The Case for Virtue Ethics!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 18 พ.ย. 2021
- There are many views of normative ethics, but I argue virtue ethics is the best form of ethics out there. Thank you to philosophers Reza Hadisi and Jennifer Baker for helping with this video.
Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:
/ inspiringphilosophy
/ @inspiringphilosophy
Sources:
Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics
J.J.C. Smart & Bernard Williams - Utilitarianism: For & Against
G.E.M. Anscombe - Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy, 33(124), 1-19.
Kraut, R. (2018, June 15). Aristotle's Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/ar....
G.E.M. Anscombe - Human Life, Action and Ethics: Essays by G. E. M. Anscombe
Julia Annas - Intelligent Virtue
Aryeh Kosman - Acting: Drama as the Mimesis of Praxis. In: A. O. Rorty, ed., Essays on Aristotle’s Poetics
Anton Ford - On What Is in Front of Your Nose. Philosophical Topics 44(1), 141-161. www.muse.jhu.edu/article/650878.
Margaret Hampson - Imitating Virtue. Phronesis. 64. 292-320. 10.1163/1568 5284-12341984.
#Ethics #Aristotle #Philosophy - บันเทิง
Inspiring philosophy is my favorite Christian channel,you make me love God with all my heart.
I’m glad I could help bring you closer to Christ.
Wow! I Corinthians 13 is, to me as a Christian, the very encapsulation of this ethic:
"If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. "Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
"Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
Humans will always fall somewhere along the spectrum from hedonism to legalism. Love brings us out of any "system," and imposes upon us the virtuousness of seeking the well-being of the other in every action or thought. I love the part of the Confiteor which says,
"...I have sinned in thought, word, and deed; in what I have done and in what I have failed to do..."
Great work, Michael! Thank you so much! God bless!
Wait until you see a video I have planned for next month.
@@InspiringPhilosophy More ethics?!! Sign me up.
Not really. Paul does not say that one ought or should have love to perform moral actions, therefore it does not exemplify virtue ethics. It's more like wisdom that is being communicated.
I agree, but not in the exact same way. I would say that virtue ethics is christian because if we adopted deontology, we would turn works into the tool of salvation rather than faith. Faith brings good works, if good works is all man ought to do, then there is no reason for God to create us with free will, we could have just been born only capable of doing morally good acts.
Additionally, if deontology were it, don't you think someone would abuse the system by counting their good and evil deeds and seeing if they cancel out one another?
This reminds me of the opening chapters in Bonhoeffer’s ‘Ethics’
Most people live by virtue ethics without knowing it
Great video AGAIN mike, I now realized that I hold on to a deontological type of ethics. This is really eye opening. Thank you brother, love ya!!😇
How is this comment from 5 days ago, if the video just premiered 18 hours ago, as of me writing this? Can you travel through time using that 'dimension of secrets' your username alludes to?
@@Mooskym early access to new videos. Look up the perks of being a member.
Yes! I was wanting to become a virtue ethicist but was on the fence about it! Thanks for pushing me over the edge!
When I was taking Ethics in college, I was one of the only students who was drawn most to virtue ethics. It was reading Aristotle, Anscombe, Adler and MacIntyre that really cemented that for me. Funnily enough, it also pushed me out of my stodgy atheism. I started noticing how contemporary society spoke about things. Either it was utilitarian-as typical of big business practices-or it was emotivist-as seen among many young people today.
I was looking for something “squishy” enough that could adapt to situations without devolving into relativism, but hard enough to be properly inspiring. Virtue ethics makes sense because it recenters morality back to where it always should have been-in our character.
Finally, normative ethics! This is also quite consistent with moral realism (metaethical theory)
Yep, I agree
@@InspiringPhilosophy is there a book one can read about virtue ethics? I am Catholic and from what i understand Aquinas expanded on this topic but i don't have access to such things.
Been waiting for this video ever since the meta-ethics series! Amazing job as usual Michael!❤
Thank you, glad you liked it
You are one of the best teacher I found on TH-cam. What an honour this is, freely available for everyone, my friend.
Hello IP, just wanted to say I'm a big fan of the video editing. It's now I recently branched into videography that I truly appreciate it.
I believe it's one of the factors that keep your channel growing.
Keep up the good work.
Also a Great video on virtue ethics too.
started watching your channel when i started my college ethics class and it has really helped me a lot. currently trying to write an essay on the ethical argument for God, and using your videos as support in my arguments. 🙏🏼
Yeah, I recommend for everyone to take a course on ethics when they’re in college. I took a course from the perspective of Christianity that studied both ethical theories and their applications. It was a lot of writing(especially for a procrastinating freshmen who’s never had to write anything in school because I’ve been homeschooled all my life😂… no regrets tho). It’s supper interesting, and it makes moral reasoning a lot easier… especially when having online conversations which I do semi frequently😂
I devour your videos. Your insights and analysis are thoughtful and beautifully presented. Thank you so much for covering this timely and needed topic.
Great video! Truly Christian Ethics would be then,
"Carefully determine what pleases the Lord... Don’t act thoughtlessly, but understand what the Lord wants you to do.” Ephesians 5:10, 17
This was a very interesting and well-made video! It not only gives a phenomenal introduction to virtue ethics, but also makes me wanting to learn more!👍
IP, your content is just amazing. Even for non Christians, such as me, you are of great help. I was feeling depressed recently, and you made me feel better and inspired. Thank you. Continue this amazing work, and go far, far beyond far and BEYOND!
