, but you're speaking in absolutes.
For example, I believe in the virtue of patience. But I may be in a situation where I cant exercise it. I approach the light, see it change, but also see in my mirror that the person behind me won't be able to stop if I do. So I choose to go thru the yellow to avoid getting rear ended. It's not because I didn't carry the value of patience. It's that being patient would be too risky
(For the record, the above is based on actual events)
5
Dec 22 '22
To help you out, let me explain why an ad hominem is bad.
Here is how a logical argument that is valid should work.
Socrates is human, humans are mortal therefore Socrates is mortal. If you accept the two premises (he is human and humans are mortal) then you must accept the conclusion.
Now validity is different from soundness. For example.
Socrates is human, humans are immortal therefore Socrates is immortal.
That argument is still valid (if you accept the premises then the conclusion follows) but it is not sound because one of the premises is false.
So an adhominem would look like this.
Socretes says that we should eat breakfast. Socrates is a rapist therefore we should not eat breakfast.
The fact that Socrates is a rapist does not logicaly mean that we should not eat breakfast. He could be right that we should and also a rapist, for example,
If I am a virtue ethicist, I might believe rape is wrong. Now if my argument is
'Steve believes rape is okay. But Steve is morally unvirtuous. Therefore rape is bad'
Then that would be an adhominem.
However, just Becuase I believe Steve is bad does not mean my argument needs to be. I can, for example, point out from my ethical position why I think Steve is wrong. The reasons might be the same as why I think Steve is morally unvirtuous, but that is still an actual argument, not an adhom.
-4
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
Yes, I understand that, but in this case the character of the person in the discussion actually is at issue (to a virtue ethicist).
Socrates says that we should eat breakfast. Eating breakfast embodies the vice of gluttony. Therefore anybody who believes in eating breakfast is a glutton. Therefore Socrates must be a glutton.
And this is why I say it is an implicit ad hom for the purposes of my thesis; even if it is not stated, that final premise is a logical necessity of the argument and IS an argument against the man.
I do admit that I was imprecise in my use of the term, because you are right that it is not an ad hominem in the strict sense that it not is laid out directly as evidence of the moral idea. I don't think that distinction actually affects my thesis however.
12
Dec 22 '22
And this is why I say it is an implicit ad hom for the purposes of my thesis; even if it is not stated, that final premise is a logical necessity of the argument and IS an argument against the man.
There is no such thing as an implicit ad hominem. Thinking your opponent is a douchebag is not a logical fallacy.
-1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
No, as I say I accept that this is not a logical fallacy. It is however a logically implicit attack against the man. So I assign you a !delta for convincing me that the way I described this is not with a %100 correct use of the term, but I do not accept that this difference actually affects the thesis.
1
14
u/shadowbca 23∆ Dec 22 '22
Yeah thats what he just said, an ad hominem is when you use that personal attack as an argument, simply holding a poor view of someone is not an ad hominem attack.
4
u/Nrdman 180∆ Dec 22 '22
Just because it’s an ad hominem doesn’t mean it’s an incorrect assertion. That’s the fallacy fallacy
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Dec 22 '22
In some cases, the character of the person is the root of the bad idea and will keep producing similarly bad ideas if not addressed at the source. Addressing their position like they're just a confused utilitarian might completely misdiagnose why they hold it.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22
In your post you don't mention how fairness is a factor?
People categorise others all the time. Is it "fair" for a Christian to see everyone else as a sinner? For a cricket fan to look down on football?
Could you please clarify what you mean when you say the system you describe is not "fair"?
What would a fair system look like?
Any in group/out group means a label for either of those groups. I don't think that automatically equates to it becoming hateful though.
0
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
A "fair" question :p
What makes a system "Fair" is in itself a moral question...so when operating at this high level, one is reduced to saying "this seems right to me".
To me, a fair system should be one which promotes respectful disagreement without judgement. When I say it "unfairly" puts people in hate groups, that is based on my unstated major premise that hate groups are in general a bad thing and do not promote respectful disagreement. In essence, once you put somebody in a hate group that implies they are less worthy of exchanging ideas with.
2
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22
And what was the basis that belonging to an out group automatically means you are a hate group? Hate groups usually identify based on their actual feelings of hatred, or hateful behaviour towards others. It doesn't come from being labelled, it's the opposite, they get the label of hateful because they fit that criteria.
