Virtue ethics is the best normative theory. In particular those in the metriopathetic tradition of Aristotle since it's very intuitive and just very common sensical compared to the less intuitive Stoic apathetic tradition (which is honestly only useful for those pursuing monasticism/asceticism). Virtue ethics isn't an acts-based ethics so much as it is a character-based ethics concerned with literally just having a fulfilling life/eudaimonia/happiness/flourishing. Normative propositions about what one "ought to do then" are really more like "if you want to be happy in life in then is necessary you do this and this" or "in order to be happy then it is necessary for you to be this kind of person". Virtue ethics is holistic in this way that other normative theories simply lack. Virtue ethics tells us how to live a truly fulfilling life instead of quibbling about what one ought to or ought not to do.
>>18721240I was reading Islamic Akhlaq is very similar to virtue ethics.Can the islam anon elaborate more on this?
>>18721240By Stoic apathetic tradition you mean dispassion? That's just a frame of mind in which to carry out your virtues. They're tackling the same personal transformation from different perspectives, though I agree virtue ethics has much more potential to be useful because you can list and combine individual virtues whereas dispassion is a constant tension whose balance changes moment to moment.
>>18721249Well the Stoics were virtue ethicists, but it was a different kind than Aristotle's virtue ethics. Whereas Aristotle taught that the virtues are a "golden mean" between two extreme vices e.g. courage is the mean between brashness and cowardice, the Stoics believed virtue was freedom from negative emotions deemed unnatural like fear, distress, delight, and concupiscence, which arise from irrational opinions. The Stoics thought that to truly possess one of the four cardinal virtues, e.g. courage, justice, temperance, and practical wisdom, meant to possess them all. This is called the doctrine of akaloutheia "reciprocity". A truly virtuous person wouldn't just be courageous but also lack wisdom, they would be courageous and wise, so no inconsistency. Aristotle took a more balanced approached, because of his doctrine of the mean, which he teaches is not the same for everybody. Aristotle thinks that people are inclined to or inclined away from virtues based on individual factors, like personal temperament, upbringing, circumstance, etc. It's not a one size fits all for Aristotle. However it is true that Aristotle does believe in the unity of true moral virtue just like the Stoics, but Aristotle allows there to be more of a grey area and is less absolutist than Stoicism. This is because the Stoics had a pessimistic view of human nature. More people are bad than are good. But Aristotle takes a naturalist approach by acknowledging human variation and things like the natural virtues and he thought that moral virtue was achieved through habituation and character building guided by wisdom to unity. Then there's the debate the Stoics and Peripatetics had about external goods, the former thinking virtue alone is sufficient for happiness, whereas Aristotle was synergistic in thinking that virtue along with external good was necessary for life fulfillment which he termed "blessedness" because if one has both virtue and external goods then he is more like the gods.
>>18721395based
>>18721240What the advantages of normativity as a theory are is not a thing that is often created claims about or at least the thing I understand about normativity is that normativity is a set of practices that is associated with a series of conventions and other practices that are repeated and then there is another thing where what there is to ask is how mainstream those normativities are and the mainstreamness of normativites as regards to the political economy to a town for example and a thing I think aristotle talks about is scale to which a town’s constitution is ubiquitous or mainstream to the Hellenic Mediterranean of Aristotle’s time and also those sets of political economies and magna graecia and to that I think that the virtues are after Aristotle, virtue is like a Roman ideas, Greek always created claims about Arete and not virtue and the Greeks had a dang democracy more than the Romans who get self aware if you start talking about the idea of virtue which is also a public idea but the idea of virtue has a self referentiality but the Romans often fail to be theoretic according to Greek thinking and the self referentiality causes the Roman mind to crash and the Romans are only just learning that normativity is mainstream because normativity is always conventionally of an image and the mainstream of that image is a thing capable of getting graphed as also does this humble image but that aside there is the danger to Aristotle from a Substance philosophy where the normativity becomes the driving principle and the theoretical is that these normativities are not mainstream to other communities but only normative to the mainstream court of the Macedonians and hellenic kultur
>>18721484Nothing in your schizo ramble made sense.
As long as we can tell ourselves it’s ok to kill babies or cut off 10yo dicks right?
>>18721646Shut the fuck up you shitposting retard. >>18721240This is a good thread. Virtue Ethics is probably the most complete philosophy in terms of teaching us how to be moral acting people. Happiness is temporary and that is never the "end goal" of the philosophy. Aristotle made a great case for pursuing fulfillment, a more permanent state which overlaps with all other temporary ones, rather than settle on mere happiness. Eudaimonia is based. It's about taking the good with the bad, being mindful, finding the balance between lifes vices in order to more wholly pursue its virtues. Doing so models us into a moral character, which can have a positive influence on the people close to us in life as well. Harmony is key principle here!