Currently doing Ethics at school in my Auditing course. Decided to come back to this and it makes a lot of sense now.
Mike this is awesome! Thank you brother!!!
I think virtue ethics is not represented in academia today because it places greatest importance on practice and consistency rather than formulas and abstractions. If you can't put it under microscope (figuratively) its not worth the time for armchair philosophers. This is why I seek out philosophers that were loyal to their principles and went into the world like heroes.
I would love to see, if you would have time for that, what are your thoughts on psychology and psychoanalysis since they are being brought up as new religion these days and I think they relate greatly to virtue ethics.
Great video as always, cheers.
Yes, that is a good point
Virtue ethics is very practical. If I merely focus on my actions, then I am always deliberate about being moral. If I quite being deliberated, then I’ll likely quite being moral. But if I can focus on my character, moral actions will flow out naturally. So if you quite being deliberate, you’ll still be moral because your character is still virtuous.
@Ashtray Comms [LLC] I didn't say they were I meant they are becoming quasi religion due to influence of Jordan Peterson, self help gurus and youtube channels. You have some channels I like such as Meme Analysis, Thoughts on thinking, Academy of Ideas and Uberboyo but I feel they are using psychology as answer to spiritual crisis and it will turn into a new religion
@@C0smicNINJA agreed, ethics is not just what you but also who you are, and if you are a good person you will do good things however you need to become a good person through practice, word ethos from greek I think literally means "habit" or "custom" so its implied some sort of continuity that only virtue ethics takes into account
@@C0smicNINJA Alasdair MacIntyre is very important here, not only is virtue ethics the best ethical theory its probably the only theory we can use to explain moral problems of modern day. Read, if you haven't, his book "After virtue". I usually cringe at analytical philosophy but he and Anscombe are very worthwhile.
Oh God. It’s so beautiful and makes so much sense of the Bible and of life experience. Thank you so much!!
I often pray and ask for help to do the right thing(s). You’ve convinced me to say, “Please make me virtuous, and/or please help me to be virtuous.”
This channel keeps getting better and better
Thank you
I have this thing where for me its so difficult to *feel* empathy or to *feel* the right thing to do. For me its more like a concious choise of doing the right thing because for me its really hard to emotionally feel, Im not a psychopath but I share a lot of tendencies of it, and that pathology is a great example for questioning this kind of Ethics, it always seems so relative to the person
Awesome! This video deserves to be categorized alongside some of my favorite Vsauce and PhilosophyTube videos.
Thank you, that is an honor.
Very interesting! I look forward to more videos on this subject.
I’ll have another next month.
I am a youth pastor and recently my Son took a turn off the beaten path to “find his own way”. I made that same decision in my 20’s and thanks to you and others like C. S. Lewis, I saw the errors in my decision and made an about face, and headed back to the straight and narrow path. I’m very grateful for your work because though I’m now 45 years old and relatively advanced in my theological knowledge, there are still times where my mind runs a blitz on my beliefs. Work done by people like you help me come back to my senses when I see another path that looks tempting. I’m also grateful for that wrong turn I took 25 years ago, although it’s scary to think of where I was headed but that experience is the reason I’m able to help people like my son navigate their way back to that junction where they first turned off course. We have to be careful that we don’t force them back to that right path. It has to be their own conviction, they must find themselves, well, “lost” and make their own decision to repent or “turn back” and go the other direction.
Thank you dear brother. This was a very informative and educational video, I always enjoy your videos and truly I appreciate your efforts in educating everyone you can possibly reach. Grace and Peace to you from God Our Father and Our Lord Jesus Christ
Thank you
This is very good, thank you.
Great video Mike, it may be a useful video to show to people who are close to me, who cringe and skip the book of proverbs. They think it's too focused on works and deeds. It needs to be careful explained like you did great here
"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will." Romans 12:2
Virtue was always at the heart of morality. Morality can only exist when we are in alignment with God, and this means learning about Him and becoming like Him in our perspectives and attitudes.
Very well done ip you are so soul type right with this!
Thank you so much!
This is more or less the ethical reasoning Ive always held to.
I just never understood how to explain it properly or even understand how it differentiates from other ethical frameworks.
This is very assuring ☺️
Looking forward to the next video on VE
Coming soon!
Nice job!
Hello IP. I heard you talk about Aristotle being referenced in Paul’s works several times in conversations with other Christian digital apologeticists. I was wondering if you were ever planning on making a video about that? I even got the impression in one such conversation that this video would be that one.
And would you recommend anything on that topic?
Thank you for all of your hard work and quality content. Deep thought is always needed in faith.
Yes, next month.
The narrow path and narrow gate that leads to Life is adhering to virtue… finding the middle balance between extremes of vice; courage is middle point between cowardice and foolhardiness, it requires the risk of one’s neck in order to save it. Compassion is the reasonable good of another that falls between the vices of indifference and over-indulgence.
Great video!
As Becker discovered (but didn't show, sadly, so we'll have to redo that work) fixing the errors in Aristotelian ethics resulted in confirming the successor, Greek Stoicism. The result is usually but somewhat misguidedly called Aristotelian in the sense that it is derived from his philosophy, but usually misinterpreted as being able to open the Nicomachean and live according to its precepts. Instead, supposedly you can pick Cicero off the shelf and read him, and likely Seneca too. Sooner or later we're going to need to make proper learning texts though.
