a consequentialist may argue that lying is wrong because of the negative consequences produced by lying—though a consequentialist may allow that certain foreseeable consequences might make lying acceptable. A deontologist might argue that lying is always wrong, regardless of any potential “good” that might come from lying. A virtue ethicist, however, would focus less on lying in any particular instance and instead consider what a decision to tell a lie or not tell a lie said about one’s character and moral behavior
Under this schema, it seems like I’d use consequentialism to evaluate my own actions, and virtue ethics to evaluate the moral character of other humans? A person who volunteers time and donates a significant fraction of money which is nonetheless small in an absolute sense is likely kind-hearted. A person who cures a disease or designs a useful product is likely intelligent, but not necessarily kind-hearted, despite doing more good. The point of this is less to judge “better” and “worse” and more to predict future behavior.
One sense in which I’d use virtue-ethics like reasoning on myself would be if I was evaluating my own preferences. Before taking an action, I’d want to evaluate where the drive to take that action is coming from. “So I want to confront them about the behavior...putting possible beneficial consequences aside, that sounds like something a person would want to do when they are angry. Does this option seem attractive because I am angry? If so, will it still seem like a good idea after the anger subsides?”...and so on.
I think the idea of “good” refers both to character judgements and to actual consequences of actions. For example “Hitler’s mother was murdered by an evil man, and the world was changed for the better” makes sense, even though “good” as a concept is implicitly used in two different senses.
From Wikipedia
Under this schema, it seems like I’d use consequentialism to evaluate my own actions, and virtue ethics to evaluate the moral character of other humans? A person who volunteers time and donates a significant fraction of money which is nonetheless small in an absolute sense is likely kind-hearted. A person who cures a disease or designs a useful product is likely intelligent, but not necessarily kind-hearted, despite doing more good. The point of this is less to judge “better” and “worse” and more to predict future behavior.
One sense in which I’d use virtue-ethics like reasoning on myself would be if I was evaluating my own preferences. Before taking an action, I’d want to evaluate where the drive to take that action is coming from. “So I want to confront them about the behavior...putting possible beneficial consequences aside, that sounds like something a person would want to do when they are angry. Does this option seem attractive because I am angry? If so, will it still seem like a good idea after the anger subsides?”...and so on.
I think the idea of “good” refers both to character judgements and to actual consequences of actions. For example “Hitler’s mother was murdered by an evil man, and the world was changed for the better” makes sense, even though “good” as a concept is implicitly used in two different senses.