>>18721712Yep that sums it up well. Something like consequentialism feels too vain. On paper it looks intuitive until you start to take into account something like intention, then it falls apart. Plus the definition(s) of happiness given by many consequentialist theories are a bit too shallow, whereas virtue ethics has a broader more fulfilling definition. I am by no means an expert in Kantian deontology, and I get the intention behind it is to ground morality as an objective feature of reality, but I just don't find its first principles all that satisfying. It treats moral statements, "oughts", like Platonic forms almost. Virtue ethics is the closest to an empirical normative theory, and in particular Aristotle's account. It's so intuitive to me and gives a full account of what ethics even is. It answers the most basic questions about what it means to be human.
>>18721240I agree. It's sad many people today just dismiss Aristotle because of his scientific errors. When it came to ethics he was really cooking.
>>18721240There is no objective morality and you're fucking retarded for thinking otherwise. God I hate naturalist retards. You have no good arguments for the existence of morality. All moral statements are false. Read up on Error theory, retard. There is no God, no morals, no sky faries or bronze age sky daddies. Fuck off Christard. You're all low IQ.
>>18722165Nobody was talking about "objective morality". Do you know what thread you posted in, here? We're talking about virtue, and ethics, and what defines a person as 'virtuous'.Try reading what OP actually wrote and respond to the content, rather than ranting against something that nobody here even cares about!>You have no good arguments for the existence of morality. All moral statements are false. Read up on Error theory, retard. There is no God, no morals, no sky faries or bronze age sky daddies. Fuck off Christard. You're all low IQ.This is worthless drivel having nothing to do with what anybody here posted about so far. Stay on topic, or since you can't do that, go study Virtue Ethics and Philosophy. This has nothing to do with belief in gods, or worshiping anything religious. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csIW4W_DYX4https://youtu.be/GocIobQ9MLs?si=0iViNd0cZsddXLtn
>>18722302Shut the fuck up Christard it's obvious you're using Aristotle as a front for your bronze age nonsense. You're not smart. You know that right? You're fucking retarded. There literally is no morality. Fuck off faggot.
>>18722307Repent of your sins.One day you will have to give an account to God.
>>18722312See! I fucking knew it. Your sky fairy isn't real anon and I fucking hate him. I hate your entire shit religion that has oppressed and enslaved people for centuries. Fuck you.
>>18722313You are under demonic influence. Jesus Christ is your lord and master whether you like it or not and you will have to account for your actions.Full of hatred, lust and anger. Find peace with God, accept the holy spirit. Repent of your sins. Be born again.
>>18722322>>18722316same retard
>>18722307OK sperg. I'm not >>18722312 btw. You are very emotional and working backwards from conclusions about the people you're responding to. I think you might actually be too stupid for philosophy. Tragic! Virtue Ethics isn't nonsense. It's a logical system of philosophy and you aren't even pretending to be capable of demonstrating otherwise. It wasn't invented during the bronze age either. You're wrong about literally everything you've shitposted, you know that? Every single point. You could seriously use some Virtue Ethics in your life, boy. You are arrogant and mentally unbalanced, that much is evident. So hostile just to evade engaging with what the people are actually saying, which you're choosing to reply to for some reason. Brainrot like that is fascinating to me, but you do you boo~
>>18721240I would say virtue ethics is the most accurate representation of the kind of ethics Christianity propounds. St. Paul in his epistles seems concerned with virtue and vice. God handed over the gentiles to their vices due to idolatry in Romans 1, and in Romans 2 Paul says that the gentiles, because of natural law, can do the things of the law even though they were not given the law of Moses. Paul also gives a variety of lists in his epistles of virtues and vices, the "fruits of the spirit" vs "the works of the flesh". Romans 7 makes a distinction between the law of the mind and the law of the flesh so that Paul view vices as ultimately rooted in irrational principles similar to Stoicism. As for Jesus, he primarily preached an ethic of love as the summation of the law and prophets, and he greatly emphasized interior intention when performing an action. It is not the outward action alone that makes someone righteous, but whether or not their mind itself is in conformity with the law of God that makes someone righteous. It's really quite simple actually. God designed us according to a particular nature, a nature which can participate in eternal law, and this participation we call natural law. In order to live a happy life, one must orient themselves according to natural law, which draws them toward their telos, which is God. God is the ground of the Good because he is the source of its design, and has designed each creature in accordance with its own nature, and wills that nature towards a particular end, which is participation in him.
>>18721830Aristotle was wrong about plenty of nature, but he was cooking when he got to human nature