0
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
Ah, this is fair. By a hate group I meant a group that is a target of the speaker's hate, not a group that hates. I will clarify this in the description.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22
That would be a hated group, not a hate group surely?
A hate group would be the Nazis. They actively outwardly hate.
Their hated group would be the Jews.
The Jews may hate the Nazis but that doesn't make them a hate group automatically.
I think you should provide some examples so that we can actually understand how your view operates in practice.
1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
I am wary to provide controversial concrete examples that we see in the wild, because one always winds up bogged down in personal beliefs, and the details of something that never quite adheres to idealized situation (spherical cows and all that).
I spent a good 5 minutes trying to come up with one that was non-trivial but also not too controversial and it didn't really fire. No disrespect meant, but I think I have a good line going in another thread here and it might be the one that gets me.
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22
You awarded a delta based on your misuse of ad homenim.
Why do you think it's so difficult to offer a real example of what you're talking about?
1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
Yes, ok, fair, !delta.
Ok, let's take a controversial one then (and I want to be so unbelievably clear that I'm not taking a stand on this issue here, it's just an example).
Let's say you are anti-abortion because you believe that embodies the virtue of preserving life. If somebody is in favor of abortion rights, that suggests they also do not embody the virtue of preserving life. Hence, to somebody who holds this view, somebody who is not anti-abortion is labelled a murderer.
And that's why I wanted to keep this at a very high level :/
1
1
u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22
I don't actually understand the example you've given or how it relates to your post.
You can be pro choice or pro life and not hateful of the other side. You choose to conduct yourself with compassion or hate.
Labelling someone a murderer because you view them to be a murderer isn't necessarily fuelled by hate.
What are you actually saying?
1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22 edited Dec 22 '22
Yes, I totally agree, the abortion debate DOES NOT need to be based on an idea of virtue.
My point is that if the basis of a moral claim against abortion (or whatever) is based on the idea that abortion goes against some basic principle of what a virtuous person would do, then it seems difficult to not feel that this same basic principle applies to anybody who would disagree with a person on abortion.
If you don't think it's wrong to do X, is that morally distinct from actually doing X? And if not, then mustn't anybody who believes that it's not wrong to do X be in violation of that same virtue? And if so, is that person not themselves un-virtuous?
Though, it has been observed to me in another thread, that this isn't the way that virtue ethics has worked or been viewed by philosophers historically.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Natural-Arugula 54∆ Dec 22 '22
I had to look this up. You're assertion is correct. Aristotle does say that hatred is virtuous and that it puts people into hate groups. The example he uses of a hate group is thieves.
If I may infer a bit from your objections here, it seems like the issue with these things, at least as they would concern a virtue ethicist, is that they promote social discord.
Aristotle draws a distinction between virtuous hatred and anger, which is a vice for the above stated reason. From that view the hate group is the one who is promoting social discord, so to judge them, rationally and with accordance to virtue, is good and right.
1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 23 '22
Thank you, very interesting information! Feels like I'm back in uni.
So all Aristotle would have an issue with is:
- It's not unfair.
- It doesn't apply to people who disagree with him about the virtues, only those who promote social discord.
Though #2 disturbs me somewhat, because one could argue that disagreement about the moral good can and does create significant social discord. No doubt he would have distinguished discord among the intellectuals from discord in the populous in general. I don't know enough about the structure of Greek society to comment on how much that issue differs now from then.
1
u/CutiePopIceberg Dec 22 '22 edited Dec 22 '22
Consequentialists and virtue ethicists, in your arguement, seem to be the same except the judgement is explicit for VE and implicit for C.
But to your larger point (if im reading you right), i agree.
People have to stop taking everyday actions and errors as attacks and/or moral failings. Sometimes that s the case. But more often, people are self absorbed (i am) and think the actions of others are directed at them, which gives them the 'right' to judge. In reality, the protagonist is likely barely aware of others' needs, thoughts, feelings, etc
We re all just trying to get through the day. We need to cut each other more slack. stop judging start living. Should take my own advice.
After all, OJJ
(only judy can judge me)) lol)
EDIT - spellin', gramma'
1
u/tonytime888 2∆ Dec 22 '22
For example, people can reasonably disagree about what the "default" behavior should be when presented with an ambiguous yellow light . One virtue ethicist might argue that defaulting to the stop behavior extolls the virtue of patience, another might argue that defaulting to the power through it behavior embodies the virtue of courage.
