Ethical systems and their relative strengths
Sat, 28 Dec 2024
Opinion, Philosophy, Ethics
============================================

In the near future, I plan to make some posts about morality and
ethics. This post will simultaneously serve as a FAQ page and
declaration of affiliation. Here, I will write briefly what I
think about the major branches of Philosophical ethics, and show
where my personal affiliations lie.

This introduction should help you -- the reader -- in being a
good starting point for the coming posts. At the same tine, it
will help me, in that -- when I cam critiquing, lets say,
utilitarianism -- I won't need to state in great detail that I
am a virtue ethicist and that this clouds my judgment of
the theory being discussed.

Consequentialism
----------------

Consequentialist theories look at the consequences of actions.
Typically, the analysis of consequences is used pick a course of
action which maximizes the presence of a certain value or set of
values at the end. Utilitarianism for example aims to maximize
utility, hedonism maximises for pleasure, Marxism for
cultivation, etcetera.

Consequentialists -- in my option -- fall into two camps: the
practical and the useless. The practical have actual means of
calculating the relevant values in a given set of circumstances.
While these calculations usually leave something to be desired
-- thereby opening up the theory to more repugnant conclusions
than most -- they are generally useful in their ability to asses
the world and potential courses of action. The useless (or
theoretical) consequentialist states that we can assess morality
by looking at the relative presence certain specific values in
consequences, but does not outline how to measure these values.
They are, in this way, much like a virtue ethicist who does not
explain what virtues are, or which virtues we should embody.

While consequentialists (of the practical type) are great at
analysing situations, assessing moral progress, and identifying
potentially high-impact courses of action, they are not
NECESSARILY great at bringing about these states. A
consequentialist world would undoubtedly be quite nice to live
in, though it is not necessary that the people in that world are
moral, nor that the society as a whole is exactly because the
means and reason of the action do not matter, only the
consequence.

Deontology
----------

Deontological theories are theories of duty where the moral
course of action is the one which is in accordance with a
person's (or group's) obligations. There is much debate on
whether these duties are circumstantial or categorical. If a
duty such as ``do not lie'' is categorical, then it is immoral
to lie, even if it would save someone's life. If the duty is
circumstantial, then we may lie in certain -- well defined
-- circumstances (such as when lying would save a life).

Deontologists thus only look at actions when assessing the
morality of behaviour, not at the consequences. However, the
duties themselves do supposedly bring forth good consequences,
perhaps even maximally good ones. 

While deontologists can easily assess why a certain course of
action was wrong -- even if that action lead to a favourable
outcome -- they can not say anything against a person who
followed their duty but achieved nothing. Certainly, there might
be a duty to ``try at least *this* hard'', but trying and
accomplishing are only loosely related. Furthermore, while a
deontological world would be full of moral actions, it would --
in my option -- not be full of moral agents, because the agents
acts in total disregard of the consequences of their actions.

Virtue ethics
-------------

Theories of virtue asses the character of people, groups, or
systems. They generally define a set of traits which are good
people (groups, or systems) embody. Importantly, good people do
not just poses these traits, as they also act them out, and do
so entirely without effort, as if it is the most natural thing
to do. Classic examples of virtues are: Courage, wisdom,
moderation, justice, etcetera.

There are many reasons as to why I am personally a virtue
ethicist, rather too many to concisely put in this post, but let
me cover some of the ways in which virtue ethics meets the
challenges of consequentialism and deontology.

Firstly -- contra deontology -- virtue ethics looks at people,
rather than mere actions. This sidesteps the problem of
deontology mentioned above, where deontological people do not
necessarily seem to be moral people. At the same time, since
virtuous people act out their virtues, the resulting actions are
also virtuous.

Secondly -- contra consequentialism -- virtue ethics' instance
on instinctive action rings more true with my intuitions on
morality than a consequentialist cost-benefit analysis. For
example, when meeting a beggar on the street, the virtuous
person -- acting in generosity, humility, moderation, or justice
-- will take action to help them. A consequentialist will need
to analyse whether any aid would increase the overall amount of
good, and whether their, effort, money, food, etcetera might be
better spent elsewhere where it would do more good.

Now a consequentialist might argue that a generous society does
not necessarily imply a society effective at eliminating
poverty, or similar evils which can be combatted with charity. A
consequents society -- they would say -- is more effective at
this because they analyse where, how, how much, and when to
give. I would counter however that, the virtues cannot be taken
in isolation. A generous person is not a virtuous person, though
a virtuous person is generous. A virtuous person is furthermore
wise, patient, and prudent, and will thus also act in a way
which is maximally beneficial, even when these benefits do not
show up on a cost-benefit analysis. Indeed, the virtuous sage
may even employ consequents theories in their procurement of
wisdom so that they can henceforth take the best courses of
action.

A deontologist might argue that, while virtues make for good
people, they do not make for good societies. A society where
everyone follows their duties is a good society, but a society
where everyone is virtuous might not be. I would retort however
that virtuous people build virtuous societies, and that these
societies run smoothly even in absence of duties. A virtuous
society provides for its citizens even if there is no duty to
``feed the hungry'' or ``clothe the cold''. Virtuous people will
built this society and work within it exactly because there is a
unification of disposition, action, and outcome.

Personal opinion
================

As I have now mentioned many times, I am a virtue ethicist. I
(admittedly rather unoriginally) take wisdom, justice, courage,
and prudence to be the core virtues, with all other virtues
being derived from these.

I believe that the following of one's duty and the analysis of
outcomes are useful, especially when one is still cultivating
virtue.

I belie that many religions stress the importance of these
values, and believe that self-described adherents to these
faiths too often ignore them. This is especially frustrating in
faiths which I have personal affiliations with.

For example: The bible -- to me -- seems quite clear on the
duty/virtue of generosity, inclusion, forgiveness, humility, and
impartiality. And yet, I know few Christians who actually sold
everything they didn't need and gave it all to charity. Amongst
the Christians I know, there are many judgemental types, who
care more about who is sleeping with who, than about following
Christ's example and lifting the world out of suffering. They
boast about their `virtue', their `purity', proud of how long
they have been `saved' about how often they go to church, how
long and often they fast, whether they have been baptized,
re-baptized, whether it was in a pool, a lake, in the Jordan
itself. They make claims about what type of people can an cannot
be Christians, about what behaviours are entirely incompatible
with Jesus' message all the while they adorn themselves with
cowardice, excess, foolishness, and inequity; treating the
Church as nothing but a cult of mutual benefit.

If you read this paragraph and think to yourself ``yeah he is
right, Christians are awful'', then you have not understood
anything. If you came away thinking you are exempt from this
judgement because you are not Christian, know that the above
applies to people I have met of all religious and non-religious
persuasions.

If you have made it this far then I assume you are either
infuriated by how wrong I am, or you agree with me at least in
part. In either case, this seems a suitable place for a little
``recruitment drive''. If you agree with me that we must act
with wisdom, courage, justice, and prudence, then I urge you to
donate to a charitable cause or other high-impact virtuous
program in any way which you are able. If you disagree with me
on morality, then prove me wrong by donating in total absence of
virtue. Perhaps because it increases overall utility, because it
is your duty, because it makes you feel good and powerful to
give to people you consider inferior. If you donate to a
credible organisation, get a receipt and send it to me at
, I will match the first 100 euros of
donations to the causes of your choosing.

For inspiration consider:
- Giving what we can
- Give well
- Giving Green