= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it 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.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (178)
So the ability to steal without getting caught is a virtue?
I think Vladimir Nesov's response and khafra's response are correct, but there's more to be said.
Even granting for the moment that 'ability to steal without getting caught' can be called a trait of character, there are empirical claims that the virtue ethicist would make against this.
First, no one actually has that skill - if you steal, eventually you will be caught.
Second, the sort of person who goes around stealing is not the sort of person who can cultivate the social virtues and develop deep, lasting interpersonal relationships, which is an integral component of the good life for humans.
Not a valid argument against a hypothetical.
Smoking lesion problem? If developing the skill doesn't actually cause other problems, and instead the predisposition to develop the skill is correlated to those problems, you should still develop the skill.
It's not a valid argument against its truth, but it's a valid argument against its relevance. A hypothetical is useless if its antecedent never obtains.
Like I said, it's an empirical question. For philosophers, that's usually the end of the inquiry, though it's very nice when someone goes out and does some experiments to figure out which way causality goes.
How is it possible to know that with certainty?
Should I understand this question as "What experimental result would cause you to update the probability of that belief to above a particular threshold"? Because my prior for it is pretty high at this point. Or are you looking for the opposite / falsification criteria?
If you're a good enough driver, there's a decent chance you'll never get in a car crash. If you study stealing and security systems enough, and carefully plan, I don't see why you would be likely to be caught eventually. Why is your prior high?
Agreed, with the addition that car crashes are public while stealing is covert, so it's harder to know how much stealing is going on.
I'd call that a skill, rather than a character trait. The closest thing I can think of to a beneficial but non-admirable character trait is high-functioning sociopathy; but that's at least touching the borderline of mental disease, if not clearly crossing it. Perhaps "charming ruthlessness?" But many would consider e.g. Erwin Rommel virtuous in that respect.
If it's good for the person who decides to steal. The first problem is that logical control makes individual decisions into group decisions, so if social welfare suffers, so does the person, as a result of individual decisions. Thus, deciding to steal might make everyone worse off, because it's the same decision as one made by other people. The second problem is that the act of stealing itself might be terminally undesirable for the person who steals.
Parent, grandparent and great-grandparent to my comment were all about "virtues" in virtue ethics.
I see. So you agree that ability to steal without getting caught is a virtue according to the definition thomblake cited, and see this as a reducio of thomblake's definition, showing that it doesn't capture the notion as it's used in virtue ethics.
My comment was oblivious to your intention, and discussed how much "ability to steal without getting caught" corresponds to thomblake's definition, without relating that to how well either of these concepts fits "virtues" of virtue ethics.
Yes, all correct.
How do you think that works as a reductio? What is it about your example of a putative virtue that makes it fit my definition, but not the 'virtues' of virtue ethics? (is it simply the 'stronger' notions of virtue I offered in the same comment?)