I wasn’t and still am not sure what “Virtue Ethics” is supposed to mean. My personal ethics are based on the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” in other words, don’t violate the rights of other persons, and beyond that, do whatever you want. (Which does not mean I don’t see a point to charity—I just see charity as one of many things you might do with your money or time because it makes you happy. In my experience, enough people feel that way that it’s rare for anyone to starve or freeze unless he behaves so badly that he doesn’t deserve to be helped.)
Apologies if this violates a politics ban, but I can’t really answer an ethics question without going there.
As far as the objective “existence” of morals: it’s a meaningless idea. Even if there is just one God, his opinion doesn’t automatically become The Truth any more than yours or mine does.
Ultimately, morals/ethics are a matter of taste and nothing more. But they’re a unique exception to the old saw “there’s no accounting for taste” because your moral code determines whether you can be trusted (to do any particular thing someone else expects of you, a question that of course depends on who and what it is).
My personal ethics are based on the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” in other words, don’t violate the rights of other persons, and beyond that, do whatever you want.
This would be deontological: you are ethical if you are following the rules.
Per my understanding of it, virtue ethics looks to the traits of the individual moral agents. It is good to be a compassionate person. A compassionate person is more likely to give to charity, and so giving to charity may be indicative of virtue, but a person is ethical for being compassionate, not for the act itself.
I just see charity as one of many things you might do with your money or time because it makes you happy. In my experience, enough people feel that way that it’s rare for anyone to starve or freeze unless he behaves so badly that he doesn’t deserve to be helped.
My personal ethics are based on the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” in other words, don’t violate the rights of other persons,
You’re describing a deontological branch of ethics, I think.
As for virtue ethics, I believe virtue ethicists evaluate the morality of a deed based on whether it ennobles or debases the doer. In short, “charity is good” because it instills to you habits of charity that makes you a better person. But perhaps a virtue ethicist would be better fit to explain it (and my apologies to them if I got it wrong).
You’ve taken a sufficiently coherent political philosophy and pressed it into service as a moral philosophy, where it doesn’t fit. The principle “do not harm” doesn’t imply that you should (may?) give to charity because it makes you feel good. It only implies the converse, that you should give to charity if it makes you feel good.
But [Edit: one] purpose of a moral theory is to tell you when (if ever) to give to charity (and what charity to give to, etc.)
But the purpose of a moral theory is to tell you when (if ever) to give to charity (and what charity to give to, etc.)
I tend to like moral theories to also tell me whether or not to eat babies. Or is wanting the purpose to be a tad more general than charity donation just me?
In my experience, enough people feel that way that it’s rare for anyone to starve or freeze unless he behaves so badly that he doesn’t deserve to be helped.
There is a nice critique of this libertarian view of ethics here.
Okay, first things first: my initial reaction to a certain line in your comment was a reflexive downvote, but after a minute I reconsidered; applying the principle of charity, it’s more likely that I’ve misinterpreted you than that you actually meant what I found ridiculous. So, to clarify:
In my experience, enough people feel that way that it’s rare for anyone to starve or freeze unless he behaves so badly that he doesn’t deserve to be helped.
Surely, surely you are not blaming the victims of starvation?
Also, secondly:
I wasn’t and still am not sure what “Virtue Ethics” is supposed to mean.
WP has an okay summary, but the short version is: an act is moral or not based on the character and intentions of the actor. It sounds like your ethics are rather more deontological (i.e. rule-based).
I wasn’t and still am not sure what “Virtue Ethics” is supposed to mean. My personal ethics are based on the libertarian “non-aggression principle,” in other words, don’t violate the rights of other persons, and beyond that, do whatever you want. (Which does not mean I don’t see a point to charity—I just see charity as one of many things you might do with your money or time because it makes you happy. In my experience, enough people feel that way that it’s rare for anyone to starve or freeze unless he behaves so badly that he doesn’t deserve to be helped.)
Apologies if this violates a politics ban, but I can’t really answer an ethics question without going there.
As far as the objective “existence” of morals: it’s a meaningless idea. Even if there is just one God, his opinion doesn’t automatically become The Truth any more than yours or mine does.
Ultimately, morals/ethics are a matter of taste and nothing more. But they’re a unique exception to the old saw “there’s no accounting for taste” because your moral code determines whether you can be trusted (to do any particular thing someone else expects of you, a question that of course depends on who and what it is).
This would be deontological: you are ethical if you are following the rules.
Per my understanding of it, virtue ethics looks to the traits of the individual moral agents. It is good to be a compassionate person. A compassionate person is more likely to give to charity, and so giving to charity may be indicative of virtue, but a person is ethical for being compassionate, not for the act itself.
If only...
You’re describing a deontological branch of ethics, I think.
As for virtue ethics, I believe virtue ethicists evaluate the morality of a deed based on whether it ennobles or debases the doer. In short, “charity is good” because it instills to you habits of charity that makes you a better person. But perhaps a virtue ethicist would be better fit to explain it (and my apologies to them if I got it wrong).
You’ve taken a sufficiently coherent political philosophy and pressed it into service as a moral philosophy, where it doesn’t fit. The principle “do not harm” doesn’t imply that you should (may?) give to charity because it makes you feel good. It only implies the converse, that you should give to charity if it makes you feel good.
But [Edit: one] purpose of a moral theory is to tell you when (if ever) to give to charity (and what charity to give to, etc.)
I tend to like moral theories to also tell me whether or not to eat babies. Or is wanting the purpose to be a tad more general than charity donation just me?
There is a nice critique of this libertarian view of ethics here.
Okay, first things first: my initial reaction to a certain line in your comment was a reflexive downvote, but after a minute I reconsidered; applying the principle of charity, it’s more likely that I’ve misinterpreted you than that you actually meant what I found ridiculous. So, to clarify:
Surely, surely you are not blaming the victims of starvation?
Also, secondly:
WP has an okay summary, but the short version is: an act is moral or not based on the character and intentions of the actor. It sounds like your ethics are rather more deontological (i.e. rule-based).