When I have time to process, my ultimate morality is purely consequentialist in nature.
Since I know that my information is always imperfect and my processing power is always limited, I use virtue ethics to make my in-the-moment decisions.
Then, later, when I have more time and information, I use consequentialist reasoning to update my virtue ethics heuristics.
For me, “virtues” are only virtuous inasmuch as they have positive consequential utility, and striving for “virtues” is preferable to direct consequential computation because for limited human minds, virtue ethics tends to produce better net consequences.
You can pull the same stunt with Deontology—treat it as pre-packaged rules to follow when you don’t have the time in the moment to do the relevant consequential calculations. Say, you know that lying is much worse for you than your in-the-moment decision making complex says it is. You can reliably do better by implementing a rule of “don’t lie”, so you do, and then you follow it.
Perhaps this is a problem with my understanding of Deontology, but it seems like Deontological ethics are not as robust under update as Virtue ethics. I.e., I can start with “don’t lie”, but then discover semi-reliable conditions under which lying IS preferrable, so I update to “don’t lie unless a life is at serious risk”, which now has a pointer snaking out from the “don’t lie” rule to the “life” and “serious risk” definitions. The next time I update something that affects the “serious risk” definition, I have to trace down all those dependencies and re-verify coherence.
Virtue ethics has the advantage of performing its coherence checks mostly subconsciously/instinctively, since it ties into behaviors that have been evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors. Deontology, with its necessity for strict rule-adherence and logical rigour, has many of the failure modes of consequentialism without any of its direct benefits.
I concur. Well said. I’m going to steal this concept: purely consequentialist given sufficient time and information, but merely virtuous in a pinch. Because in a pinch, virtue ethics is consequentially superior… ethically. Ha.
Also, I assume your’ll forgive me stealing your ethical heuristics? :)
I try to look at it this way:
When I have time to process, my ultimate morality is purely consequentialist in nature.
Since I know that my information is always imperfect and my processing power is always limited, I use virtue ethics to make my in-the-moment decisions.
Then, later, when I have more time and information, I use consequentialist reasoning to update my virtue ethics heuristics.
For me, “virtues” are only virtuous inasmuch as they have positive consequential utility, and striving for “virtues” is preferable to direct consequential computation because for limited human minds, virtue ethics tends to produce better net consequences.
You can pull the same stunt with Deontology—treat it as pre-packaged rules to follow when you don’t have the time in the moment to do the relevant consequential calculations. Say, you know that lying is much worse for you than your in-the-moment decision making complex says it is. You can reliably do better by implementing a rule of “don’t lie”, so you do, and then you follow it.
Perhaps this is a problem with my understanding of Deontology, but it seems like Deontological ethics are not as robust under update as Virtue ethics. I.e., I can start with “don’t lie”, but then discover semi-reliable conditions under which lying IS preferrable, so I update to “don’t lie unless a life is at serious risk”, which now has a pointer snaking out from the “don’t lie” rule to the “life” and “serious risk” definitions. The next time I update something that affects the “serious risk” definition, I have to trace down all those dependencies and re-verify coherence.
Virtue ethics has the advantage of performing its coherence checks mostly subconsciously/instinctively, since it ties into behaviors that have been evolutionarily advantageous to our ancestors. Deontology, with its necessity for strict rule-adherence and logical rigour, has many of the failure modes of consequentialism without any of its direct benefits.
I concur. Well said. I’m going to steal this concept: purely consequentialist given sufficient time and information, but merely virtuous in a pinch. Because in a pinch, virtue ethics is consequentially superior… ethically. Ha.
Also, I assume your’ll forgive me stealing your ethical heuristics? :)
I wouldn’t share it if I didn’t approve of others utilizing it. :) If you find any handy moral heuristics yourself, be sure to pass them forward.