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)?
-
-
From a moral philosophy standpoint, virtue ethics fails as being antifallibilistic, while you can judge consequences only in parochial (finite) manner, or as
@SamHarrisOrg described moral progress as a landscape with peaks and valleys.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The problem with virtue frameworks is that almost all of them are grounded in unreality, which makes them ultimately subjective and, as you note, issues with common cases and inconsistencies. Those virtue systems that claim to be grounded in reality are almost universally /1
-
derided by proponents of other ethical systems, not because they have issues with the systems (they generally attack straw men) but because reality-based systems challenge the presumption of those that insist that a valid ethics can be grounded in unreality. /end
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I have come to see moral frameworks as compiled versions of utilitarianism evolved to combat parasitic sociopaths
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.