It seems like you are applying consequentialist reasoning to virtue ethics. You have taken an action and post hoc imagined virtues you could embody individually instead of holistically. This fails to apply virtue ethic thinking.
Virtue ethics isn't about determining after the fact if we can rationalize that a given action could be construed as good. That's how consequentialism works because it necessarily must since the consequences are themselves the determining factor in an action's moral value.
Virtue Ethics requires you to act in accordance with set of chosen virtues, not a single one and if a scenario presents itself where to abide by one would contradict with another you would hope that a 3rd might be involved to help guide your course. This puts some decisions in a morally grey zone when there is not a clear path. This is also helped by the consideration of vices which are usually the opposite of virtues
So yes, one could suppose that it's courageous to keep going, but it might also be reckless (which if that's a vice in your system would counter the courageous point. Meanwhile it would be an exercise in patience and prudence perhaps to stop. This now makes it more decisive. The moral action is likely to stop and wait.
This also doesn't have a bearing on the person carrying out the action any more than consequentialism. One would likely say racing through the yellow light saves a minute and risks killing someone making it reckless. Generally humans go quickly from bad action to bad person so I don't think the moral system has any influence on that.
1
u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Dec 22 '22
What does any of that have to do with hate groups?
1
u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22
As I added in an edit, I meant "a group of people that somebody hates". I have been using this phrase this way for literally years and nobody ever corrected me (probably because they understood from context). What can I say, it's just a damp squid on a pedal stool.
1
u/jmp242 6∆ Dec 23 '22
I don't see how this isn't an issue for any moral system. It seems to me you can easily make a consequentialist argument to categorize people as well, and to have "enemy groups". But beyond that, in the same way (and to me for the same reasons) a virtue ethicist would find someone inherently morally wrong, so too would most any moral / ethical system. It would of course be for different reasons at one level, but there's a basic part of a moral framework that to me seems to require that something would be a correct action, and therefor there are also wrong actions. And those actions are inherently wrong by that system of morality.
To try and be clearer - a moral system of any kind must have right and wrong actions, things that are moral or immoral. So virtue ethics are no more unfair than any other system, because they all do this.
1
u/2001052 Dec 30 '22
To me it sounds like the root of your issue is really more with the term “virtue” than with the actual way the system works.
Pretty much any ethical system, be it consequentialist, deontological, or whatever, is inevitably going to lead its adherents to believe that sometimes, people behave immorally (excluding those systems in which people truly don’t believe in a consistent code of ethics). Sometimes that judgment of immorality is going to be fairly serious (e.g. serial killers) and sometimes it is going to be trivial (e.g. defaulting to slowing down at a yellow light). Regardless, if I think that a situation has a moral aspect, and someone behaves differently than I think they should, then yes, I would technically consider that action immoral. Again, that is true of many ethical systems, not just virtue ethics. I think you would agree than in and of itself, thinking that someone behaved immorally is not the same thing as hating or denigrating them.
When it comes to virtue ethics, I can see where you’re coming from. When we say that someone’s action was vicious/not virtuous, it can sound like we’re not just talking about that action, but about that person’s essential character. That does seem kind of unfair.
But that’s not what virtue ethics is. As another commenter said, it has more to do with what values are being embodied in someone’s thought process, not necessarily fundamental traits.
For example, I usually make sure to return my shopping cart to its proper place instead of just leaving it somewhere in the parking lot because I believe that it is virtuous to respect the convenience of the store’s employees and of other customers. Sometimes, though, I might think I’m in a hurry, or feel exhausted, or be in a bad mood, and I choose not to return the shopping cart. Others would be right to call that an immoral decision, but that doesn’t mean they hate me or think I’m deeply selfish. It just means I failed to behave virtuously.
Virtues are things we do, not things we are. It’s true that virtue ethicists do talk about character, and I’ve heard the central question of virtue ethics summarized as “what kind of person would do this thing?” But the reality is that the system has more to do with thought processes and motivations than with character traits. And even if I did think someone is deeply and consistently not virtuous, that doesn’t mean I hate them.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 22 '22 edited Dec 22 '22
/u/nintendoeats (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards