Defining Virtue

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I'm inclined to think that's a valid analogy, but I don't think that we have to presume a profesisonal level of risk asessment in order to have someone make a UPB action either way. To the best of my knowledge a young and inexperienced investor may see their only shot at getting into the business being a very risky investment. Similarly, for the would-be hero, there's the chance they think the loss of this person's life is a more significant impact on their family than their own, odd as that might sound. There are calculations of risk that cannot be quantified too. Perhaps they genuinely feel empathy for a stranger and it warps their risk calculation?

I think we should be careful assigning so much value to what few variables we can present as well known to the actor as opposed to that which are likely being considered at the spur of the moment, when the decision to help is made. Perhaps we need a bit more detail in our scenario to flesh this out?

Just to be clear, none of what I said has anything to do with UPB. They only relate to APA.

 

Well if we're dealing with APA rather than UBP we're automatically outside the realm of the absolute, at least as I understand it.

[PatrickC]

Well if we're dealing with APA rather than UBP we're automatically outside the realm of the absolute, at least as I understand it.

Yes that would be correct. As I understand APA it's a means to better undertsand virtue, but that it can often rely on specific abilities, traits, circumstances and primarily an empathic understanding of oneself and those around you.

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Well if we're dealing with APA rather than UBP we're automatically outside the realm of the absolute, at least as I understand it.

Yes that would be correct. As I understand APA it's a means to better undertsand virtue, but that it can often rely on specific abilities, traits, circumstances and primarily an empathic understanding of oneself and those around you.

 

 

That's my understanding as well. So I think we agree that, since we stepped out of an actionable UPB scenario we no longer have a basis to say the act was virtuous or not. I want to say that validates the neutrality statement I made earlier, but honestly i'm now a little confused as to where we departed from UPB in our hypotheticals.

[TDB]

 

 

 

UPB is fairly straight forward for most people

 

I have struggled with the UPB book. You are one of three people I know of who claim to understand it. Can you please give me the elevator pitch version? If it does not belong in this thread, please start a new thread or email me or comment on my feeble UPB FAQ attempt at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html.

Here is a great blog that attempts to break down UPB rather well, that frankly explains UPB better than Stef even.. No offense intended Stef /emoticons/emotion-2.gif

Economics Junkie is a member on the boards as well.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

 

I've seen that one, Economics Junkie is one of the three, along with you and Stef. That page helped, but didn't finish the job. I still can't summarize UPB without vigorous hand-waving. I could call in to the Sunday show, except I live in Hawaii, and so I would need to rise at 4am to do so. Thanks anyhow.

[TheRobin]

 

 

Well if we're dealing with APA rather than UBP we're automatically outside the realm of the absolute, at least as I understand it.

Yes that would be correct. As I understand APA it's a means to better undertsand virtue, but that it can often rely on specific abilities, traits, circumstances and primarily an empathic understanding of oneself and those around you.

 

 

That's my understanding as well. So I think we agree that, since we stepped out of an actionable UPB scenario we no longer have a basis to say the act was virtuous or not. I want to say that validates the neutrality statement I made earlier, but honestly i'm now a little confused as to where we departed from UPB in our hypotheticals.

 

I'm not sure that we no longer have a basis against which we can test various virtues.

Like UPB, any virtue would need to be universalized without ending up in an impossible or contradicting scenario. Like the afformentioned "obedience" simply doesn't work logically to be a virtue, because if everyone would be obedient (which is acting according to another one's wishes) then no one would be able issue any wishes to make others act that way in the first place. Or they would just mutually stagnate each other. So that doesn't work I think.

Also I think another criteria should reasonably be that it provide some value to people who act virtuous if it was universalized. Else why would anyone consider it admirable or good (in the non-moral sense)?

[TheRobin]

 

Something that I have trouble understanding is: why is courage considered a virtue?

The way I understand courage, it means that one does something despite the fear or anxiety that is provoked and felt by doing it.

This is a good point Robin, which perhaps points to some of the subjectivity around the topic. Courage in a situation in which you faced retribution in the past, but now are able to carefully assess the situation rationally, is I think an act of personal virtue. Courage diving into a burning car might well be an act of recklessness.

EDIT - This is why I consider empathy a key skill in attaining virtue.

 

I don't quite understand how you use the term "personal virtue" here. How is that different from (non-personal)"virtue"? To me virtue would still need to be some sort of universal standard, even if it's optional and not mandatory like morals.
To me this would fall more under personal growth or healing of past abuse(the first example) or something along those lines than virtue. 

[PatrickC]

I don't quite understand how you use the term "personal virtue" here. How is that different from (non-personal)"virtue"? To me virtue would still need to be some sort of universal standard, even if it's optional and not mandatory like morals.
To me this would fall more under personal growth or healing of past abuse(the first example) or something along those lines than virtue. 

Yes this is how I understand it. I don't see virtue as being only associated with our actions with others, they include actions with ourselves.

Yes, I'm of the same opinion that most virtues can be universalised, it's just that it's difficult to transalte that to some kind of formula like UPB. That's unless I've misunderstood something perhaps.

