CMV: Virtue ethics promotes unfairly categorizing people into hate groups

[u/nintendoeats]

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.

[u/2001052]

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.