Great so far. Be a hero … Invited the hero from within others.
Another great video! No surprise there.
Thank you
What I love about this is it fits with the idea that God is the grounding for moral truths.
Good video, something to think about the next time I ask
No one wrestled with this question MORE than Albert Schweitzer, whose entire life was consumed by it. The final point in a life of service and dedication to OTHERS?
His, Reverence for Life! No apologetics there, no parochialism, no dogma just "reverence".
You want a universal ethics? Read the work!
I am not a Christian! But this work is worth a read and speaks to everyone!
Done!
Now that I think about it, deontology and consequentialism seem to think of ethics as knowledge while virtue ethics seems to think of ethics as wisdom.
great one!
Could two simple guidelines that Jesus himself advocated be the general rules even for a Virtue Ethicist?
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Wholesome.
Great video.
The narrow path and the narrow gate is a direct reference to the golden mean-that knife’s edge between to extremes of vice.
Very true. A thing can be the best option while still being wrong.
Yes, as christians we should try to promote classical ways of thinking in the face of modernity.
this video is just great thank you for this video,and i have a doubt mike, Im currently reading this book called the elements of moral philosophy by james rachels and in that the author states that "if someone tells you that a particular act(he didnt talk about motivations here) would be wrong,you may ask why,and if there is no proper reason and satisfactory answer,then you may reject that advice as unfounded" so how do you respond to this?i think he is saying that pure reasoning is the foundation of morality.
I recommend looking up John Piper on youtube, amazing pastor who has many videos explaining or answering questions like these that have been sent in by his viewers
@@gibuswagen7729 thank you
This video was amazing
Thank you
Spread this one far and wide!
Do it
Interesting video! What I always wonder is whether there is any case where consequentialism and virtue ethics actually diverge. In my view, one of the problems of virtue ethics is how to choose what character traits are virtuous and which are not. For example, at first sight I would think that it is virtuous to be empathetic. However, there is research, which shows that when people are too empathetic, rather than helping people in need, they avoid people in need to avoid experiencing the suffering of those people. So is empathy a virtue to be pursued or not? I guess the answer is: empathy is good to the degree that it creates a happier world. With the right degree of empathy, people will care about each other, support each other, bond with each other, and therefore make the world a better/ happier place. But if that is the justification for being empathetic, then I am back to consequentialism. That's not a refutation of the general ideas of virtue ethics, but it makes me wonder whether virtue ethics could be a (useful) extension of consequentialism. Are these two camps really in conflict or could they even need each other?
[00:49]: I think that Kantian ethics also values intention. The second formulation of the categorical imperative: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."
Else: "Intelligence, wit, judgement and any other talents of the mind we may care to name, or courage, resolution or constancy of purpose, as qualities of temperament, are without doubt good and desirable in many respects, but they can also be extremely bad and hurtful when the will is not good which has to make use of these gifts of nature"
Anyway, I think this video - not directly related to religion - is a really good source of self help! It gives me motivation, and provides a framework to keep me sharp in evaluating every action I do. I can really see the link now with Aristotles ideas on practice and learning.
Yeah, I see your point, but the pushback I would give is that Kantian ethics focuses on the law itself as the basis. This mentality can fall prey to something I go over in the video, which is fetishizing moral laws, where one acts that not for virtue or for goodness sake, but because you want to follow the law. Wy not just focus on the virtuous aspects and let actions flow from that, instead of focusing on laws first?
Yeah. I personally think that there’s two main types of ethical theories: ones that are better at making a great ontological framework and ones that are better at making epistemic methodologies.
Divine command theory provides an excellent ontology, but it’s not as good for epistemology in general(though, commands from God are always true, but you’d have to interpret them and know the context/reasons for best results). Outside of direct commands, it’s pretty useless for epistemology.
Utilitarianism provides a decent(but flawed) epistemic framework, but it’s pretty bad at grounding ethics. To my knowledge, it provides no objective foundation for the right and good.
There are also some theories that are in the middle. Natural law, for example, provides a decent ontology by grounding the good a good God that also created a good creation. It also provides a decent epistemology by saying that we should be able to discern moral principles from nature because God “interwove” the world with these good principles.
So technically, there’s three categories.
Yeah, that’s a good point. (Haven’t seen the video yet😂) One reason for why Jesus attacked the Pharisees is because they focused too much on the letter of the law rather than it’s spirit. Jesus seems to be a strong advocate for virtue ethics. He even says that having sinful thoughts is as if you already committed the action itself.
@@InspiringPhilosophy Is the problem fetishizing? Aren't you just fetishizing the virtue aspects?
I would also say that we need rules to follow to habituate our character. Furthermore, we identify virtues by actions performed by the agent. Extremes are identified by the actions that follow. You might argue that this is not the case, that virtues and vices are defined by deficiencies, excesses, and means of character. Yet I challenge you to communicate these virtues and vices without referring to actions. I am with W. D. Ross that deontology and virtue ethics are not truly in conflict.
Kant also has a doctrine of virtue.
6:00 it is not sadness over the person he should feel, it is sadness over the unjust situation...resentment against the captor that made him do it, sadness over what brought that captor to that point, sadness over how the survivors felt, and finally a little reconciliation that at least some lives were spared. Consequentialism is a consideration for the whole consequence not for a single outcome.
I love this channel
Deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics all have their value in certain circumstances and complement each other in many ways
The 7 Capital Sins: pride, avarice, envy, wrath, lust, gluttony, acedia
The 7 Virtues: prudence, justice, fortitude, temperance (= 4 cardinal), faith, hope, charity (= 3 theological)
For those interested, St. Thomas Aquinas does a thorough job unpacking what exactly is meant by each of these terms and why they are central to all virtuous living.
But why are those the concepts that are virtues and sins as opposed to anything else?
@@dog_curry Thx for responding, but you really need to read Aquinas, as I don’t want to do him injustice. As you may have surmised, I am Catholic, but for decades I was atheist. Aquinas did not convert me, but I was curious to read, for example, that pride is actually the root of all sin, and his explanation convinced me that that is indeed correct. The Summa is too long for most people, but there are good digests available that will hopefully get you started. God bless.
What books would you recommend on this topic, apart from Aristotle's ethical works?
Julia Annas’ book Intelligent Virtue.
The best book is Aristotle’s own work on the subject: Nicomachean Ethics
*"...whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."*
-- 1 Corinthians 10:31
I don't think I caught it in the video, can someone explain what is meant by a 'eudaimonious life'?
Mt Rainier, with a height round dup to 14500 feet, still has a sizable chunk of it visible even with the curvature of the earth i in Vancouver, BC, 177 miles away. Divide 177 by 14.5 and that indicates an object about 1500 feet tall can, assuming there are no obstructions, be seen over the horizon about 12 miles away rounded down to the nearest whole number. By your logic , on the 40 day Noah would thus have to be in a valley or basin where no mountains or hills were visible for over 12 miles on day 40, with the water continuing to rise and overflow on outside the edges of the valley or basin for 150 days and him still not seeing any mountains. Where in the world is this possible with water that acts as liquid does?
Oh man, you would love The Good Place. It’s all about this stuff
I’ve been told that, but still haven’t watched it
Rasputins Day, members of the church of Ahriman are asked to pay special homage to our Patron Saint, the Prophet Grigori Rasputin on the 30th of December.
Grigori was a leading figure in the church and had amazing powers, he was destined to live for another 100 years but his Political and Religious enemies plotted and carried out his assassination in 1916.
Having dosed him with enough cyanide to kill an elephant without effect, they resorted to shooting him in the back and the head multiple times, they then threw him into the frozen Neva river but he was still alive until just before his body was found and he finally succumbed to death.
However his prophesies lived on to be fulfilled. This great man was put to death by Christians so that our members throughout the ages could live a life of debauchery, depravity and hedonism using his life as an example, Please pause for a minutes silence in respect of Rasputins day.
Dude, I love virtue ethics. I just recently took a college course on ethics and the Christian perspective, and I fell in love with virtue ethics. Obviously, divine nature theory is good. Natural law ethics is pretty useful too, though, it can be ambiguous, and what you’re looking at could be part of the curse rather than good creation. All three have similar foundations and can all be used with Christianity simultaneously, but virtue ethics is my favorite.
Can’t wait to watch the video and learn more about it!
I also learned a lot between good vs right.
I do good things for selfish reasons. Because it feels good, and helps me grow into life.
You know might actually think that I sometimes things like this naturally sometimes when I have to make it hard decision whether it be a moral decision or decision in a video game I think what would a perfect person do. And even in something as trivial as video games I actually start to play better and make better decisions when I think what would a perfect person do.
That’s exactly the ideology of “What would Jesus do?” This idea is probably ingrained into many people because of this phrase alone. That’s another reason for why I believe virtue ethics is so great… everyday Christians who know nothing about academic ethics are proponents of virtue ethics just from reading the Bible. That has to be pretty good evidence that Christianity is largely based upon virtue ethics.
Nice 👍 would you mind talking about the gospel of Barnabas
To care or not to care makes all the difference. It's easy to care about those that mean well. I think the most difficult virtue is forgiveness or mercy. I think mercy is to allow one place, space, and the resources needed to repent. Not everyone is going to repent, but there are those that do.
If everyone were virtuous we would all seek to help each other flourish, and attain to what is deserved. Then it's very easy to care.
I regard every meaning that is a value of good character to be virtues. There are a lot of virtues. I'm not sure that I am a virtue ethics person. But I do agree it all comes to who one desires to be as a person.
Discretion is another virtue that's needed; how to apply virtues. To act in defense of virtue is another vital virtue. But I think it's especially important to be virtuous in the face of evil; to stand firm and be ready to defend, even when the outcome could be tragic. It's not all happiness, peace and sunshine. Sometimes it's joy with tears, and a great deal of pain and suffering. Human nature isn't perfect by a long shot.
In Christianity, I think, virtue ethics is basically being molded so that you start “thinking God's thoughts after Him.”
I know that this quote is one that reflects many Christian scientists’ views on science being a form of worship. But I think it applies beautifully in the realm of ethics as well.
The similarities between Western Eudaimonia and Eastern Nirvana are striking. The subtle differences are interesting as well.
Hi brother, I saw a video of a dude saying the story of Moses was copied from kemet. Can you do a video on that maybe ?
Did he give you an actual source you can read or just assert it without evidence?
What about people who have problems feeling sympathy or empathy, can they still be ethical?
Would you be willing to have a discussion with Jeff durbin?
