DeVliegendeHollander comments on Open Thread, May 11 - May 17, 2015 - Less Wrong

3 Post author: Gondolinian 11 May 2015 12:16AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (247)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Dahlen 12 May 2015 12:33:59AM 4 points [-]

Is utilitarianism foundational to LessWrong? Asking because for a while I've been toying with the idea of writing a few posts with morality as a theme, from the standpoint of, broadly, virtue ethics -- with some pragmatic and descriptive ethics thrown in. (The themes are quite generous and interlocking, and to be honest I don't know where to start or whether I'll finish it.) This perspective treats stable character traits, with their associated emotions, drives, and motives as the most reasonably likely determiner of moral behaviour, and means to encourage people to "build character" so as to become more moral beings or improve their behaviour. It doesn't concern itself with quantitative approaches to welfare. Frankly, I find it hard to take seriously the numerical applications of utilitarianism, and my brain just shuts down upon some ethical problems usually enjoyed around here (torture vs. dust specks, repugnant conclusion, contrived deals with strange gods and so on).

I know that Eliezer's virtues-of-rationality post is widely appreciated by many people around here, but it's a declaration of (commitment to) values more than anything. It never seemed to be the dominant paradigm. I guess I just want to know whether a virtue-ethical approach would be well-received here, and the extent to which a utilitarian and a virtue ethicist can usefully discuss morality without jumping a meta level into theories of normative ethics.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 May 2015 08:30:24AM 2 points [-]

I think virtue ethics is sufficiently edgy, new, different these days to be interesting. Go on.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 12 May 2015 09:41:06AM 8 points [-]

new

I agree, scholarship is a problem.

Comment author: [deleted] 12 May 2015 11:33:42AM 3 points [-]

Okay, ancient enough, but fell into disuse around the Enlightenment, was hardly considered 100-120 years ago, returned among academic philosophers like Philippa Foot, Catholics like MacIntyre tryed to keep it alive, and it is only roughly about now that it is something slowly considered again by the hip young atheist literati classes for whom karma is merely a metaphor and do not literally believe in bad deeds putting a stain on the soul, so in this sense it is only a newly fashionable thing again.