Thanks, Marvin. I think it's a lot more than "doing what you like". Take, for example, ethical naturalism, along the lines that Dafyd mentioned above.
The most influential account of human ends comes from Rosalind Hursthouse. Hursthouse says that human life is characterized by four ends: survival, reproduction, characteristic enjoyment and freedom from pain, and the good functioning of the group.
…
Humans alone among the animals act not from mere instinct, but from a rational capacity of deliberation and choice. So good, “flourishing” humans are those who pursue the four ends in accordance with reason.
Individual human beings are quite capable of recognising human flourishing and reasoning about it, while sharing with other human beings biology and ability to reason.
How can you "do what is virtuous" without a common understanding of virtue?
Quite straightforwardly. Through my own experience and reasoning, I can reach my own conclusions about virtue. Why is a common understanding required?
Because otherwise “do what is virtuous” becomes nothing more than “do what you like”.
And I think that reverts to classical "virtu" as Machiavelli understood it. A strong man does what he wants and - gaining social approval for it - it proves his manliness.
Ew.
And there are scholars who think that our old man Machiavelli might've been being a wee bit sarcastic when he wrote The Prince. It's hard to say.
The above discussion reminds me of the quote from Wall Street the movie where Gordon Gekko is quoted as saying: "Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good." The line “Greed…is good” presents a moral dilemma by claiming a traditional vice can produce social benefit. Greed is usually condemned for harming community, exploiting others, and elevating wealth above human dignity. Yet Gordon Gekko argues it fuels innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. The tension lies between individual self‑interest and collective well‑being: can society flourish when personal gain is pursued without restraint? The dilemma also pits economic utilitarianism against ethical character—should “good” be measured by outcomes or by virtue? Ultimately, the quote exposes how a partial truth about ambition becomes destructive when elevated into an absolute principle.
You can ditch the morality altogether: do what is virtuous.
A virtuous agent according to Aristotle does not think "what is the virtuous thing to do?". The formula is that virtuous action is what a virtuous person would do, in the way that they'd do it, for the reasons they'd do it. The courageous hoplite doesn't think, what is the courageous thing to do; they think, how do I support my comrades in the battle line, avoid letting them down, and overcome the enemy.
In point of view of actual decision making, virtue ethics doesn't differ much from deontology. A virtuous person doesn't think about what a virtuous person would do - they act according to some moral principle.
I'm still getting used to the idea of these being called *moral* principles, although I can see why.
Virtue ethicists vary on how much importance they give to the need for a shared framework. On the one hand you have someone like Alisdair MacIntyre, who thinks shared frameworks are vital, that modernity doesn't have them, and has given a lot of thought to the questions of how one can say one has rational knowledge where there are competing frameworks. On the other hand, someone like Rosalind Hursthouse thinks we have enough grounding in biology to reach shared conclusions about the good life.
It's darkly hilarious that anyone thinks one can find human patterns of human flourishing and therefore virtue in nature.
Well, it makes sense to me.
NB I see Rosalind Hursthouse wrote the current Stanford entry on virtue ethics.
On your first point it is fairly obvious why one needs a shared understanding of morality if you stop to think about it.
Consider acts of inhumanity. We both might agree that these are utterly hideous, but obviously that's not a shared belief of everyone. So then you have to explain why your moral is better than an infamous mass murderer. And it can't just amount to "it feels right to me that I should be able to come to my own conclusions on virtue" because he could say the same thing.
Of course many people down the centuries have committed heinous acts and thought they were totally justified in doing so.
One your second point, there are many many different modes of life in nature including everything you can possibly imagine and a whole lot you can't. Many species, for example, kill competitors even when they are closely related or even offspring in a way that humans would rightly consider murder if humans did it. There's absolutely no consistency or morality or anything approaching a moral lesson.
Just everything, altogether, all at once. If you see something admirable, put down your coffee because that will now be followed by ten other behaviours that look utterly revolting.
The above discussion reminds me of the quote from Wall Street the movie where Gordon Gekko is quoted as saying: "Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good." The line “Greed…is good” presents a moral dilemma by claiming a traditional vice can produce social benefit. Greed is usually condemned for harming community, exploiting others, and elevating wealth above human dignity. Yet Gordon Gekko argues it fuels innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. The tension lies between individual self‑interest and collective well‑being: can society flourish when personal gain is pursued without restraint? The dilemma also pits economic utilitarianism against ethical character—should “good” be measured by outcomes or by virtue? Ultimately, the quote exposes how a partial truth about ambition becomes destructive when elevated into an absolute principle.
Yes. A large part of the economy is built on this stuff. What does that say about society?
And I think that reverts to classical "virtu" as Machiavelli understood it. A strong man does what he wants and - gaining social approval for it - it proves his manliness.
