The best answer here, the one that actually lets us try to live our lives by reasonable ethical principles, seems to me like āmorality isnāt conflict-free and humans arenāt perfectly consistentā. The whole point of EA is that standard āethicalā systems often fail to provide useful advice on how to live a good life. No one can be perfectly virtuous or benevolent; all we can do is act well given our circumstances and the options in front of us.
How does this interface with the question of objective morality? You can either say āmorality is objective and people are bound to fall short of itā, or āmorality is subjective and Iām going to do what seems best to meā. Either way, as a subjectivist who judges other people through the lens of my own moral opinions, Iām going to judge you by how your actions affect others, rather than by whether they all hang together in a rigorous system.
Thanks for the discussion! I realize that I was mostly explaining my own instincts rather than engaging with Hursthouse, but thatās because I find her claims difficult to understand in the context of how to actually live oneās life.
She is a virtue ethicist, so she believes the best way to live a good life to develop virtues in ourselves. The reason she gives it that being a virtuous person, on average, is the best bet to flourish, e.g., having good health, satisfying career, happy family, etc. But she rejects that āimpersonal benevolenceā is a virtue. Thus, for Hurshouse, a person can still be virtuous and live a good life even if she does not care at all about strangers whom she has never met. To be honest, this is the most problematic part I found in her thesis.
The best answer here, the one that actually lets us try to live our lives by reasonable ethical principles, seems to me like āmorality isnāt conflict-free and humans arenāt perfectly consistentā. The whole point of EA is that standard āethicalā systems often fail to provide useful advice on how to live a good life. No one can be perfectly virtuous or benevolent; all we can do is act well given our circumstances and the options in front of us.
How does this interface with the question of objective morality? You can either say āmorality is objective and people are bound to fall short of itā, or āmorality is subjective and Iām going to do what seems best to meā. Either way, as a subjectivist who judges other people through the lens of my own moral opinions, Iām going to judge you by how your actions affect others, rather than by whether they all hang together in a rigorous system.
I like your answer. Thanks for all the replies!
Thanks for the discussion! I realize that I was mostly explaining my own instincts rather than engaging with Hursthouse, but thatās because I find her claims difficult to understand in the context of how to actually live oneās life.
She is a virtue ethicist, so she believes the best way to live a good life to develop virtues in ourselves. The reason she gives it that being a virtuous person, on average, is the best bet to flourish, e.g., having good health, satisfying career, happy family, etc. But she rejects that āimpersonal benevolenceā is a virtue. Thus, for Hurshouse, a person can still be virtuous and live a good life even if she does not care at all about strangers whom she has never met. To be honest, this is the most problematic part I found in her thesis.