Which is *more resistant to exploitation by competent sociopaths*? A society built on the best modern conception of virtue ethics (or adjacent philosophies) or a society built on the best modern conception of consequentialism/utilitarianism (or adjacent philosophies)?
-
-
AFAICT, the main weaknesses of virtue frameworks involve (relatively common) edge cases, inconsistencies in managing tradeoffs & often sort of hand-wavy "do it to be awesome" justifications. But it's actually expensive to consistently signal virtue & IMO quite sociopath-resistant
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Utilitarianism is incompatible with the incentives in any scenario that lacks a straightforward method of blame assignment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Consequentialism is either circular "it's good because it led to good results" or igrounded in emotions "it's good because people liked its results". Neither results in a meaningful ethics.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think a hardline consequentialist would argue that virtue ethics gives people a lot of leeway to behave in unintuitively unethical ways if they can offer minimally convincing excuses.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The way I understand it, in consequentialism it's good if the consequences are "good" and in utilitarianism it's good if majority are happy which is kind of hit-or-miss, community virtue ethics captures group consensus and memory of what is "good"
-
So virtue ethics might be more resistant to sociopathic behavior once a group identifies sociopathy markers and incorporates into the communities' group memory of what is good and bad.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.