Great job. “Love the Lord your God.. and your neighbor. On these hang all the laws and prophets”
Aristotelean virtue and original sin are mutually exclusive: for Aristotle, a mark of the virtuous person is that they do not desire to go beyond the virtuous mean, and enjoy attaining the mean; according to original sin, however, everyone always desires to carry out vicious acts, which would make the virtuous person impossible, for the virtuous person has no such desire. Furthermore, Aristotelean virtue is the completion of a natural human potential through habituation, and so humans are born neither good or bad; but original sin says humans are born already essentially evil. Humanity's essential evil nature would make developing a virtuous character impossible. Therefore, if Aristotelan virtue ethics is correct, original sin is false. If one ought to adopt Aristotelean virtue ethics, one should reject the accordingly false doctrine of original sin, which would furthermore only serve as a psychological impediment to developing a virtuous character.
The doctrine of original sin is unbiblical.
1. Why Original Sin Is Heresy. th-cam.com/play/PLmK4P8cg7FM7uCX7VteEe4t2kmQhud2Z_.html
One of the reasons why I would call myself a moral pluralist is because there are multiple aspects to what makes a moral action right/wrong. I like to describe moral actions in 3 parts. The action, consequence and the agent. I think the reality of the matter is that all of these, not just one is what is important. We should strive to do what is right, be mindful of consequences and aim to be virtuous (not necessarily in that order, I think virtues won't make a good foundation for example). The only issue I really have with some virtue ethicists is that they argue that normative language should be removed from the equation. Anscombe argued for Virtue Ethics because she believed God to be dead. Since Christianity had practically taken over moral language, we should seek to get rid of it and focus on virtues. Apart from that however, Virtue ethics is pretty aight.
Kantian ethics are the best read the metaphysics of morals.
"You will learn what is noble from noble people" sounds very much like a circular argument. How do we know what is noble? Because they are done by noble people. How do we know who is a noble person? Well, they will do noble things.
Synderesis
"Synderesis" is a technical term from scholastic philosophy, signifying the innate principle in the moral consciousness of every person which directs the agent to good and restrains him from evil. It is first found in a singe passage of St. Jerome (d. 420) in his explanation of the four living creatures in Ezekiel's vision. Jerome explains that most commentators hold that the human, the lion, and the ox of the vision represent the rational, the irascible, and the appetitive (or concupiscent) parts of the soul, according to Plato's division, while the fourth figure, that of the eagle, represents a fourth part of the soul, above and outside these three:
This the Greeks call synderesis, which spark of conscience was not extinguished from the breast of Adam when he was driven from Paradise. Through it, when overcome by pleasures or by anger, or even as sometimes deceived by a similitude of reason, we feel that we sin; ... and this in the scriptures is sometimes called spirit.... And yet we perceive that the conscience (conscientia) is itself also thrown aside and driven from its place by some who have no shame or modesty in their faults.
In this passage no distinction seems to be drawn between synderesis and conscientia. It has even been maintained that the former word is a copyist's error for synderesis, the usual Greek equivalent for "conscientia".
The use of synderesis as distinct from conscientia among the scholastics, and to a slight extent among early Protestant moralists, is founded on its description by Jerome as scintilla conscientiae - the spark - from which the light of conscience arises. Thus Jeremy Taylor calls it "the spark or fire put into the heart of humans," while synderesis, which is specifically called conscience of the deed done, is the "bringing fuel to this fire (Ductor Dubitantium 1:1:1) As distinguished from synderesis, conscientia is applied by these writers to the particular attitude of a person to good or evil action, and may accordingly be an unsafe guide. Synderesis is thus a faculty or habit (it was disputed which) both of judging and of willing the right, in agreeement with "original righteousness" and persisting in the separate powers of the soul in spite of the corruption of human nature brought about by the Fall. In the earlier descriptions it is spoken of as volitional as well as intellectual. According to Aquinas, however, it is distinctly practical reason - certain principles belonging to the practical side of reason which point out the right direction for action, just as the theoretical axioms of the understanding do for thinking. Both synderesis and conscientia are placed among the intellectual powers. A different view is given by Bonaventura, who makes the whole distinction between conscientia and synderesis rest upon the distinction between judgment and will. God (he says) has implanted a double rule of right in human nature: one for judging rightly, and this is the moral strength of conscience; another for right volition, and this is the moral strength of synderesis, whose function is to dissuade from evil and stimulate to good, and which may therefore be described as the original moral tendency of the disposition.
This, however, does not seem to be either the best or the most prevalent view of scholasticism regarding synderesis. The question is fully discussed by Duns Scotus, who decided against Bonaventura that both synderesis and conscience belong to practial reason, the former giving the first principles or major premises of its practical syllogisms, the latter corresponding to their conclusions (In Sent. Reportationes Bk 2:39, Q1-2). Jeremy Taylor also follows the Thomistic use and makes synderesis "the general repository of moral principles or measures." This is the "rule of conscience," while conscience itself is "a conjunction of the universal practical law with the particular moral action." It applies the rule to the particular case, and is thus both witness and judge of moral actions. It may be noted that the term "conscience," when used (as by Kant) as equivalent to practical reason regarded as infallible, corresponds to the medieval synderesis, and not to the medieval conscientia.
I agree, just wonder what ur thoughts are on how this can tie in with Christianity
I have a video planned on that very question for next month.
Well Catholicism is pretty much based on virtue theory
@@przemor1150 they also like natural law ethics. I think that both are good and useful(virtue ethics is my favorite). But I disagree with many Catholics on what the principle that behind natural law is… particularly when it comes to contraceptives.
@Prasanth Thomas Yeah, that's one thing that I strongly disagree with Catholics on.
I think a perfect ethical system is, in every scenario, doing what God would either do or have you do. Replicating God. How do you know what God would have you do? The Bible and prayer basically. Sanctification. Basically the pursuit of being like God in character.
Not trying to give a holier than thou answer. I just think, and I’d imagine you’d agree, that an ethical system is totally worthless without God at its center
Could you please make a video on Asherah/did God have a wife? Or walk through the claims that YHWH is part of a larger pantheon and El was his father? I’ve been seeing some claims like that online and I’d really appreciate it if you could walk through it in a video on where those claims stem from
This was a very good video. I agreed with much of what you said. I wonder if you would agree that virtue ethics, like the other paradigms, is also partially incomplete. I was not fully convinced by how, toward the end of the video, you/Aristotle harmonized virtue ethics with rules against murder, stealing, etc. I wonder how virtue ethics can be reconciled to the retributive theory of criminal justice. We don’t put people in prison for being un-virtuous. It is as punishment for actions that breach the universal moral law. The person that commits one act of unjustified stealing might be just as un-virtuous as the miserable miser who refuses to act charitably or kindly over many years. Yet we don’t put the second person in prison. Therefore, we do not punish people for their lack of virtue. Rather it is because of the depravity of certain actions relative to a moral law.
I would say that punishing one moral offense but not another is completely compatible with virtue ethics. The character that would lead someone to steal is an action that goes out of your way to do something wrong. You don’t just slip up and steal something(maybe unless you’re a habitual pickpocket😂), but many people slip up and act unkindly, sometimes even regretting it once they get clarity of thought. A character that leads someone to do something so out of your way, extreme, and dangerous as thievery is one that is more deprived with virtue than someone who simply gets angry. It’s easier to fall into a habit of anger than one of theft. One has to intentionally act in such a way in which they habitually steal. I’m the other hand, all what is required to develop an angry(or even unloving) character is to just not go out of your way to not be angry(unloving). Anger and hatred is much more of a passive offense than an active one. If you don’t actively choose to not be angry, then you let yourself fall prey to (soft)determinism that causes you to be angry. But if you actively try to be kind, you go against that (soft)determinism. Non of this can be said of theft.
Also, I would say that it’s a virtue in and of itself to punish actions that are dangerous to others. When we look at a judges(or jury) who don’t punish a proven crime, we think of them as morally deprived. But if we see someone who doesn’t punish another for (provably)being hateful, we look at them as being virtuous. So I think that given virtue ethics, it’s virtuous to punish some actions while also being non-virtuous to punish other sorts of actions.
Those are my reasons for why virtue ethics is completely compatible with law and punishment.
@@C0smicNINJA I agree, we physucally punish behaviour based on its relative affect on other people, not whether it is virtuous. Telling a lie is morally repugnant, but besides certain exceptions its relative affect on the victims is very minimal as compared towards thievery, rape, or murder. And in line with virtue ethics is it unvirtuous to not have mercy. Part of the virtue of mercy is that you do not seek to punish every offense you see. You only wish to punish when the situation definatly requires it, and is at a point where mercy to the degree of giving no punishment is no longer comming from a place of forgiveness and love, but of complacentness.
I agree.
Definition of synderesis
1: inborn knowledge of the primary principles of moral action -distinguished from syneidesis
2: the essence, ground, or center of the soul that enters into communion with God : the spark or emanation of divinity in the soul
Definition of syneidesis : the capacity to apply general principles of moral judgment to particular cases -distinguished from synderesis Defintion of aphronia
: the lack of practical judgment.
It is a shame you didn’t mention Philippa Foot as she (along with Anscombe) was one of the main female figures who resurrected Virtue Ethics in the 20th century
Absolutes in action rules do not necessarily result from moral absolutes about the actions themselves. For example, the command 'you shall not kill [any person]' (Ex. 20:13) is best read as an absolute: it does not state 'you shall not murder,' rather, the word means 'kill' or slaughter. The command therefore forbids the taking of human life, in an absolute sense, whether unprovoked, or when provoked by the offences of the one being killed.
Yet, this absolute command does not apply because the action of killing another human being is always morally wrong or never deserved or justified, indeed the Torah quite explicitly states that the murderer deserves to die for his crime (in contrast to the man-slayer who does not, Deut. 19:6) , along with quite a few other offences that are classified as capital offences, e.g. the one striking his parents deserves to die, 'his blood is upon him' (Lev. 20:9).
The reasoning for not taking human life go beyond the question of which offences and which individuals deserve to die, and which do not. It is not that no offences deserve death, and that no offenders deserve to die for their offences. It, rather, derives from what we could call the virtue of gentleness.
