In the philosophy of ethics there are two major schools of thought (and variations of them):
• Deonotological
• Consequentialist
In the former, there is a set of rules to follow. The rules themselves define what it ethical. A famous example is “do not lie” which is challenged when lying would save a life.
The follower of a deontological system would claim that it doesn’t matter about the outcome since the rule is authoritative. This is not a theoretical example, it is the position of a major world religion, fortunately almost universally ignored in practice.
In the latter, it is the outcome, the consequences of the action that decides whether it is ethical. So, should we lie? No if it would cause harm and yes if it would mitigate harm. But the practical problem with consequentialism is that it’s far too CPU intensive.
It’s impossible to calculate the outcome of every action in realtime, we don’t have the bandwidth. So, in practice, we have “rule consequentialism” that is, optimization By precalculation. For important, hard cases we work out a rule that is based on the idea of outcomes and stick to it.
So, for lying, for example, we might come up with “do not lie, unless lying is necessary to prevent harm, in which case lie minimally".
A third, unfashionable sort is called “virtue ethics”. This is the ethical system of Aristotle. In a nutshell, it says we know what is ethical by observing a virtuous person and following their example.
At first, this may seem circular but looking closer I find that not only does it make sense it’s actual the practice of most people. We find people we admire and seek to emulate them consciously or unconsciously. We learn from what we see in their actions that resonate with us as being right.
It’s not circular but it is reflexive. That is, the person is both a cause and effect for us. They are reflecting values we see in theory in society with practical actions we can’t necessarily work out on our own. We learn what to do from them to be in line with our own deeply held values.
This approach is not mutually exclusive with the other two though it is often presented that way. I see it as a practical tool to work out what my response to the demands of a consequentialist outlook should be. And, of course, it is an iterative, endless process.
So, the reason for this long discourse is to say that I have found many members here who act as virtue models for me. They are reminders of how to properly treat others and how to be the kind of person I think I should be. This allows me, In trying to practice what I see from them, to be an example for others who notice me doing those things. In that way all of us are links in a chain of a good and just culture.
I want to thank you, though I won’t name you, for being such people. I also want to say that nearly everyone who spends enough time here to be part of the community contributes in some way to this but as I am sure you know, there are stand out examples and we would all be better off if we more closely approximated the care and kindness they show to people.
• Deonotological
• Consequentialist
In the former, there is a set of rules to follow. The rules themselves define what it ethical. A famous example is “do not lie” which is challenged when lying would save a life.
The follower of a deontological system would claim that it doesn’t matter about the outcome since the rule is authoritative. This is not a theoretical example, it is the position of a major world religion, fortunately almost universally ignored in practice.
In the latter, it is the outcome, the consequences of the action that decides whether it is ethical. So, should we lie? No if it would cause harm and yes if it would mitigate harm. But the practical problem with consequentialism is that it’s far too CPU intensive.
It’s impossible to calculate the outcome of every action in realtime, we don’t have the bandwidth. So, in practice, we have “rule consequentialism” that is, optimization By precalculation. For important, hard cases we work out a rule that is based on the idea of outcomes and stick to it.
So, for lying, for example, we might come up with “do not lie, unless lying is necessary to prevent harm, in which case lie minimally".
A third, unfashionable sort is called “virtue ethics”. This is the ethical system of Aristotle. In a nutshell, it says we know what is ethical by observing a virtuous person and following their example.
At first, this may seem circular but looking closer I find that not only does it make sense it’s actual the practice of most people. We find people we admire and seek to emulate them consciously or unconsciously. We learn from what we see in their actions that resonate with us as being right.
It’s not circular but it is reflexive. That is, the person is both a cause and effect for us. They are reflecting values we see in theory in society with practical actions we can’t necessarily work out on our own. We learn what to do from them to be in line with our own deeply held values.
This approach is not mutually exclusive with the other two though it is often presented that way. I see it as a practical tool to work out what my response to the demands of a consequentialist outlook should be. And, of course, it is an iterative, endless process.
So, the reason for this long discourse is to say that I have found many members here who act as virtue models for me. They are reminders of how to properly treat others and how to be the kind of person I think I should be. This allows me, In trying to practice what I see from them, to be an example for others who notice me doing those things. In that way all of us are links in a chain of a good and just culture.
I want to thank you, though I won’t name you, for being such people. I also want to say that nearly everyone who spends enough time here to be part of the community contributes in some way to this but as I am sure you know, there are stand out examples and we would all be better off if we more closely approximated the care and kindness they show to people.
Last edited: