Some notes on "Are Species Special", a book review in Science by P. William Hughes
Hughes delineates the three types of ethic systems:
1. virtue ethics, associated with Aristotile "oriented toward understanding (and imbuing) capacity-based virtues that enable flourishing relative to some fixed teleological good". I have no idea what that means, but I am going to try to operationalize it: the "fixed teleological good" is a goal already established, a "highest good" that is already established and for Aristotle I think this was virtue and that we are meant to do that which is virtuous; it is our proper goal. For Aristotle, virtue was a balance between reason and desire--all things in moderation. So then, is virtue ethics seeking out that which balances competing ends?
2. utilitarians: (associated with Mill and Peter Singer) which aims to maximize happiness and reduce suffering
3. deonological ethics: (associated with Kant): obligation based ethics is how this author defines deontological ethics, but again, I'm not sure what this means. So I go to google to find out. Deontological ethics focuses on what we ought to do, rather than what we ought to be. In contrast to consequentialists who focus on acting based on what the consequences would be (utilitarianism is consequentialist). Deontological emphasizes the right over the good. Consequentialist, the good over the right.
Given my earlier discussion of what is a meaningful life and how do you know it, it seems that these systems also offer a means to living meaningfully. Ironically, the review sits next to a review of Rachel Carson's biography, "On A Further Shore." Carson seems to be someone who lived an "ethical" life but given what strand of ethics. She focused on the good of the planet rather than the good of any individual or perhaps the long term good over the short term good. To the extend that she advocated balancing the benefits of pesticides over their negative consequences, she would probably be ethical under the virtue ethics umbrella.
1. virtue ethics, associated with Aristotile "oriented toward understanding (and imbuing) capacity-based virtues that enable flourishing relative to some fixed teleological good". I have no idea what that means, but I am going to try to operationalize it: the "fixed teleological good" is a goal already established, a "highest good" that is already established and for Aristotle I think this was virtue and that we are meant to do that which is virtuous; it is our proper goal. For Aristotle, virtue was a balance between reason and desire--all things in moderation. So then, is virtue ethics seeking out that which balances competing ends?
2. utilitarians: (associated with Mill and Peter Singer) which aims to maximize happiness and reduce suffering
3. deonological ethics: (associated with Kant): obligation based ethics is how this author defines deontological ethics, but again, I'm not sure what this means. So I go to google to find out. Deontological ethics focuses on what we ought to do, rather than what we ought to be. In contrast to consequentialists who focus on acting based on what the consequences would be (utilitarianism is consequentialist). Deontological emphasizes the right over the good. Consequentialist, the good over the right.
Given my earlier discussion of what is a meaningful life and how do you know it, it seems that these systems also offer a means to living meaningfully. Ironically, the review sits next to a review of Rachel Carson's biography, "On A Further Shore." Carson seems to be someone who lived an "ethical" life but given what strand of ethics. She focused on the good of the planet rather than the good of any individual or perhaps the long term good over the short term good. To the extend that she advocated balancing the benefits of pesticides over their negative consequences, she would probably be ethical under the virtue ethics umbrella.
Comments
Post a Comment