Gentleness is good not only when it is deserved but also when it isn't. It is merciful to those who deserve harshness. The reason for gentleness is the problem of 'the knowledge of good and evil' (Gen. 2-3) wherein a man, or a judge, cannot know for sure the good and the evil that has been done, and therefore cannot judge accurately whether the harshness of a judgement or punishment is deserved. Because we do not know the good and the evil done reliably and perfectly, we adopt a posture of gentleness, that we may not wrongly dispense harshness to the good who we wrongly judged to have done evil. The logically subsequent move to a judgement of the good and evil done, is to determine the appropriate and wise remedy to dispense or apply to address it. Adam and Eve not only wanted the knowledge of good and evil, and for their eyes to be opened, to be like God, but also they desired wisdom (Gen. 3:6). To impose a remedy, after making a judgement, however, is a form of harshness. It is the exercise of judicial power, it is to become like God, to be the judge, jury and executioner over one's brother. And this is what the virtue of gentleness addresses, we are our brothers' keepers in the sense of protecting his life from attack, rather than one individual or group of men 'keeping' his brothers by ruling over them. To have gentleness in society is to reject the society and structure and practice of oppression and killing of other people. It is man ruling the animals, rather than becoming an animal and ruling over (and killing, Gen. 9:5-6) men, as the 'sons of God' did in Gen. 6 and as Cain and Lamech do in Gen. 4.
The commands 'you shall not kill' (Ex. 20:13) and 'do not judge' (Mat. 7:1), both represent and express the virtue of gentleness, and they both have judicial and non-judicial applications. A virtuous person does not set himself up as inquisitor to know and determine and declare the good and the evil done by others, even non-judicially. A gentle person has the virtue and the sense to know that putting oneself into this position, and taking this role, is a poor motivator to others to interact with him, and to be kind and gentle to him in return. The flourishing and good human society is not produced by greater efforts in moral judgement of others, rather it is produced by pushing past offences and infractions to nevertheless produce, cooperate and trade with one another by various workarounds. And a gentle judicial and political system does not set up some men as judges over others, before whom other men may be dragged (cf. Jam. 2:6), it, rather, adopts a conciliatory judicial procedure of negotiation, persuasion, exploration, documentation and establishing facts where each disputant may select one 'witness' to test and testify as to every matter (Mat. 18:15-16). This disputant-driven approach treats all men as equals, and judicial authority as ad hoc and party-selected, to mitigate the potential for bias and tyranny and inequality. It also promotes conciliation and composition of disputes, rather than the adversarial approach of modern state-courts. This improves the motivation and buy-in of the parties to find solutions and to abide by the remedy rulings issued through the process, and mitigates the harshness of judgement enforcement. The judgement enforcement stage, if required, is then subject to further gentleness provisions in two ways: firstly, the assembly may make policies and/or further rulings to 'bind' or 'loose' the matters that are not being abided by the parties (Mat. 16:19; 18:18) which means and includes the possibility of judgement debt forgiveness (John 20:23). Secondly, the most severe sanction for non-compliance with the remedies established by the two or three witnesses and/or as modified by the assembly is expulsion from the assembly (Mat. 18:17), rather than the harshness of, for example, the death penalty.
The sanctity of human life, protecting it from being taken even for the serious offences deserving of death, is an expression of the virtue of gentleness that is based on the status of each human life, as a son of God, and made in his image (Gen. 1:26-28). The flourishing of human life and community depends on the protection and recognition of each member of the human community as having this status before God himself. The status and relationships in the human community are therefore linked to the status of each human being before God. The good 'client' of God the great Patron, must respect his Patron by affording the Patron's other clients with respect. To kill one of God's children, made in his image, is to attack God himself. God is grieved when one of his children kills another, but he is grieved sevenfold when another of his children kills the murderer for his offence (Gen. 4:8-16). The virtue of gentleness, then, reflects and expresses and attains the general flourishing that the human race is to attain and maintain and enhance in the Kingdom of God, based on God as the Father, the Great Patron, endowing each human being with his mark, in his image, as his son, with his one female, as the proper social and political unit.
Furthermore, the goal of becoming a good person, is the goal of the New Covenant and virtue ethics, when God's law is written on men's hearts (Jer. 31:33-34). This is the embodiment and realization of the social and political power structure of the Kingdom of God, not by externally imposing harsh laws for 'justice' but building a gentle system of government and governance based on avoiding the concentration of power in the hands of a few. The social and political transformation of the gospel is through the personal and internal transformation of individuals. The gospel message is that this internal rebirth and transformation and resurrection, through the disciple-making and local Christian assembly institutions, is the means by which the great external rebirth and transformation and resurrection of Israel (the community of the people of God) is attained. There is thus alignment between the virtue approach, and the development of the legal system of the Kingdom of God (i.e. the rules-based approach), and the crucial consequences to be attained: good news for the poor, justice for the nations, and righteousness covering the land like the waters cover the sea.
Hey IP, I want to know what’s your take on People who say that the Brain creates God or that we right side of the brain makes God, can you do a video on that plssss?
There is no evidence of that.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I heard about that today and i found some articles on google, do you have any videos on that man, it’s been troubling me and I know it’s kinda confusing since the brain is not fundamental but Consciousness is
You’re probably thinking about religious experiences. I think IP has a video called “is God a delusion” that addresses that. Basically, we have a sort of God sense which doesn’t seem that strict evolution would select for such a sense if God isn’t true. But, if God exists, then he would create humans with the ability to experience and have a relationship with him. So he would either create that sense in special creation, or he’d guide evolution to select for such an ability. So, it’s probably evidence for God rather than against.
@@C0smicNINJA I totally agree, and what you said it’s super similar to the articles I’ve read about how humans evolved to have some kind of belief of inclination to believe in God or a higher power and thanks for the name of the video 🙂
@@C0smicNINJA also, sorry but I forgot to mention in my previous comment, but I think it might also be false objection from those who are Materialist but idk it could be a possibility though
Can't you follow virtue ethics and an other mora theory as well
4:54 bookmark
Great vid IP. But I'd love to know what you think of the following.
