Veeky Forums, do deontology and virtue ethics overlap a lot?
Crudely speaking, deontologically, a man has a duty to act X and a man is expected to act as X because God has told him to act as such.
Would it be that the duty of man by means of virtue ethics, say in a Christian form, adheres to the commandments of God, while the origin of the duty of man under deontology is not found, rendering deontology incomplete in that sense?
I would like to hear what you fellers think.
>Crudely speaking, deontologically, a man has a duty to act X and a man is expected to act as X because God has told him to act as such.
forgive me, here is a correction:
Crudely speaking, deontologically, a man has a duty to act X, but under virtue ethics, a man is expected to act as X because God has told him to act as such.
bump
They overlap in the sense that they prescribe absolute goals for human existence. Kantian and Aristotelian philosophy exemplify deontology and virtue ethics, respectively. Kant posited that the origin of duty lies in reason itself; the only way to be truly autonomous (and free) is to act according to the categorical imperative, otherwise, your will is bound to explicitly material considerations (hypothetical imperatives). Aristotle thought that the virtues brought about happiness and pleasure in all cases, and that one could not be meaningfully happy without living a virtuous life, because any act or behavior lacking virtue would entail an excess or defect in a certain state of character, which implies a failure to act in the proper way under given circumstances. A coward cannot be happy like a brave man because his disposition conflicts with what he knows to be right, if he is incontinent, and if not, he will face ostracism regardless of whether he believes the improper act (e.g. fleeing a battlefield) to be proper or improper.
These ethics, at least, are similar in that they assert a highest human or rational good. They differ as to the nature of the good, how the good is achieved, how it is maintained, and how it is to be understood.
>these ethics, at least, are similar in that they assert a highest human or rational good.
I believe that what I was intent on finding. Thank you user
>under virtue ethics, a man is expected to act as X because God has told him to act as such.
No, that's divine command theory, a particular case of deontology.
>the duty of man by means of virtue ethics, say in a Christian form, adheres to the commandments of God, while the origin of the duty of man under deontology is not found, rendering deontology incomplete in that sense?
Sigh. Virtue ethics is about forming man's character, not man's actions, the latter is the focus of deontology. Biblical prescriptions telling you to welcome the Lord by making yourself like a child or to love your neighbour tell you to change your character, but without giving you actual prescriptions on which actions are conductive to this achievement, because the point is for you to figure that one out by using an adaptable, flexible mind who interprets things. Whereas thou shalt not murder is a direct negative commandment against unlawful killing of people, which doesn't concern itself about your personality, nor would ordinarily require any particular rational or introspective effort or growth, and if there is any effort in following it at all, it is practical, like asking yourself whether beheading people lead to their death, or whether this beheading is in violation of the law.
>I would like to hear what you fellers think.
There are people who learn about guns from videogames such as the Call of Duty series and go to /k/ thinking they know what they are talking about, you are doing a similar thing with metaethics and Veeky Forums, instead of firearms and /k/, and are just as insufferable. Read Aristotle's Ethics and Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals and Critique of Practical Reason.
>Virtue ethics is about forming man's character, not man's actions
A large section of Nicomachean Ethics is devoted to describing how virtuous states of character result from actions that exhibit particular virtue.
>go to /k/ thinking they know what they are talking about, you are doing a similar thing with metaethics and Veeky Forums, instead of firearms and /k/, and are just as insufferable.
I was asking questions because I am not well versed. I'm well aware that I hardly know these concepts, hence the "crudely speaking" and the asking of questions. I genuinely don't think my post was boastful in knowledge of philosophy. But thanks for the clarifications about my questions and the recommendations.
Aristotle is a practical guy that thinks doing things can improve a man's character. Because, again, the point for Aristotle is man's character, not drawing a list of actions that are always good no matter your personality. As per other virtue ethicists, you learn TO BE good by imitating and following the practical example of people of a good disposition, contemporary or past. To be > to do. Whereas deontology doesn't care who you are.
>not drawing a list of actions that are always good no matter your personality.
But an improved disposition is good for anyone, whether they have one that leads to displeasure or one that is neutral. Mediating towards bravery in action is good for the coward, the rash man, and the man of bravery (but not perfect bravery) alike.
>But an improved disposition is good for anyone
But if I'm a deontologist I don't give a shit that you have all these genocidal thoughts like a young Hitler or would-be school shooter, if the Law (Freud would say the Super-ego) is able to make your nefarious intentions impotent, unmanifested, unrealized prisoners in your skull, never guiding your hand, then Good and justice will prevail. "Let justice be done, and let the world perish" as Kant would have it, with the world including your retarded ideas and daddy issues.
But if you do break the Law with your actions, don't act too surprised when the Law breaks you. It's the virtue ethicists that would think something is broken and needs fixing if you are evil but do no evil, whereas Freud thinks it is completely physiological to have dark, repulsive, barbaric desires, much like Kant and the divine command guys would agree that temptation is always behind the corner, etc. and that's why we need the Law in the first place, because the virtue ethicists are too naïve.
Virtue ethics and deontology, despite the latter's etymology, have completely different objectives, hence their role as separate main currents of metaethics, forming a triad with consequentialism, as they judge everything from the final ultimate point of view of intentions, actions, or results, respectively.
Speaking of Freud, and consequentialism, Civilization and its Discontents and Mill's Utilitarianism are to be added to this thread's recommendation list. I would also add Anscombe's Modern Moral Philosophy as the text that compared the three currents, introducing the very word consequentialism and giving new life to virtue ethics in the debate over metaethics.
You meant that deontology is concerned with intentions, right? Kant stated unequivocally that acting simply to conform to the law is not moral, but only acting for the sake of the law is.
>it is not sufficient to do that which should be morally good that it conform to the law; it must be done for the sake of the law.
meant for
And here's a limit of Kant's ethics as conceived by the guy, that paralyzes the ability to judge the conduct of others - or how could I ever tell that this guy is giving to the poor out of spite as opposed to out of a good will? And to make matters worse since Kant's philosophy is wholly 1st person, only he is the legislator so he gets to define what the good will is.
When you look at the formulations of the categorical imperative:
>Act only according to that maxim by which you can also will that it would become a universal law.
>Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
>Every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in a universal kingdom of ends.
Kant speaks of universal law, kingdom of ends, humanity as ends and not means, and this is what dentologists kept of Kant, things leading people not to apply some dystopic instrumental reason to their fellow human beings where some are sacrificed for the good of others, and the verb to act, not some vague good will (that only the all-knowing God could possibly investigate!) as the final ultimate arbiter.
I mean, it's almost as bad as Kant saying you have a duty to tell the murderer where the would-be victim is hiding because lying is bad. Deontologists are, if anything, neo-kantian, rather than Kant as you find him.
Just read the Stanford Encyclopedia article on virtue ethics, it's really good to get you up to speed.
If you're still interested in the contemporary adaptations of eudaimonistic/Aristotelian virtue ethics, read Intelligent Virtue by Julia Annas. This school of thought has produced a lot of interesting literature to challenge the prevailing consequentialist/deontologist debate.
>Crudely speaking, deontologically, a man has a duty to act X and a man is expected to act as X because God has told him to act as such.
That's just one of many possible versions of deontology. There are possible sources of moral rules other than God.
One of the differences between deontology and VE is a in the account of right action:
>D: An action is right iff it is in accordance with a correct moral rule or principle.
>VE: An action is right iff it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically (i.e. acting in character) do in the circumstances. A virtuous agent is one who has, and exercises, certain character traits, namely, the virtues.
One of the similarities is that in VE the virtues generate certain action-guiding rules (v-rules): charity—"Act charitably", courage—"Act courageously" etc.
But in the end, moral goodness is in the action (that follows a correct moral rule) for deontologists, and in the agent (whose character is virtuous) for virtue ethicists.
bump
I think Nietzsche blows this question out of the water. I think what he says is that deontology, and morals/ethics in general, ground themselves in the notion of objectivity derived from religion; the fact that the name of that objectivity has changed doesn’t change that fact. So, logos, God, Reason, clear and distinct ideas, Thing-in-Itself, Being, etc are all just attempts to objectively ground what we do in something outside of ourselves
I think I answered your question, sorry if I sidetracked it lol
Ah. Demonology. One of Emerson's better too infrequently read essays..