On Virtue
tl-dr ; Utilitarianism is perhaps correct in a certain narrow definition, but human beings need moral exemplars to emulate. DT is a terrible person who must be opposed.
What is right action? I have no idea.
Ultimately, I hold that right action is doing the most good for the greatest number, human beings are not the sort of creature that are good at deducing this in the moment. We must make virtue a habit, and learn from exemplars. When we do not have exemplar, or do not strive to become better and overcome our biases, negative consequences such as the election of DT occur. A failing society is the responsibility of all of it's members, especially those who would claim to be virtuous.
We are not good at deducing good from ill in the moment. In any particular moment, we are a mass of chemicals that alter our perceptions. These chemicals can make right action more difficult, perhaps even impossible. Sometimes, the best we are capable of is to simply leave a situation. Even when the mainstay of our needs are met and we are the best ourselves we can be, we still cannot see the repercussions of most of our actions. Our best foresight is limited to a few decades, and usually merely moments. We are simply not the sort of creature who can ethically practice utilitarianism.
We must practice virtue, and a few methods work for me: study, learning from exemplars, and embracing difficult situations. Study gives a groundwork, and I find it essentially to have underpinnings to know right from wrong. Exemplars come and go from my life, as I either level up or lose virtue. The least productive time in my career was when I had no exemplars, and it ended terribly. I've learned to always have at least one exemplar, and have strived to be one for others. By embracing difficult situations, we gradually increase the habit of virtue, making it easier to succeed in morally difficult situations, and simple to do so in daily ones. In this since, virtue requires skill and the time to learn to be virtuous.
We were all lucky that for eight years, we had a moral exemplar as President of the United States. DT is a terrible scourge, representing a malevolent combination of a lack of virtue, and a lack of understanding that virtue even exists. This beast has had the time to learn how to be virtuous, and has chosen not to. This beast has been given every opportunity, and has used them for foul ends. But what is worse than DT is those who voted for the beast, who either ignore the lack of virtue, do not see it, or embrace it. Since the election, these have started to come out of the wordwook and to act in more and more harmful ways. This represents a shameful failure of our society to direct individuals towards virtue. While the lack of virtue in one rich beast is his own fault, the embracing of this lack by millions is a societal lack.
We must continue to oppose DT. The supporters thereof have proven they will not, and leaving it for the rest of us to do so. The habit of virtue lead to Marches on Washington to oppose the beast, millions of dollars given to the ACLU and other charities, and continued pressure on our elected representatives. At the same time, a certain narrow band of Americans continue to support DT in the face of overwhelming evidence of immoral and illegal behavior.
In order to do the most good, we have to create a habit of virtue. As we do so, we study, emulate exemplars and allow others to emulate and learn from us while increasing the moral difficulty of situations we can handle. With the election of DT, it has become much more difficult to be good, both because the beast must be continuously opposed and due to the increased difficulty of everyday interacts with supporters of the beast. Opposition must be continual, legal, and the sort of actions we would want others to emulate.
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel like over-reliance on utilitarianism, and scientism are intimately linked.
ReplyDeleteI'm a big, big fan of science, but trying to use utilitarianism everywhere, every time, gives people a habit of reductivist thinking.
Yeah, I have no real objective problem with utilitarianism. At least, with long-term thinking and UT. I've got a problem with humans trying to do it, being blinded by our own nonesense, and thinking we've made objectively correct decisions. We're terribly bad at that.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with utilitarianism as the only system of ethical thinking, because it reduces the mind's view of the world to what is objectively measurable.
ReplyDelete"But what is worse than DT is those who voted for the beast, who either ignore the lack of virtue, do not see it, or embrace it."
ReplyDeleteI'm having trouble following your argument. Presumably the people who ignore the lack of virtue aren't using Trump as a moral exemplar. I'm also presuming that you and people who share your political views aren't using Trump as a moral exemplar. How many people are treating Trump like a moral exemplar? Would they stop doing so if he was removed from office? Do you think Mike Pence would be a good moral exemplar?
"Since the election, these have started to come out of the wordwook and to act in more and more harmful ways."
I would have thought that you would have considered voting for Trump their high-water-mark of harmful behavior. What increases in harm have you noticed since the election?
"We were all lucky that for eight years, we had a moral exemplar as President of the United States."
If there's a significant luck component to whether or not the president is a moral exemplar, wouldn't it be a more reliable long-term strategy to convince people not to look to presidents or other politicians as moral exemplars?
Not to mention utility monsters!
ReplyDeleteSo, I tend to think of there as being three kinds of ethics.
ReplyDeleteIncarnate ethics, where people seek to embody virtues -- following, and becoming, exemplars.
Legalistic ethics, where people seek to obey and support an integrated system.
Transformative ethics, which identify an ethical point and seek to make it unignorable, using it as a wedge to overturn an existing ethical system that has developed a terrible abuse.
As other people have pointed out elsewhere, DT is practically an avatar of The Patriarch -- successful, virile, stern and demanding of respect, surrounded by beautiful women, authoritative, straightforward -- large and in charge, in many ways. He's an exemplar of certain virtues.
These are virtues that kind of suck for a lot of people, especially when they're not balanced with other patriarchal virtues -- responsibility and defense of one's charges, honesty and integrity, wisdom and learning, generosity, courage, self-sacrifice. And double extra suck when the patriarchal virtues he does uphold, he upholds in image but not in substance.
So I think there are lots of people who follow the Incarnate model of ethics, and approved of trump for his arguably ok virtues...
