/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22391856]

Bertrandsisters... not like this... we should've just sticked to set theory and making Frege cry

[Anonymous No.22392051]

>>22391856
this is correct, virtue ethics is simply an elaborate way of begging the question

>courage is the golden mean between cowardice and rashness
>what are cowardice and rashness?
>uhhhh here's some examples
>and a definition that defines them only in relation to other character traits

if every character trait can only be defined in relation to other such traits, then there's no grounding for the system. it's a house of cards and it deserves to be knocked over.

unlike utilitarian, kantian, or egoist ethics, virtue ethics has no solid foundation. this causes virtue ethicists to talk past each other, often arguing the same thing without realizing it, because every concept is slippery.

virtue ethics is also bad at guiding behavior -- the thing ethics is meant to do. should i be a cannibal? according to the virtue ethicist, it's contingent not only on circumstance, but also on my own (culturally situated) understanding of prudence, justice, and so on. is it just to devour the corpses of my enemies? who's to say?

there's a reason very few working philosophers are virtue ethicists today. it's a weak position.

[Anonymous No.22392056]

>>22391856
both Aristotle and Russell were retarded when it came to general philsophy. Russell at least made big progress in the space of mathamatics but clearly had no grasps on any philosophical underlying to what he was doing.

[Anonymous No.22392057]

>>22392051
huh?

[Anonymous No.22392131]

>>22391856
>we should've just sticked

[Anonymous No.22392150]

>>22392051
>there's a reason very few working philosophers are virtue ethicists today. it's a weak position.

Other way round imo, a lot of modern scholars love virtue ethics because they can make unsubstantiated points by hiding behind practical wisdom.

The fact that it can't be clearly defined is also why virtue epistemology is so popular. It lets the feminist types in academia talk shit that has no place in philosophy while avoiding the problem that it is externalist and that a necessary condition for epistemic virtue (it's defined as whatever virtues result in knowledge) is that the agent has counter mechanisms to biased that result from evolutionary psychology.

It's part of a wider problem of feminists erroding standards in academia, look up the "culture of justification" paper, I think it's in an essay series on field philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22392169]

>>22391856
He is literally correct though. You’re probably a seething christian neothomist. Aristotle would have been disgusted that for 1000 years people taught his work as doctrine and only like one person questioned his claims about motion. Aristotle was not a dogmatist, he would completely abandon his philosophy if he saw the state of modern science and philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22392200]

>>22392150
i stand corrected
>philpapers 2020 survey, top ethical frameworks
>#1, virtue ethics, 25%
>#2, consequentialism, 21%
>#3, deontology, 19%
https://survey2020.philpeople.org/survey/results/4890

it must vary by university. most of my professors were analytic, so they tended to be consequentialists or deontologists (more general terms which include utilitarianism and kantianism). also had a kooky anarchist stirner fan and a feminist care ethicist. i went to a relatively old-fashioned school, though, so my experience may not be the norm.

i stand by my criticism though.

[Anonymous No.22392224]

>be anon’s descendant, circa 4500 AD
>read about the contemporary philosopher Bervius Rostle’s critique of ancient philosopher Bertrand Russel’s legacy
>”hah! What a bugman! He can’t appreciate the divine wisdom of the ancients!”

[Anonymous No.22392256]

>>22392224
>Bertrand Russell rejects tradition, he should read evola and mein kampf