Bullfrog, this stuff about virtù seems a bit tenuous, as the word virtù is Italian (unsurprisingly).
Aristotle used the Greek word "aretê", and asked "whether we ought to regard the virtue of a good man and that of a sound citizen as the same virtue".
Machiavelli's set of "virtues" is somewhat different from Aristotle's, which also suggests they're not really talking about the same thing.
Machiavelli had a specific usage of the word "virtù " that was grounded in the notion of power.
And of course he and Aristotle are not exactly the same, but they're playing in the same field.
I'm offering different models of honor and power as they relate to society. And to some extent, that's one way to approach morality and ethics, no? What is the appropriate use of power in society?
Consider acts of inhumanity. We both might agree that these are utterly hideous, but obviously that's not a shared belief of everyone. So then you have to explain why your moral is better than an infamous mass murderer. And it can't just amount to "it feels right to me that I should be able to come to my own conclusions on virtue" because he could say the same thing.
It's a bit more complex than this, because once one has abandoned the idea that morality is shared, one can ask why one has to pay any attention to what a mass murderer says.
Personally, I think the ultimate problem with all forms of moral relativism, quasi-realism, emotivism, and so on is that ultimately they devolve into might makes right, which is what we have morality to avoid. But that's an ultimately that it takes time to get to.
One your second point, there are many many different modes of life in nature including everything you can possibly imagine and a whole lot you can't. Many species, for example, kill competitors even when they are closely related or even offspring in a way that humans would rightly consider murder if humans did it. There's absolutely no consistency or morality or anything approaching a moral lesson.
I doubt any virtue ethicist thinks that morality for humans is the same as morality for tigers. Ethics for humans needs to be grounded in human nature, not tiger nature or ichneumon wasp nature.
I incline towards thinking that human nature does underdetermine ethics, or at least interpretations of human nature are so overloaded by ideological presuppositions as to make direct appeal unpersuasive. However, if ethics isn't about human nature I don't think there's any reason to care about it.
Talking about human nature doesn't help because there's no agreement about that either. According to Hobbes in it's natural state human life is "nasty, brutish and short".
Machiavelli had a specific usage of the word "virtù " that was grounded in the notion of power.
And of course he and Aristotle are not exactly the same, but they're playing in the same field.
I'm offering different models of honor and power as they relate to society. And to some extent, that's one way to approach morality and ethics, no? What is the appropriate use of power in society?
Well … as I understand it, for Aristotle, there is a significant difference between having power and desiring power, in relation to (caring about) acting ethically.
Whereas, for Machiavelli, virtù is most typically exhibited by an individual who (amongst other things) "conspires to seize power, and having seized it secures it".
So I think it would be more appropriate to a consideration of classical virtue ethics than modern virtue ethics, which doesn't appear to be particularly concerned with Machiavelli's virtù.
I don't think you'll ever find a real political actor who comes into power without first desiring it. That's like the perpetual motion machine of political science. So either way, you're going to have to deal with Machiavelli even if you don't like him very much.
And I recall someone up-thread mentioning that Aristotle was another one of those hypocrites who talked a good talk while endorsing slavery.
There is more to Machiavelli than The Prince, though I'll admit I haven't read his other works. I recall being taught that they're less cynical and more republican.
I don't think you'll ever find a real political actor who comes into power without first desiring it. That's like the perpetual motion machine of political science. So either way, you're going to have to deal with Machiavelli even if you don't like him very much.
Hah!
* I do quite like Machiavelli, but he's not very relevant to modern virtue ethics.
* I don't have to deal with Machiavelli, but being told that I do made me laugh.
* As far as I can tell, you're the only person on this thread who wants to talk about power.
And I recall someone up-thread mentioning that Aristotle was another one of those hypocrites who talked a good talk while endorsing slavery.
And? I mean, what's your point here? As already alluded to, was Aristotle a hypocrite by the standards of his own time, or by the standards of our time?
Putting it another way, it's OK to talk about what you want to talk about, the tricky bit is to get other people to want talk about it. (I'm also laughing at myself for saying this.)
Unless all this is a demonstration of political ethics, in which case I think your machiavellianism could use some work.
I would like to talk about the fine line between good and evil when it comes to Greed.
As a former mutual funds rep, I understood my fiduciary purpose was to help my clients get as much return on their investment as possible. But the companies I represented did not invest in tobacco or alcohol or firearms and weapons manufactures. Still those companies have the highest returns. On the other hand, I personally favored funds that were more socially responsible, but the overall yields were one or two points lower than the previously mentioned industries.
Going to the Gordon Gekko quote: Greed, for the lack of a better term, is good. Take recent mergers and acquisitions in fields like health care. As health systems are taken over by larger systems, the goal is to increase more efficiencies and reduce costs-some would say these things are good. But on the other hand, if it allows for more lay-offs and less consumer choice which can be bad in the long run.
Question: how can we balance greed for the good, and keep away from greed causing negative outcomes.
(This is actually from a discussion in business ethics.)
Comments
Individual human beings are quite capable of recognising human flourishing and reasoning about it, while sharing with other human beings biology and ability to reason.
And I think that reverts to classical "virtu" as Machiavelli understood it. A strong man does what he wants and - gaining social approval for it - it proves his manliness.
Ew.
And there are scholars who think that our old man Machiavelli might've been being a wee bit sarcastic when he wrote The Prince. It's hard to say.
On your first point it is fairly obvious why one needs a shared understanding of morality if you stop to think about it.
Consider acts of inhumanity. We both might agree that these are utterly hideous, but obviously that's not a shared belief of everyone. So then you have to explain why your moral is better than an infamous mass murderer. And it can't just amount to "it feels right to me that I should be able to come to my own conclusions on virtue" because he could say the same thing.
Of course many people down the centuries have committed heinous acts and thought they were totally justified in doing so.
One your second point, there are many many different modes of life in nature including everything you can possibly imagine and a whole lot you can't. Many species, for example, kill competitors even when they are closely related or even offspring in a way that humans would rightly consider murder if humans did it. There's absolutely no consistency or morality or anything approaching a moral lesson.
Just everything, altogether, all at once. If you see something admirable, put down your coffee because that will now be followed by ten other behaviours that look utterly revolting.
Yes. A large part of the economy is built on this stuff. What does that say about society?
Aristotle used the Greek word "aretê", and asked "whether we ought to regard the virtue of a good man and that of a sound citizen as the same virtue".
Machiavelli's set of "virtues" is somewhat different from Aristotle's, which also suggests they're not really talking about the same thing.
Machiavelli had a specific usage of the word "virtù " that was grounded in the notion of power.
And of course he and Aristotle are not exactly the same, but they're playing in the same field.
I'm offering different models of honor and power as they relate to society. And to some extent, that's one way to approach morality and ethics, no? What is the appropriate use of power in society?
Personally, I think the ultimate problem with all forms of moral relativism, quasi-realism, emotivism, and so on is that ultimately they devolve into might makes right, which is what we have morality to avoid. But that's an ultimately that it takes time to get to.
I doubt any virtue ethicist thinks that morality for humans is the same as morality for tigers. Ethics for humans needs to be grounded in human nature, not tiger nature or ichneumon wasp nature.
I incline towards thinking that human nature does underdetermine ethics, or at least interpretations of human nature are so overloaded by ideological presuppositions as to make direct appeal unpersuasive. However, if ethics isn't about human nature I don't think there's any reason to care about it.
Whereas, for Machiavelli, virtù is most typically exhibited by an individual who (amongst other things) "conspires to seize power, and having seized it secures it".
So I think it would be more appropriate to a consideration of classical virtue ethics than modern virtue ethics, which doesn't appear to be particularly concerned with Machiavelli's virtù.
And I recall someone up-thread mentioning that Aristotle was another one of those hypocrites who talked a good talk while endorsing slavery.
There is more to Machiavelli than The Prince, though I'll admit I haven't read his other works. I recall being taught that they're less cynical and more republican.
* I do quite like Machiavelli, but he's not very relevant to modern virtue ethics.
* I don't have to deal with Machiavelli, but being told that I do made me laugh.
* As far as I can tell, you're the only person on this thread who wants to talk about power.
And? I mean, what's your point here? As already alluded to, was Aristotle a hypocrite by the standards of his own time, or by the standards of our time?
Putting it another way, it's OK to talk about what you want to talk about, the tricky bit is to get other people to want talk about it. (I'm also laughing at myself for saying this.)
Unless all this is a demonstration of political ethics, in which case I think your machiavellianism could use some work.
As a former mutual funds rep, I understood my fiduciary purpose was to help my clients get as much return on their investment as possible. But the companies I represented did not invest in tobacco or alcohol or firearms and weapons manufactures. Still those companies have the highest returns. On the other hand, I personally favored funds that were more socially responsible, but the overall yields were one or two points lower than the previously mentioned industries.
Going to the Gordon Gekko quote: Greed, for the lack of a better term, is good. Take recent mergers and acquisitions in fields like health care. As health systems are taken over by larger systems, the goal is to increase more efficiencies and reduce costs-some would say these things are good. But on the other hand, if it allows for more lay-offs and less consumer choice which can be bad in the long run.
Question: how can we balance greed for the good, and keep away from greed causing negative outcomes.
(This is actually from a discussion in business ethics.)