I am pro life (I know you are too) and the basic argument I like to use to defend my view is:
1- It is always morally impermissible to intentionally kill an innocent human life.
2- Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human life.
3- Therefore abortion is always morally impermissible
Now my first premise is a universal moral principle that I think is intuitively true, but how would you justify it on virtue ethics when the people involved in the abortion do not have malevolent intentions and believe it to be morally permissible. In that case it seems to me that it is the mere act that is immoral and have nothing to do with the virtues of the people involved.
I would agree, but I think it is permissible if the mother’s life is at stake. One can justify under the doctrine of double effect.
@@InspiringPhilosophy I think the principle still holds even in that case because it wouldn't be intentional killing but rather an unfortunate effect of the mother's life saving procedure.
@@InspiringPhilosophy love must be self sacrificial if a mother loves her child then she'll be willing to die in order to birth said child just like how rachel was willing to die to birth her sons
One example is killing. There are some professing Christians who think all killing is wrong due to the ten commandments. They don't even believe in the death penalty due to their faith, even though the death penalty was commanded by God in certain situations.
The actual commandment is not to murder. A virtuous person wouldn't murder someone, but they might kill someone depending on the circumstances, such as defending a loved one or carrying out justice through the death penalty in specific punishments commanded by God.
Word breakdown; “moral” more-El, full transliterate meaning; more God. So the more morals you have the more divine you become!? 🤷♂️
Ethics; Et is latin for “and” hics is short for hiccups, meaning it’s important to include the hiccups with something!?
Virtue; sounds like fur chew, else put; chewing on fur, which is what some predatory animals might do. So virtues is for animals.
Thus, virtue ethics translates to; predatory animals having the hiccups because they’re chewing on fur.
But if only the character of the person doing the action is taken into account, wouldn’t that mean that there’s nothing wrong with a solipsist going around and killing people? After all, the person doesn’t believe that anyone else exists.
I wish i could like this video twice
No one is good but God
Cultivating virtue is the purpose of stoic philosophy
With Jim, Jim should ask for all of them to go free at the expense of his life
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
The main issue with Virtue Ethics is the lack of an explanation of what makes something ethical or virtuous (although Kantian and consequentialist positions suffer from the same problem). IP and others would claim that these virtues come from God, but then there is a different problem. Let's assume that love is good (since that is nature of God, the standard for goodness). What would be the difference between Virtue Ethics and Deontology? Love includes intent (will), the actions themselves, and the effects on persons (love requires a receiver, even if the person being loved does not love back), so it would be both a universal law in Deontology and a virtue in Virtue Ethics. They are the same. People loving is the same as people being loving (one would not be loving if they never performed the action of love).
Perhaps one could define Deontology as an ethical theory that explains ethics merely in terms of the actions themselves. However, this cannot be the case, for actions must include the will of the person. Even in Deontology, there is a difference between murder, an aggressive and willful killing, and killing in self defense. In both cases the action is killing, but different universal laws could be applied based on the wills of the people involved.
The biggest difference is that Deontology prescribes universal laws that apply to all situations, while Virtue ethics tend to be more situation-specific.
@@TomFranklinX Yes, but I demonstrated how they are fundamentally the same. It is the same to have the virtue of being maximally loving as it is to have the universal law/principle of being maximally loving. Why would Virtue Ethics be any more situation-specific than Deontology, in this case?
@@TheUserU2 Can you define a universal rule for Love? Can you rigorously define what it means to "act lovingly"? It wouldn't be possible, you would have to add so many situation-specific exceptions.
Being loving entails acting in a loving manner, but the reverse isn't true, acting in a loving manner doesn't equate to being loving, like the Politician example in the video.
The difference between self-defense and murder isn't necessarily the intention, but the situation context. If someone else initiated the aggression, you have the right to stop him with necessary force.
@@TomFranklinX "Can you rigorously define what it means to 'act lovingly'"
-Peaceful actions done for the sole purpose of benefitting another person. I include peaceful since coercing people into doing what you think is best for them is not considered loving. A perfectly loving person, or someone who only performs loving actions, performs, when possible, actions solely for the benefit of someone else. They can perform actions in a neutral manner, but only if there is no loving alternative.
"Being loving entails acting in a loving manner, but the reverse isn't true, acting in a loving manner doesn't equate to being loving, like the Politician example in the video."
-But it does. One cannot love on accident nor for nefarious purposes. It requires the will of a person to love someone. Love is not the effect, it is the cause, that cause being a will, although as I originally stated there needs to be a person to receive the love.
"The difference between self-defense and murder isn't necessarily the intention, but the situation context. If someone else initiated the aggression, you have the right to stop him with necessary force."
-The context is the will of the people involved. I am trying to show that ultimately both Deontology and Virtue Ethics stem from the same tree. Both are guidelines for behaviors, actions by persons, who use will to perform those actions. Since both govern the will of people, they are fundamentally the same. At least, they are the same under a correct ethical system.
@@TheUserU2 I can save 1000 people, but I have to kill one person to do it. What do you do? Killing someone is not a neutral or peaceful action.
It sounds like you're simply redefining deontology in a way that includes people's intentions as well as actions.