...and a bunch of people who celebrate his racism, know-nothing, authoritarian, screw-the-world-for-my-ambitions attitudes as virtues (moral ends in themselves) who are empowered by his position of authority to celebrate and push those values.
That's a major societal hazard.
Tony Lower-Basch Oh for sure, we shouldn't try to use UT. The best we can do is to be the sort of people who generate good in the world, ie virtuous people.
ReplyDeleteFailure to attend to what's objectively measurable is what allows habits to persist as they turn toxic. Hygienic imperatives favor bullshit rationales over accurate rationales when the latter's complexity represent a hindrance to their implementation, because when hygienic habits are concerned, the what is more important than the why --
ReplyDeletein the short term. In the long term however, we end up with bullshit legacy rationales, sacred shit immune to facts.
Dan Maruschak Let's see if I can address this, but I'll start with the last.
ReplyDelete"... wouldn't it be a more reliable long-term strategy to convince people not to look to presidents or other politicians as moral exemplars?"
People don't work this way. Anyone in the lime light becomes someone we emulate. People wanted to be like Michael Jordan, who had advantages (like height) that were inherently beyond our capabilities. That is, whether or not it is a better long-term strategy is irrelevant, as we are not the sort of creatures who can work that way.
If we were, we wouldn't need examplars in the first place!
The first follows from that: the increased right-wing violence against (largely) women and minorities since the election is caused by these people feeling empowered. And they feel empowered due to DT being President.
As for removal: I don't believe this particular essay is on removal from the Presidency, and I see it as a bit beyond the scope. That is, I'd have to right a whole other essay on the right way forward from this mess.
Jesse Cox I'm going to disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteWhile I didn't describe this above, I tend to think of virtue in a similar way to Socrates -- as a means between two vices. Patriarchy may well embody some virtues, but as typically exhibited in those we call Patriarchs (say, Romney), this brings with it certain excesses which are inherently not virtuous. One can be a virtuous patriarch, but to do so is to also embody some restraining factors.
That DT shows the same outward signs identifies him as one such. That he brings along none of the restraining factors -- none of the other side of the virtuous equation -- means he is without virtue.
The rest I agree with -- DT may appear to hold certain virtuous, but this is a mirage.
Boris Borcic I'm not how that is related. Can you unpack and draw some connections?
ReplyDeleteWilliam Nichols I was reacting to someone's comment dissing utilitarianism for its effect of reducing ethics to the objectively measurable.
ReplyDelete"Anyone in the lime light becomes someone we emulate."
ReplyDeleteSo is it morally problematic to pay a lot of attention to someone you think shouldn't be emulated? How about paying attention to media sources that put people like that in the lime light?
"the increased right-wing violence against (largely) women and minorities since the election is caused by these people feeling empowered."
Are there solid numbers on this yet? The last time I looked into things it seemed to me that there is always an aggravatingly large delay in crime statistics so news articles tend to rely on a combination of anecdotes and experts guessing and you rarely get a reliable measure of real trends.
Dan Maruschak Feel free to do your own research regarging hate crimes in the US. The FBI, ACLU, and SPLC can all be helpful to you. I'm not interested in continuing this line of conversation. It is too morally hazardous for me. Thanks, though!
ReplyDeleteBoris Borcic That's cool. So I guess you are responding to Tony Lower-Basch?
ReplyDeleteMaybe mention him in your next comment about it, so you two can have a conversation and learn from each other.
Boris Borcic: My intent was not to diss utilitarian ethics. They're one good way of evaluating situations and choosing ethical courses of action. One good way. In the absence of any other considerations, utilitarianism becomes reductivist.
ReplyDeleteTony Lower-Basch You are reacting to my description of the context to William Nichols of my reaction to your words, but not to the latter that mentions neither ethics nor utilitarianism.
ReplyDeleteI was rather taking aim against the "ok to disdain the objectively measurable" in the context of ethics, that seemed implied by your language, and which I think is the central issue with religious sacredness when it results in letting legacy bullshit rationales of antiquated habits persist beyond the point they become toxic.
Boris Borcic: Maybe find somebody who is actually arguing that to argue with, then?
ReplyDeleteI wasn't trying to pick an argument.
ReplyDeleteOn the choosing of who to emulate
ReplyDeleteI think there are two broad categories of those we emulate, with some obvious spillover. We emulate those in power, and we emulate those who we choose to emulate. The former is not necessarily conscious, and is why for eight years I've been saying "Let me be clear". The latter is necessarily conscious, and is admittedly also why I've been saying "Let me be clear" for eight years.
That is, we emulate and become more like those in power/on TV / in public simply because we see them all the time. They are successful, so goes the brain, therefore it must be good to be like them. I've for sure witnessed this in corporations, where a new manager/director/C level changes the culture of the office without trying. This mode is dangerous, especially as it conflates prestige with virtue.
The second takes many forms. I am lucky enough to have many people I can choose to emulate: my wife, my friends, my boss, my mother, my sister. I am also hopeful that I act as a moral exemplar for those same people, and for many others -- that my actions and attitudes lead others to be better.
Overcoming the former and increasing the latter is part of the process of building virtue. From all appearances, it is this process that the supporters of DT (and the beast himself) have never engaged in. As such, they are like moral infants and notion of virtue do not apply.
Without virtue as a goal, we must look to another type of morality. That falls to deontology, or rule-following. For those who have no idea what the "spirit of fair play" actually is, we must instead discuss the actual rules. And those rules must be sufficiently powerful and sufficiently forceful as to prevent further harm.
So far, of course, they are not. I am hopeful Mueller -- seemingly a paragon of virtue -- is able to do so.