= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vladimir_Nesov 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)
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.