[DoubtingThomas]

I'm not sure that we no longer have a basis against which we can test various virtues.

Like UPB, any virtue would need to be universalized without ending up in an impossible or contradicting scenario. Like the afformentioned "obedience" simply doesn't work logically to be a virtue, because if everyone would be obedient (which is acting according to another one's wishes) then no one would be able issue any wishes to make others act that way in the first place. Or they would just mutually stagnate each other. So that doesn't work I think.

Also I think another criteria should reasonably be that it provide some value to people who act virtuous if it was universalized. Else why would anyone consider it admirable or good (in the non-moral sense)?

 

Can you clarify which hypothetical we're talking about, because, at least in my mind, we've melded two of the scenarios in the discussion.

In general I would say that UPB doesn't make logical sense without an action in which to provide context. In essence "universalized," classical virtues would be nothing more than adjectives we'd run through an infinite process of eliminiation scenarios to check for virtue. I don't agree with obedience not being a virtue under any circumstance. If I am working with fellow engineers who know a particular subsystem far better than I do, I am going to check their work, but will largely act in obedience to their authority on the subject because I have but one lifetime to expend learning things and the division of labor is preferable to me attempting to subsume both their level of expertise and my own in another subset of material.

You might argue that is a spurious usage of the word, but literally speaking I think it is valid to say we are obedient to one another when we argue for our superior grasp of our own area of expertise.

I think any additional criteria is unnecessary when we only consider that which has been acted upon for an incidental UPB evaluation. To perform that evaluation is to decide whether or not the act could be considered generally good or admirable.

[TheRobin]

 

I don't quite understand how you use the term "personal virtue" here. How is that different from (non-personal)"virtue"? To me virtue would still need to be some sort of universal standard, even if it's optional and not mandatory like morals.
To me this would fall more under personal growth or healing of past abuse(the first example) or something along those lines than virtue. 

Yes this is how I understand it. I don't see virtue as being only associated with our actions with others, they include actions with ourselves.

This puts things into quite a new perspective for me. Thanks, I'll have to mull this over a bit more but certainly feels right   

Yes, I'm of the same opinion that most virtues can be universalised, it's just that it's difficult to transalte that to some kind of formula like UPB. That's unless I've misunderstood something perhaps.

 

I thought it follows the same formula as UPB except that you can't enforce virtues, cause not being virtuous isn't inflicted and avoidable. Then again, my grasp on UPB isn't that great to be honest. I think I'm getting it for the most part, but whenever I try to dive into it in more detail I feel like I'm losing it again.

[TheRobin]

 

I'm not sure that we no longer have a basis against which we can test various virtues.

Like UPB, any virtue would need to be universalized without ending up in an impossible or contradicting scenario. Like the afformentioned "obedience" simply doesn't work logically to be a virtue, because if everyone would be obedient (which is acting according to another one's wishes) then no one would be able issue any wishes to make others act that way in the first place. Or they would just mutually stagnate each other. So that doesn't work I think.

Also I think another criteria should reasonably be that it provide some value to people who act virtuous if it was universalized. Else why would anyone consider it admirable or good (in the non-moral sense)?

 

Can you clarify which hypothetical we're talking about, because, at least in my mind, we've melded two of the scenarios in the discussion.

In general I would say that UPB doesn't make logical sense without an action in which to provide context. In essence "universalized," classical virtues would be nothing more than adjectives we'd run through an infinite process of eliminiation scenarios to check for virtue. I don't agree with obedience not being a virtue under any circumstance. If I am working with fellow engineers who know a particular subsystem far better than I do, I am going to check their work, but will largely act in obedience to their authority on the subject because I have but one lifetime to expend learning things and the division of labor is preferable to me attempting to subsume both their level of expertise and my own in another subset of material.

You might argue that is a spurious usage of the word, but literally speaking I think it is valid to say we are obedient to one another when we argue for our superior grasp of our own area of expertise.

I think any additional criteria is unnecessary when we only consider that which has been acted upon for an incidental UPB evaluation. To perform that evaluation is to decide whether or not the act could be considered generally good or admirable.

 

I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. While we often use adjectives, they usually describe an action. Like, "being obediend" is another way of saying that a person obeys (or generally obeys)other peoples commands for instance, so I'm not sure how we couldn't run that through the same method of UPB here.

In your example, it would seem to me more like your obedience is a result of your rational judgement of the situation than anything else. You're not obedient, because "it's good to obey" per se, but because in that instance your judgement of the other person's authority would lead to the conclusion that's it's preferable in that situation (or vice versa, if the person was obviously not an authority, then it'd be better to not obey).

I think generally we can find a situation where literally every kind of behaviour can be said to be good in that instance, but the way I understand it, it would seem something would need to be more unviersal to be called a virtue.
Maybe a bit of a sloppy test, but the question, "if everyone would do it would it lead to a good outcome for everyone?" comes to mind. In that instance honesty would certainly pass the test, wereas obedience wouldn't. 
Or is that what you meant with that the initial UPB evaluation would be enough? That basically doing another universalization-test doesn't add anything? 

[PatrickC]

I thought it follows the same formula as UPB except that you can't enforce virtues, cause not being virtuous isn't inflicted and avoidable.

I found myself a tad confused by this. Which doesn't mean you're wrong of course, could be me perhaps. UPB, tends to relate to the initiation of force (although not exclusively ofc). Which is why rape, theft, fraud, murder make sense as a UPB violation (at least how I understand it). A situation like my hit and run incidence brings up a number of anomalies, which is why I refer to APA in this instance. Does that help at all?

[TheRobin]

 

I thought it follows the same formula as UPB except that you can't enforce virtues, cause not being virtuous isn't inflicted and avoidable.

I found myself a tad confused by this. Which doesn't mean you're wrong of course, could be me perhaps. UPB, tends to relate to the initiation of force (although not exclusively ofc). Which is why rape, theft, fraud, murder make sense as a UPB violation (at least how I understand it). A situation like my hit and run incidence brings up a number of anomalies, which is why I refer to APA in this instance. Does that help at all?

 

I think we mean the same thing, maybe I wrote it a bit weird. What I meant was that, as I understand it, both APA and UPB follow a formula of checking for universalization, except that APA doesn't allow for enforcement. To quote from Stefs book where he names the 7 ethical categories: 

"1. It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).

2. It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”)." 

so that's why I wrote it's basically UPB except that you can't enforce it. 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I'm not sure I understand you correctly here. While we often use adjectives, they usually describe an action. Like, "being obediend" is another way of saying that a person obeys (or generally obeys)other peoples commands for instance, so I'm not sure how we couldn't run that through the same method of UPB here.

 

That's the hang-up I was referring to. Adjectives describe nouns. They are not adverbs, which would be appropriate for UPB which requires a verb. I know we can imply that an adjective modifier can be a stand-in for an infinite number of verb/adverb combinations, but I think that's rather unempirical given that infinity is not a number and we are implicity excluding extraordinary circumstances when we make blanket statements about an infinite number of possible actions.

In your example, it would seem to me more like your obedience is a result of your rational judgement of the situation than anything else. You're not obedient, because "it's good to obey" per se, but because in that instance your judgement of the other person's authority would lead to the conclusion that's it's preferable in that situation (or vice versa, if the person was obviously not an authority, then it'd be better to not obey).

 

I would agree that obedience in that case would be qualified in those terms. My point was to say that in the literal sense you could use the word "obedient," and still come out with a virtuous action. So I think in the sense that we don't need to restrict our verbiage and/or explain rote definitions ad nauseum the approach of isolated action evaulation is preferable to extrapolating over myriad/infinite circumstances.

I think generally we can find a situation where literally every kind of behaviour can be said to be good in that instance, but the way I understand it, it would seem something would need to be more unviersal to be called a virtue.
Maybe a bit of a sloppy test, but the question, "if everyone would do it would it lead to a good outcome for everyone?" comes to mind. In that instance honesty would certainly pass the test, wereas obedience wouldn't. 
Or is that what you meant with that the initial UPB evaluation would be enough? That basically doing another universalization-test doesn't add anything? 

 

Again, this is the crux of my argument. I think the concept of evaluating things in aggregate and under an infinite number of circumstances is going to lead to wide-spread exclusion of otherwise neutral variables. It does seem like a successful application of that test would lead to axiomatic virtues, but yes I would say that instance evaluation of UPB is enough and in-fact the best we can hope to rationally judge.

When I show up to work late it's preferable for me to be self-explaintory in the cirumstance of my arrival. Being late without an explanation would get me fired, so I don't see that as an aesthetic because my job depends on my punctuality. If I did this when the roads were clogged and everyone was late, it would be superfluous, probably an annoyance. So it's not under every circumstance that I am late which I am acting virtuously to explain myself. It could also be that my boss expects an explanation even when I am early, or that he/she does not want an explanation in either event. So without consideration of the other person who recieves the action of my excuse, there is not a concrete conclusion as to whether or not I am acting virtuously.

Now, it may well be that I'm scratching at the edges of UPB and more/most adverbs apply in a more universal way, but I would like to think that UPB is something we can readily use on every adverb and action.

[PatrickC]

I think we mean the same thing, maybe I wrote it a bit weird. What I meant was that, as I understand it, both APA and UPB follow a formula of checking for universalization, except that APA doesn't allow for enforcement. To quote from Stefs book where he names the 7 ethical categories: 

"1. It is good (universally preferable and enforceable through violence, such as “don’t murder”).

2. It is aesthetically positive (universally preferable but not enforceable through violence, such as “politeness” and “being on time”)." 

so that's why I wrote it's basically UPB except that you can't enforce it.

Ah, that was not a way I had particular thought of it, but it certainly makes sense. My first thought was, but UPB is a way to test 'moral' theories and since APA are generally considered as morally neutral then what would we be testing? But I presume it has something to do with the 'enforceable' part perhaps.