Showing posts with label virtue ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label virtue ethics. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Scotty Hendricks — Virtue Ethics, the Moral System You Have Never Heard of but Have Probably Used

Are you the sort of person who always works for the greater good, or always sticks to moral rules? Perhaps you use a mixture of both? Or, maybe, are you neither of the above? Of course, do you know what you are if you are not one of those two?

While most people are familiar with Consequentialism and Deontology, they might be hard pressed to describe another system. This is for a simple reason, as both systems have been at the forefront of ethics for the last two hundred years. Modern Consequentialism is based heavily on the work of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 1800’s. These philosophers argued that the primary moral good is to maximize the total happiness.
Philosopher Peter Singer is one of the foremost modern consequentialists . Deontology owes its genesis to Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative which dictated that the acceptable action in any situation is the action which we would will everyone to do in that situation.
There are, of course, other ethical systems. Prominent among them is the idea of Virtue Ethics, the preferred ethics of Socrates, Aristotle, Confucius, Ben Franklin, Nietzsche and Martha Nussbaum. In recent years this school of thought has seen a resurgence in popularity, especially in the reinterpretation of Aristotelian thought.

Virtue ethics differs from Deontology and Consequentialism by focusing on the character of the person rather than the details of a single action. While consequentialism is concerned with the state of the world after an action takes place, and deontology is worried about how closely rules were followed, virtue ethics asks “what does this action say about the character of the actor?” The right thing to do then, is that which demonstrates, encourages, and will habitualise the best character traits....
Big Think
Virtue Ethics, the Moral System You Have Never Heard of but Have Probably Used
Scotty Hendricks, Iowa based writer and educator, and part time philosopher

Monday, July 27, 2015

Miles Kimball — "Aristotle saw people not as striving to maximize a state of satisfaction, and also not as striving..."

Aristotle saw people not as striving to maximize a state of satisfaction, and also not as striving to perform a list of duties. He saw them, instead, as striving to achieve a life that included all the activities to which, on reflection, they decided to attach intrinsic value.

Confessions of a Supply Side Liberal
"Aristotle saw people not as striving to maximize a state of satisfaction, and also not as striving..."
Miles Kimball | Professor of Economics and Survey Research at the University of Michigan

Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Tim Johnson on ethics and finance

This research question addresses an issue moral philosophy: what is the relationship between ethics and the structure of the polis and is motivated by themes in Pragmatic philosophy, in particular the hypothesis reciprocity emerges as a social norm to enable resilient and effective communities were exchange is important. The different commercial cultures can be seen as representing points on a spectrum of commercial attitudes and in cultures where there are low interest rates the hypothesis is that there will be greater homophily between the agents in the network, and this will create more resilient and effective financial networks. The research will aim to inform regulators of any intrinsic merits with emerging financial mechanisms, particularly crowdfunding and peer-to-peer lending, particularly as there is concern that the regulators will stifle the democratisation of finance.
Magic, Maths, and Money — The Relationship between Science and Finance
New Year's Resolutions
Tim Johnson | Lecturer in Financial Mathematics at Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh

Sunday, December 1, 2013

Chris Dillow — Building Character


The fact that we are discussing this itself shows the depth of the problem. Aristotle decided this issue in the Nichomachean Ethics, summarizing the classical education of Aristotle's day. It's the staple of virtue ethics based on the progressive unfolding of excellence (Ancient Greek: ἀρετή)

Virtue ethics was not only the key classical teaching about development in the West but also in China and India, and judging from what we know of tribal cultures, there as well. 

In tribal cultures the hero is the great distributor rather than the great accumulator. Recall the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where the shaykh says to Lawrence, "I am a river unto my people," and the tribe cheers wildly.

Virtue ethics and deontological (rule-based) ethics overlap in many cases, since cultural institutions make arrangements though rules, customs, and conventions for education based on building character. 

Since the Golden Rule (reciprocity) is the most predominant deontological principle historically, the overlap with virtue ethics should be evident. Human beings are social animals. Hence, reciprocity, fairness and justice are key elements in character. All parents — or almost all parents anyway — teach their children sharing as part of the socialization process.

Consequentialism was considered to follow from developing excellence since a person of character would act in accord with the good of all and not chiefly out of self-interest. However, some versions of consequentialism are based on pursuit of self-interest. Classical authors like Aristotle addressed and rejected such arguments, showing why the pursuit of fame, fortune, power or pleasure cannot be considered the summum bonum.

BTW, without understanding this debate over approaches to ethics it is difficult to critique the contemporary assumption of utility maximization based on so-called rationality fully. It has been dismissed by the wise for ages as puerile and leading to bad character.

“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question.”
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism

Stumbling and Mumbling
Building Character
Chris Dillow | Investors Chronicle