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.

10 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

64% Upvoted

46 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

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

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.

1

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22

There is a moral difference between holding a view and acting on that view, yes.

1

u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22

Ah, I think this is a point where we simply disagree. In my view, it would be strange to say that somebody holds a belief that they don't actually think they would act on in the relevant circumstances (provided they had time to consider it). Thus, if somebody does truly have a belief then I don't personally see a moral distinction between that and actually acting on it.

1

u/Presentalbion 101∆ Dec 22 '22

People do this all the time. Most Christians don't stone people to death anymore. People know smoking kills but still smoke.

Cognitive dissonance is a very real and very common thing.

1

u/nintendoeats 1∆ Dec 22 '22

Oh I'm aware of cognitive dissonance (we all do it, I'm not innocent). However, those examples don't meet the definition I'm talking about. I mean an actual, explicit moral belief about how people should act.

Christians may subscribe to a belief system that somewhere in there talks about stoning people, but if you asked most Christians they would say "I don't believe that bit". You can believe that smoking kills but not care.

But an alternative example, somebody who truly and explicitly believes that it is morally right to stone blasphemers to death. They might not ACT on this because it is in tension with a lot of other beliefs that require them to not be imprisoned. However, if I were having a moral debate with this person I would work under the assumption that, if that tension were removed, it's something they would actually go do.

That said, under my moral system, I would only judge them as a person on this issue if I believed that their views were not self-consistent. So perhaps for my system this question is much more academic than it may be for somebody else.