Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
What's niggling me is that we haven't pinned down what ethics/morality actually is - it seems to have been shape shifting throughout this thread.
|
That's a very good point and I think part of the "dispute" of the thread relates to just that.
Here's a quote from SEP:
Quote:
|
Virtue ethics is currently one of three major approaches in normative ethics. It may, initially, be identified as the one that emphasizes the virtues, or moral character, in contrast to the approach which emphasizes duties or rules (deontology) or that which emphasizes the consequences of actions (consequentialism). Suppose it is obvious that someone in need should be helped. A utilitarian will point to the fact that the consequences of doing so will maximise well-being, a deontologist to the fact that, in doing so the agent will be acting in accordance with a moral rule such as "Do unto others as you would be done by" and a virtue ethicist to the fact that helping the person would be charitable or benevolent.
|
It seems to me that there has been a fair amount of talking at cross-purposes simply because different people have implicitly adopted one or other of these positions and someone else responded from a different position, and neither have been explicit about the position they are coming from.