badger comments on Virtue Ethics for Consequentialists - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (178)
I also came to virtue ethics via The Happiness Hypothesis, and I read the quoted passage a little differently. I understand the post as saying virtue ethics can be a useful implementation of consequentialism for bounded agents by giving them high level summaries of what they should do. The passage, however, is arguing this focus on actions is misguided, and I agree.
As others have helpfully reiterated, virtues can't be foundational, just like the rules of rule utilitarianism aren't worth following for their own sake. A computationally bounded agent might not know exactly what it should do, so it follows a rule to approximate the unconstrained ideal.
Knowledge and computational constraints are well-acknowledged, but virtue ethics extends beyond that to address constraints in general. The focus on character is about building the capacity to follow through on the proper actions. Someone might be too scared, too weak-willed, or too apathetic to do the right thing, even if they know what to do. Becoming virtuous is an investment in moral capital, making the person more capable of taking the right action in the future.
I take it that you are talking about "training the elephant"*? If you took that to be one of the main points in virtue ethics as argued by The Happiness Hypothesis, then I agree. One of the biggest effects in my shift towards virtue effect has been that I've began constantly evaluating all my actions (and thoughts!) in light of virtue and self-improvement, instead of only having ethics come into place in relatively rare situations. I think this may have been a bit more clear in the original post that Will linked to.
(*: For those who haven't read The Happiness Hypothesis:
From my original post: