The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibe4 The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon: mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
I do not agree with the last bit of counterargument that Virtue Ethic is a selfish theory because it solely focuses on how one can become the best version of oneself. As is mentioned in Aristotle's theory, one can learn to become virtuous by watching other virtuous persons. In reverse, when one become virtuous, he/she will become watched by other people and help them become virtuous. Becoming virtuous is therefore influential, when you become virtuous you influence others to become virtuous too. Saying virtue ethic is a selfish theory is for me nothing but shortsightedness.
@@jessediaz9051Well it began with cavemen who when not "virtuous" enough got kicked out of the clan and became food for the predators around, but no honestly good question haha
Everything that humans do is fundamental selfish, for example wanting peace on earth 🌍 sounds like it is not selfish, but that benefits the person as well. Being selfish has a negative connotation but it is not always so. Doing things just for the sake of doing it is not rational.
That’s perspective really. Some may view it as selfish and some may not I agree with you completely. If being virtuous is selfish (which is apparently bad) then we should not strive for virtuous traits? 🤣 makes no sense
I think this comes down to the whole “be the change you want to see in the world” quote. You become virtuous by practicing virtues (and some of those practices affect others, being not selfish) but that also comes down to “why you’re doing this”. Are you becoming virtuous for any kind of reward (I think even Jesus talked about this)? Selfish. Are you becoming virtuous for the sake of the great good? Maybe not so selfish, a life of contemplation is the highest form of human activity and is supposed to lead to that final happiness I believe.
Thank you for this! I've been reading our modules for hours only for me to understand little information. I'm so glad I came across this video. It helped me understand our topic better. It was a tremendous help!
Due to corona, our university courses got swapped for weekly assigments, where we have to singlehandely read the passages of prominent philosophers and answer questions. However, without any guidance like usual, it was way to hard for many to succeed. After failing the tasks needed for my credit points, I know have to take a test to prove my understanding of said philosophers. Your videos help IMMENSELY. Theyre not just straight up monologues - the style of your presentation; a dialog or rather a legitimate debate leaves me without any questions after watching the video. Absolutely excellent and probably the first time it actually makes me follow up to purchase further content from someone!
I think virtue ethics is the best way because we do not become virtuous for the sake of happiness but happiness is the result of being virtuos. Secondly, when each of us becomes virtous the world will really become a better place to live and there won't be selfish attitude as such.
I think for the adultery thing, being a faithful partner is the virtue, committing adultery is one vice and the other is being "faithful" in the sense that you give too much of yourself to your partner that it becomes unhealthy for yourself, even if it makes your partner absolutely happy. It's like the donating example.
good point there on the fact that fact that aristotalian ethics focuses on attaining eudaimonia, which may be considered selfish, but understand that such a state makes you of ultimate help for the good of all, because the wisdom will posses will always be used to solve the problems of otherd
This was so well planned and delivered. The dialogue format really works. The questions raised at the end really made the whole thing crystal clear. Thank you for posting. Great video.
When I first discovered your video,I was really upset and at the same time exited too,because it put my Ethical grounding to test and made me realised that I've been holding on to a really fragile Ethical approach.I really love the last minutes of each videos where a compelling philosophical ideas were always rendered to some falsity.
As a college instructor of philosophy, I suggest to my students that we need the wisdom of all the moral theories to live well and to act well in the myriad moral situations we face day to day. I would say that Aristotle's Virtue Ethics provides an essential basis from which to build a moral life and that the other theories, including Care Ethics and Stoicism, help us figure out how to develop civic virtues and a social ethos. Each of the theories aid our insight into how to respond to moral problems, and to build policies for a healthy and thriving community. I agree that on its own Aristotle's ethics could be selfish, but the Stoics foresaw that and developed the sense of responsibility for our communities. Thank you for your video.
Well, it seems that Aristotle's ethics has been fundamentaly misuderstood in here... . How on earth can a virtuous person be selfish? How can you be a true and honest leader to your community, helping and acting for them, possibly telling them what's right or wrong, being truly human if you're a slave to your vices as sefishness...? A good person contributes to a community, good people make a good community, don't they? Aristotle would be upset with this sort of misapprehension ...
The first sacrifice for altruists is their mind. After that, sacrifice is easy. Conventional selfishness is a package-deal of rational self-interest and predatory pseudo-self-interest. It's an empty, negative category that merely advises _not_ caring about others. But what should one do to be self-interested? See Virtue Of Selfishness by Ayn Rand to start morality with metaphysics, not floating abstractions.
@@TeaParty1776 who mentioned altruism? Thanks for the reading recommendation. I read that text many years ago. Aristotle is much more thorough and satisfying and not at all an advocate of altruism.
@@kimberleyparzuchowski5297 > who mentioned altruism? You did by advocating "all[!] the moral theories," Care Ethics and Stoicism. Stan Ack did implicitly with "A good person ["]contributes["] to a community." He means sacrifice to a community. He doesnt mean selfish trade. Greek philosophers ,even Plato perhaps, were egoists in their concern for living well. Christian suffering and sacrifice would have confused, disgusted and horrified them. There are some online discussions of the relation between the ethics of Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Rand thought Aristotle is almost selfish but his rational self-actualization is not life, the base of ethics. Rand inductively proves selfishness in "Objectiist Ethics. She says that altruism has never been rationally justified. My own experience is that its claims are rationalist floating abstractions, not abstracted from perception of concretes. Aristotle's Ethics-Leonard Peikoff, RUclips Aristotle and Ayn Rand on Flourishing- Carrie-Ann Biondi, Objectivist Media Ayn Rand Institute-many discussions, inc/at its eStore. Moral Rights And Political Freedom-Tara Smith Viable Values-Tara Smith Virtuous Egoist-Tara Smith
as for answering some of the problems that Aristotle introduced: -The golden mean is not an essential core part of virtue but rather an observation from Aristotle that the characteristics of some attributes of a person can fit into this analogy of lack and excess, it is a tool for decision-making and *self* reflection but not THE tool. -As for convincing people about the value of Aristotelian virtues, that is the point, people are not born with all the means to become a virtuous person, it is up to the circumstances and social education of the individual to recognize which people are truly happy with their lives and which of their attributes they should imitate. -Fundamentally, Virtue Ethics is purely individualistic, but modern virtue ethicists are almost unrecognizable from Utilitarians, as most find selfishness and being apolitical as being a vice, cooperation and helping society is more of an after effect of building virtue.
12:25 "to be a virtuous person really means to be a selfish person" is an interesting conclusion. Thanks for discussing the objections to Virtue Ethics in comparison to the other theories. Very helpful!
I would say that one advantage to using the means table is because it strives for a middle ground, it can ultimately find some of the short comings for deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. For the former, it is too stringent, and for the latter, it is too lenient. As such, I think it could possible for Virtue ethics to act as a bridge between the competing theories, in a very Rossian manner.
it seems to me Virtue ethics isn't really concerned with morality it focuses to much on the individual for this to be the case in my mind morality should be focused on how we treat other not how we appeal to our selfish interests
@@darcevader4146 It's self-preservation actually. And if all individuals act in self-preservation as a group, that leads to the formation of a society, as society is based on common interest. If we were to toss away self-preservation and were always acting in altruistic ways, that entails narcissism and savior complex.
@@CosmoShidan I'm not against self-preservation virtue ethic is about achieving eudaimonia if raping someone help aid in achieving eudaimonia you would have to say that this is a good move to be consistent with virtue ethic . it seem more about finding one's purpose in life if savior complex help one achieve eudaimonia then think one is a savior is good my point is this does sound like a moral system to me
@@darcevader4146 That is if you look at virtue ethics as an examination of moral actions, which is not what it does in the classical sense. The modern sense though, entails that a moral acts are correct if one can apply moral character traits can be applied. Also, it requires a moral exemplar to apply a character trait, until they are no longer needed. To sum it up, Virtue Ethics is about what it means to be human, and how morals are passed on from generation to generation.
Your animation is kind of funny and creepy at the same time. I think it is awsome!😀 Topic suggestions.... 1.Brain in a vat 2.Problem of universals 3.Anything about Hegel 4.Kants critique of pure reason 5.Hillary putnamd twin earth... Thank you very much!
Wow, this was a very good examination of Aristotle's ethics and some very good rebuttals. I have to say I greatly appreciate your all of your videos, but this one was my favorite yet.
11:24 - 11:46 : Answering this inquiry from a standpoint of being a virtue ethicist, one has to understand that Aristotle like most of the ancient scholars and philosophers were all essentialists not existentialists. The kind of reasoning that we see that has happened since modernity and just before in pre-modernity constraints a person to certain linguistic functions that prevents one from understanding what's a person in Aristotle's day was thinking, it's colloquially rare to see individuals talking with syntactical grammar that suggest they're virtue ethicists, in fact they might seem odd given the fact that aretaic logic isn't common unless in a naturalistic or materialistic context (like you guys were showing throughout the eudaimonia section with why ultimately it's for a quality of living that one does good actions) , because deontic logic leads an individual to extreme ideologies for its categorical imperatives making things a 'must' rather than an 'ought' , 'should' , 'might one consider' , 'likely would result' etc. Short digression : Indeed naturalistic and materialistic principles like what the outcomes or ends also deal with can be extreme for quantifying human lives under-values individuals or who might even be saved in a larger group. Issues can be shown demonstrably with history, but I like the scene in batman the dark knight when two boats had likely similar quantities of people in them, one boat with prisoners and one boat with civilians. Who should be saved? Convicts are likely to do crimes again. This isn't easily answered as the consequentialist might figure a few guards and a ton of convicts are better to lose than those wealthier economic classes of people. And statistically that's true but deontologically speaking this is simply terrible, but even the consequentialist ought to admit that they don't know among all who ended up surviving who would have contributed the best medical advances or been a major asset in preventing a future war, if that person were on the boat full of convicts and they were sacrificed maybe the office job people on the yacht actually had a wealthy terrorist who continued to liv just to kill even more. Now to get out of the deontic and aretaic logic debate and remind a person that the virtue ethicists know these infinitely nuanced dynamics are impossible for any rational human to act like they absolutely know, so instead the goal for them is to use practical wisdom and overcome the situation to the best they believe they may arrive at, basically to conservatively chase perfection might they arrive at excellence. Aristotle's theory of virtue ethics wasn't ever a theory to convince the skeptics necessarily but to inform them of his kind of rationality. And it's a good theory because it's fairly practical and people can generally see the fruits of such a labor as well as even intellectually understand why it's plausible because by in large most people have a sense of right and wrong, either by a nature or Spirit (God or gods) given conscience. If you would like to see an article I've edited about philosophical liberalism versus philosophical conservatism (not to be confused with the political theories and their many developments, although in cases there's overlap) one can quickly tell that Aristotle was being philosophically conservative, by the definitions of the article, with his admission of this work. I too am philosophically conservative. Indeed in the next section I will make it more possible for one to understand that it is based in egoism and individualism, but an individualistic form of altruism not a collectivistic altruism like some theories of consequentialism or even an economic focused collectivism like utilitarianism. 11:47 - 12:30 : Obviously, eudaimonia, is beyond oneself though, as one who is successful is an example of success and also has economic wealth or equity that as long as there's currency of that wealth to the local community even others profit. This is like the theory of capitalism, that as long as it isn't in the form of abuse like a monopoly or the other form of misuse, non-generative, the capitalistic environment tends to lift many people up to invent new devices for everybody, that of which indeed might they have unintended consequences, and unlike Aristotle's 11 fixed virtues, I tend to add grace and forgiveness as one because it's subtextually written throughout his work with the exceptions when retribution would be either considerable, or when he just had a hard time reconciling that maybe one ought to be forgiven instead of charged. And that's not to say Aristotle's theory is perfect or that other virtue ethics theories cannot be compared. Obviously one ought to refine and dialectically challenge all things, as natural law theory is another variety by Aquinas and as is Dante's vices and virtues. Anyway. And people in an environment where one controls only the extent of their person and their own properties that consequentially tends to help others grow somewhat conventionally as well for so many countless industries and institutions that they invest into. So I hope that democratic and collectivistic abstractions don't continue to undermine the value of individualism and rational egoism, because virtue ethics does have altruistic sacrifices but sparingly as to remain a stoic person that has work to do here doesn't want to excessively or in some rash manner abandon all family, spouse, work ventures, etcetera just to die a reputable hero or martyr, that's something people do only if it's the best they think they can arrive at. So indeed with certain frameworks one can be a fairly thorough apologist for this theory if enough considerations of our language are corresponded to the actual outlined theory. - Your Quality Apologist
Bingo, exactly what I was thinking "eudaimonia, is beyond oneself though, as one who is successful is an example of success and also has economic wealth or equity that as long as there's currency of that wealth to the local community even others profit" I find that this does not necessarily have to pertain to currency wealth rather it can just be purely production or service to one's nation. Also, one way to clarify the 11 moral virtues is to organize them in a hierarchy where one virtue is acted on in the priority of greatest outcome.
@@GM-fv8bn Interesting connections! I've plenty to study in Aristotelian ethics alone, let alone the whole of virtue ethics but I really have enjoyed deep diving these ethical theories lately. Hopefully I'll have an article or book written about my assessment of it all that's very concise. For now I'm too busy learning how to write parables and short stories so we'll see how long until then 😁 - Your Quality Apologist
Thank you so much for all these great videos. I felt so stagnant lately and it’s amazing to listen in on your philosophical discussions. Please keep it up
any type of ethics cannot encompass the whole of human behavior or what he ought to do. It is still a system on how man should lived, and even that is a loaded statement. That was a very good presentation, including the comments at the end.
What might be noteworthy to add, is that contemporary virtue ethics has made a lot of connections to psychology as well. G. E. M. Anscombe made famous contributions in her essay Modern moral philosophy, and tried taking it back to it's Aristotelian roots, meanwhile criticizing consequentialism. I think she makes a noteworthy distinction since she also criticizes Aristotle and adds layers that take into account human nature which Virtue ethics fortunately does. In addition, in contemporary works virtue ethics is being polished with virtues being added with proper justification, which means that Virtue ethics is now layered to a degree in which there is scientific explanation for it's virtues. If you take into account the foundationless-ness of consequentialism, and Nietzsche's critique in the genealogy of morals in which he essentially takes us back to Aristotle, I believe picking up where contemporary virtue ethics is for me is a virtuous thing to do;)
I disagree with the last criticism. I don't think virtue ethics is necessarily selfish. In fact, one of the main Aristotelian dictums is that humans are necessarily political animals. That means, they fulfill their potential by participating in the Polis decision-making process. There is no possible way they could do this if their only concern was about themselves.
At the end he says it's selfish that you seek eudimonia for yourself, but if you achieve it by selfish means then you haven't really achieved is as doing so would violate 2 of the 11 virtues. Things like duty, and maximizing pleasure are bad because they are not vague enough to allow for an individual. Many of us are looking at ethics wrong. It needs looked on from the individuals perspective up not societiew perspective down. Buddhism and Aristotle Nicomachean ethics share allot of similarities in fact both have 11 virtues and only truly disagree on 3 of them.
Virtue ethics isnt solely selfish... Here is why.... Virtue ethics depends on the assumption that Everybody's goal is to be happy So if anyone wants to be happy, he has to make other people feel happy. cause upsetting other by stealing their stuff or killing their relatives will prolly get you some response from them. Which is gonna gonna be at odds with your happiness. So in a nutshell, the ultimate goal of life, which is happiness is the basis for everything Would love to get some objections
I have been studying for a universtity course in which we went a bit deeper and have to say I feel like that some aspects of Aristotles virtue ethics are portrayed incorrectly in this video. Firstly, I think you mixed up "telos" and "ergon". While telos is the goal a certain action is striving towards, what you described concerning the whole idea of "the point of a knife is to cut, so a knife that cuts well is a good knife" is considering the characteristic function of an object, which Aristotle calls its "ergon". The ergon of humans is the "activity of the soul in the way of reason" (I'm studying this in German so I'm a bit unsure about some of the translations so please be kind, but do let me know if there is a more fitting description). We fullfilling our ergon means living a virtuos life (the whole thing about the Golden Mean and so on, I agree with your explanation of this). The other point I noticed is that you described eudaimonia as "the ultimate goal of being alive" and so on, but it seems improtant to note, that according to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not a state you can archieve but rather an activity to pursue. For a more detailed and in my opinion fitting explanation of this concept you can check out th Crash Course video on virtue theory ruclips.net/video/PrvtOWEXDIQ/видео.html&ab_channel=CrashCourse. This is still a nice overview and in general well done though and I appreciate the effort of trying to share knowledge online :)
I have a criticism of the theory of causation. What if something was created with an evil purpose? This would create a contradiction between the theory of causation and the purpose of the evil thing. Under this theory, if a thing had a purpose of being evil, and it fulfilled its purpose of being evil, then it would be good. This obviously and self evidently can not be true. Something that was created to be evil can not become good by fulfilling its purpose to be evil.
virtuos is not about self in a selfish way it is to realize that by benefiting yourself by stealing cheating causing conflict etc. that your setting a poor example for others and eventually you will have those around you doing the same and nobody wins. however if you focus on the benefit of other around you and are kind and friendly to those around you eventually the whole community will follow your trend of such living but mainly only if you are happy in doing so. usually people at they're core value being liked and so they are happy living minimalist stoic lifestyles because then others show gratitude and appreciation for it and appreciation reciprocating endlessly improving the lives of all those around via our happiness and in this everyone is living the best of all lives possible no matter how far advanced everything is because everyone respects and appreciates eachother. it also breeds the seeds of great leaders because a leader is not someone that strives to lead over a society of people but who's main goal is to live a life that others will look up to and that sets a great example for others regardless of the hardships they are put through. successfully living the lifestyle that others respect love and look up to brings followers and followers makes a person a great leader. leaders don't command they're people they're people look to the leaders for answers.
Facing the challeging questions arisen at the end, I think Aristotle would defend himself showing all his outward (and very humanistic!) approach and emphasizing his steadfast concernements about social and political life. Aristotle´ ethics doesn´t seem a "selfish" approach. Ethics, for him (at least in my understanding) is all about human relationships - and the golden mean is for the sake of the whole society. I think that even "eudaimonia", for Aristotle, can only exists insofar as individuals are subordinated to values held to be right and fair by others. The individual can only flourish if the things he or she does are good or beneficial to others as well. It´s not by chance that in "The Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle is all the time considering the role of laws and governments in the development of virtues in our society. Sincerely, this outward approach doesn´t sound me like a "selfish" one. It´s true that decisions are up to individuals to make - and this is one of the most important assumptions stated by Aristotle. But a right decision, for him, is not just a self-centered one - on the contrary, it is made taking into account the interest of others. Apart from that, the explanation is perfect! Thanks for posting!
Be good and happy person is helping good and happy world more than anything , as more individuals are like that better world, so to say its selfish is not intelligent
The idea that bliss is a goal of individuals is a perverse invention of the solipsism of the those with power, who would envision using their power to overcome life's endless travails by putting those burdens onto others, reserving eudaimonia for themselves at other's expense. No realistic person of average power would claim bliss attainable in fact. This is in practice true even for the powerful, adding insult to the injury created by their pursuit of their nonsense goal. "Practical wisdom" would deem bliss illusory and deceptive.
I am striving to get paper read but I can't afford the purchase. Sorry. Poverty is issue for where I live. If ethics was applicable to all the world would be a monastery. 🥲
Aristotle was not a hedonist, so equating the concept of eudaimonia with what people today would call "happiness" is very misleading. Eudaimonia for Aristotle means living an active life pursuing worthwhile goals in accordance with reason.
Calling it a selfish approach to ethics isnt an actual critique. As if you take the moral skeptic position then you would have to warrant why selfishness is wrong. You cant presuppose another ethics system while critiquing another. Then there would be no way to analyze. In regards to the 11 virtues. We could easily take an intuitionist approach or a behaviorist apporach seeing these are necessary preconditions for man to achieve Eudaimonia as the 11 virtues create a consistent relationship with reality. Courage and the like are virtues because the create social cohesion. As Aristotle puts in Nichomachean Ethics, "any man who needs nobody but himself is either a beast or a god. Even people like Jung, Freud, and Lacan would agree that we repression of desire for a selfish outcome is the basis for society. Which is sustenance of ones self.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
The script to this video is part of the Philosophy Vibe Ethics eBook available on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibe4
The Philosophy Vibe Paperback Anthology, Vol 3 'Ethics and Political Philosophy' available worldwide on Amazon:
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
I hate jews.
And muslims too.
"Yes I get it" The enthusiasm is through the roof.
💀
💀
insert skull emoji
I do not agree with the last bit of counterargument that Virtue Ethic is a selfish theory because it solely focuses on how one can become the best version of oneself. As is mentioned in Aristotle's theory, one can learn to become virtuous by watching other virtuous persons. In reverse, when one become virtuous, he/she will become watched by other people and help them become virtuous. Becoming virtuous is therefore influential, when you become virtuous you influence others to become virtuous too. Saying virtue ethic is a selfish theory is for me nothing but shortsightedness.
Who taught the first influencer? How did this series begin?
@@jessediaz9051Well it began with cavemen who when not "virtuous" enough got kicked out of the clan and became food for the predators around, but no honestly good question haha
Everything that humans do is fundamental selfish, for example wanting peace on earth 🌍 sounds like it is not selfish, but that benefits the person as well. Being selfish has a negative connotation but it is not always so. Doing things just for the sake of doing it is not rational.
That’s perspective really.
Some may view it as selfish and some may not
I agree with you completely.
If being virtuous is selfish (which is apparently bad) then we should not strive for virtuous traits? 🤣 makes no sense
I think this comes down to the whole “be the change you want to see in the world” quote. You become virtuous by practicing virtues (and some of those practices affect others, being not selfish) but that also comes down to “why you’re doing this”. Are you becoming virtuous for any kind of reward (I think even Jesus talked about this)? Selfish. Are you becoming virtuous for the sake of the great good? Maybe not so selfish, a life of contemplation is the highest form of human activity and is supposed to lead to that final happiness I believe.
Thank you for this! I've been reading our modules for hours only for me to understand little information. I'm so glad I came across this video. It helped me understand our topic better. It was a tremendous help!
Glad it was helpful :)
Due to corona, our university courses got swapped for weekly assigments, where we have to singlehandely read the passages of prominent philosophers and answer questions. However, without any guidance like usual, it was way to hard for many to succeed. After failing the tasks needed for my credit points, I know have to take a test to prove my understanding of said philosophers. Your videos help IMMENSELY. Theyre not just straight up monologues - the style of your presentation; a dialog or rather a legitimate debate leaves me without any questions after watching the video. Absolutely excellent and probably the first time it actually makes me follow up to purchase further content from someone!
Really nice to read this, thank you very much. We're glad these videos have helped. Wishing you the best of luck in your university course.
Here for the same. Completely confused on how to write discussions, and I fail every quiz. This helps a lot.
Well done, guys! This was clearly very helpful to a lot of people. Aristotle would definitely have endorsed your channel. :) Good luck for the future.
Thank you :) glad you like the content.
I think virtue ethics is the best way because we do not become virtuous for the sake of happiness but happiness is the result of being virtuos. Secondly, when each of us becomes virtous the world will really become a better place to live and there won't be selfish attitude as such.
very clear and I love the fact that there are 2 people arguing with each other and makes the video more understandable.
Thank you, glad you like the content :)
Man am I lovin' this channel! The model for explanations with the back and forths is WONDERFUL! Thank you for this AMAZING work!
You're welcome, thank you for watching, glad you're enjoying the content :D
I think for the adultery thing, being a faithful partner is the virtue, committing adultery is one vice and the other is being "faithful" in the sense that you give too much of yourself to your partner that it becomes unhealthy for yourself, even if it makes your partner absolutely happy. It's like the donating example.
good point there on the fact that fact that aristotalian ethics focuses on attaining eudaimonia, which may be considered selfish, but understand that such a state makes you of ultimate help for the good of all, because the wisdom will posses will always be used to solve the problems of otherd
I love that you're still making videos. This is a good one. I haven't watched your channel in a while but your videos were always one of the best
Thank you very much :D
I never skip any of your videos you are One of my favourite Channels on youtube , Keep it up , Greetings from Egypt ❤️❤️
Thank you so much, happy to hear you’re enjoying the videos 😃
Doctrine of Means is similar to Hegel's dialectics as well. Opposite extremes being thesis and antithesis. And middle ground being synthesis.
Okay! I was about to study this topic . Glad you posted this video . 😂 Thank you so much ❤️
Great! I hope you find this useful.
This was so well planned and delivered. The dialogue format really works. The questions raised at the end really made the whole thing crystal clear. Thank you for posting. Great video.
Glad you enjoyed :D
When I first discovered your video,I was really upset and at the same time exited too,because it put my Ethical grounding to test and made me realised that I've been holding on to a really fragile Ethical approach.I really love the last minutes of each videos where a compelling philosophical ideas were always rendered to some falsity.
Glad you are enjoying the content :)
I love all your video soooooo much.
I major in philosophy , these help me find outline so fast.
Good
Thank you
A pleasure, thank you for watching and we're so glad they're helping with your studies.
You guys are brilliant. Great teachers. Keep up the awesome work. Your the best 👍
You discuss it more way better than my prof thank you
You're welcome, glad we could help.
As a college instructor of philosophy, I suggest to my students that we need the wisdom of all the moral theories to live well and to act well in the myriad moral situations we face day to day. I would say that Aristotle's Virtue Ethics provides an essential basis from which to build a moral life and that the other theories, including Care Ethics and Stoicism, help us figure out how to develop civic virtues and a social ethos. Each of the theories aid our insight into how to respond to moral problems, and to build policies for a healthy and thriving community. I agree that on its own Aristotle's ethics could be selfish, but the Stoics foresaw that and developed the sense of responsibility for our communities. Thank you for your video.
Well, it seems that Aristotle's ethics has been fundamentaly misuderstood in here... . How on earth can a virtuous person be selfish? How can you be a true and honest leader to your community, helping and acting for them, possibly telling them what's right or wrong, being truly human if you're a slave to your vices as sefishness...? A good person contributes to a community, good people make a good community, don't they? Aristotle would be upset with this sort of
misapprehension ...
The first sacrifice for altruists is their mind. After that, sacrifice is easy.
Conventional selfishness is a package-deal of rational self-interest and predatory pseudo-self-interest. It's an empty, negative category that merely advises _not_ caring about others. But what should one do to be self-interested? See Virtue Of Selfishness by Ayn Rand to start morality with metaphysics, not floating abstractions.
@@TeaParty1776 who mentioned altruism? Thanks for the reading recommendation. I read that text many years ago. Aristotle is much more thorough and satisfying and not at all an advocate of altruism.
@@kimberleyparzuchowski5297 > who mentioned altruism?
You did by advocating "all[!] the moral theories," Care Ethics and Stoicism.
Stan Ack did implicitly with
"A good person ["]contributes["] to a community." He means sacrifice to a community. He doesnt mean selfish trade.
Greek philosophers ,even Plato perhaps, were egoists in their concern for living well. Christian suffering and sacrifice would have confused, disgusted and horrified them. There are some online discussions of the relation between the ethics of Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Rand thought Aristotle is almost selfish but his rational self-actualization is not life, the base of ethics. Rand inductively proves selfishness in "Objectiist Ethics. She says that altruism has never been rationally justified. My own experience is that its claims are rationalist floating abstractions, not abstracted from perception of concretes.
Aristotle's Ethics-Leonard Peikoff, RUclips
Aristotle and Ayn Rand on Flourishing-
Carrie-Ann Biondi, Objectivist Media
Ayn Rand Institute-many discussions, inc/at its eStore.
Moral Rights And Political Freedom-Tara Smith
Viable Values-Tara Smith
Virtuous Egoist-Tara Smith
Brilliant demonstration ! Very helpful lessons that go right to the point. Already do I feel less stupid ; thank you.
You're welcome. Glad we could help.
as for answering some of the problems that Aristotle introduced:
-The golden mean is not an essential core part of virtue but rather an observation from Aristotle that the characteristics of some attributes of a person can fit into this analogy of lack and excess, it is a tool for decision-making and *self* reflection but not THE tool.
-As for convincing people about the value of Aristotelian virtues, that is the point, people are not born with all the means to become a virtuous person, it is up to the circumstances and social education of the individual to recognize which people are truly happy with their lives and which of their attributes they should imitate.
-Fundamentally, Virtue Ethics is purely individualistic, but modern virtue ethicists are almost unrecognizable from Utilitarians, as most find selfishness and being apolitical as being a vice, cooperation and helping society is more of an after effect of building virtue.
12:25 "to be a virtuous person really means to be a selfish person" is an interesting conclusion. Thanks for discussing the objections to Virtue Ethics in comparison to the other theories. Very helpful!
Thank you for this video, now i understand what virtue ethics really is as part of our human existence
Glad we could help, thanks for watching.
What an explanation!!! Superb 😍 i feel lucky i came across this channel. Your videos helped me a lot to grasp my lectures
Keep up the good work 👏👌
Thank you. Happy you are enjoying the videos :)
I would say that one advantage to using the means table is because it strives for a middle ground, it can ultimately find some of the short comings for deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics. For the former, it is too stringent, and for the latter, it is too lenient. As such, I think it could possible for Virtue ethics to act as a bridge between the competing theories, in a very Rossian manner.
it seems to me Virtue ethics isn't really concerned with morality
it focuses to much on the individual for this to be the case
in my mind morality should be focused on how we treat other not how we appeal to our selfish interests
@@darcevader4146 It's self-preservation actually. And if all individuals act in self-preservation as a group, that leads to the formation of a society, as society is based on common interest. If we were to toss away self-preservation and were always acting in altruistic ways, that entails narcissism and savior complex.
@@CosmoShidan I'm not against self-preservation virtue ethic is about achieving eudaimonia if raping someone help aid in achieving eudaimonia you would have to say that this is a good move to be consistent with virtue ethic . it seem more about finding one's purpose in life
if savior complex help one achieve eudaimonia
then think one is a savior is good
my point is this does sound like a moral system to me
@@CosmoShidan virtue ethics by it's nature is narcissistic it's how do I get my eudaimonia
@@darcevader4146 That is if you look at virtue ethics as an examination of moral actions, which is not what it does in the classical sense. The modern sense though, entails that a moral acts are correct if one can apply moral character traits can be applied. Also, it requires a moral exemplar to apply a character trait, until they are no longer needed. To sum it up, Virtue Ethics is about what it means to be human, and how morals are passed on from generation to generation.
Your animation is kind of funny and creepy at the same time. I think it is awsome!😀
Topic suggestions....
1.Brain in a vat
2.Problem of universals
3.Anything about Hegel
4.Kants critique of pure reason
5.Hillary putnamd twin earth...
Thank you very much!
Great suggestions, thank you!
Thanks! Your videos are always so helpful and informative!
A pleasure, thank you for watching.
Wow, this was a very good examination of Aristotle's ethics and some very good rebuttals. I have to say I greatly appreciate your all of your videos, but this one was my favorite yet.
Thank you very much, glad you liked it.
11:24 - 11:46 : Answering this inquiry from a standpoint of being a virtue ethicist, one has to understand that Aristotle like most of the ancient scholars and philosophers were all essentialists not existentialists.
The kind of reasoning that we see that has happened since modernity and just before in pre-modernity constraints a person to certain linguistic functions that prevents one from understanding what's a person in Aristotle's day was thinking, it's colloquially rare to see individuals talking with syntactical grammar that suggest they're virtue ethicists, in fact they might seem odd given the fact that aretaic logic isn't common unless in a naturalistic or materialistic context (like you guys were showing throughout the eudaimonia section with why ultimately it's for a quality of living that one does good actions) , because deontic logic leads an individual to extreme ideologies for its categorical imperatives making things a 'must' rather than an 'ought' , 'should' , 'might one consider' , 'likely would result' etc.
Short digression :
Indeed naturalistic and materialistic principles like what the outcomes or ends also deal with can be extreme for quantifying human lives under-values individuals or who might even be saved in a larger group.
Issues can be shown demonstrably with history, but I like the scene in batman the dark knight when two boats had likely similar quantities of people in them, one boat with prisoners and one boat with civilians. Who should be saved?
Convicts are likely to do crimes again. This isn't easily answered as the consequentialist might figure a few guards and a ton of convicts are better to lose than those wealthier economic classes of people. And statistically that's true but deontologically speaking this is simply terrible, but even the consequentialist ought to admit that they don't know among all who ended up surviving who would have contributed the best medical advances or been a major asset in preventing a future war, if that person were on the boat full of convicts and they were sacrificed maybe the office job people on the yacht actually had a wealthy terrorist who continued to liv just to kill even more.
Now to get out of the deontic and aretaic logic debate and remind a person that the virtue ethicists know these infinitely nuanced dynamics are impossible for any rational human to act like they absolutely know, so instead the goal for them is to use practical wisdom and overcome the situation to the best they believe they may arrive at, basically to conservatively chase perfection might they arrive at excellence.
Aristotle's theory of virtue ethics wasn't ever a theory to convince the skeptics necessarily but to inform them of his kind of rationality.
And it's a good theory because it's fairly practical and people can generally see the fruits of such a labor as well as even intellectually understand why it's plausible because by in large most people have a sense of right and wrong, either by a nature or Spirit (God or gods) given conscience.
If you would like to see an article I've edited about philosophical liberalism versus philosophical conservatism (not to be confused with the political theories and their many developments, although in cases there's overlap) one can quickly tell that Aristotle was being philosophically conservative, by the definitions of the article, with his admission of this work. I too am philosophically conservative.
Indeed in the next section I will make it more possible for one to understand that it is based in egoism and individualism, but an individualistic form of altruism not a collectivistic altruism like some theories of consequentialism or even an economic focused collectivism like utilitarianism.
11:47 - 12:30 : Obviously, eudaimonia, is beyond oneself though, as one who is successful is an example of success and also has economic wealth or equity that as long as there's currency of that wealth to the local community even others profit. This is like the theory of capitalism, that as long as it isn't in the form of abuse like a monopoly or the other form of misuse, non-generative, the capitalistic environment tends to lift many people up to invent new devices for everybody, that of which indeed might they have unintended consequences, and unlike Aristotle's 11 fixed virtues, I tend to add grace and forgiveness as one because it's subtextually written throughout his work with the exceptions when retribution would be either considerable, or when he just had a hard time reconciling that maybe one ought to be forgiven instead of charged.
And that's not to say Aristotle's theory is perfect or that other virtue ethics theories cannot be compared. Obviously one ought to refine and dialectically challenge all things, as natural law theory is another variety by Aquinas and as is Dante's vices and virtues. Anyway.
And people in an environment where one controls only the extent of their person and their own properties that consequentially tends to help others grow somewhat conventionally as well for so many countless industries and institutions that they invest into.
So I hope that democratic and collectivistic abstractions don't continue to undermine the value of individualism and rational egoism, because virtue ethics does have altruistic sacrifices but sparingly as to remain a stoic person that has work to do here doesn't want to excessively or in some rash manner abandon all family, spouse, work ventures, etcetera just to die a reputable hero or martyr, that's something people do only if it's the best they think they can arrive at.
So indeed with certain frameworks one can be a fairly thorough apologist for this theory if enough considerations of our language are corresponded to the actual outlined theory.
- Your Quality Apologist
Bingo, exactly what I was thinking "eudaimonia, is beyond oneself though, as one who is successful is an example of success and also has economic wealth or equity that as long as there's currency of that wealth to the local community even others profit"
I find that this does not necessarily have to pertain to currency wealth rather it can just be purely production or service to one's nation.
Also, one way to clarify the 11 moral virtues is to organize them in a hierarchy where one virtue is acted on in the priority of greatest outcome.
@@GM-fv8bn Interesting connections!
I've plenty to study in Aristotelian ethics alone, let alone the whole of virtue ethics but I really have enjoyed deep diving these ethical theories lately.
Hopefully I'll have an article or book written about my assessment of it all that's very concise. For now I'm too busy learning how to write parables and short stories so we'll see how long until then 😁
- Your Quality Apologist
Been watching your videos for a while and cant seem to ignore the fact that the beardless dude is always the critic 😂. Better switch it up next.
this really helped me for my ethics class. Thanks!
Glad we could help 👍
Thank you so much for all these great videos. I felt so stagnant lately and it’s amazing to listen in on your philosophical discussions. Please keep it up
Thank you very much, happy you enjoyed the video.
This is a life saver for my ethics quiz! Thank you so much!
You're welcome, happy to help.
Amazing teacher thanks a million guys
You're welcome :)
this videos makes interpreting what's in written more easier for me.
Glad we could help.
Great video I've been learning a lot from your channel!
Happy to hear that 😀 thank you for watching.
any type of ethics cannot encompass the whole of human behavior or what he ought to do. It is still a system on how man should lived, and even that is a loaded statement. That was a very good presentation, including the comments at the end.
this explained the topic so well. and i specially love the ending the part. really makes u think.
Glad you enjoyed :)
@@PhilosophyVibe not only did i enjoy. i also passed the test because of this.
Fantastic, great to hear, and glad we could help :D
It's one person that recites the dialogue between George and John, right?
Hi thanks thanks thanks alot you just saved a life .i have an exam tomorrow and this really helped. Thanks sooooooooo much. Very well explained 😍
Glad we could help. Best of luck in the exam.
Thanks for this, needed this for my ethics class.
You're welcome, best of luck in your course.
This is a useful video. It really helped me with my assignment.
Glad we could help. Thanks for watching 😀
Thank you!
You're welcome!
LOVE the end. Great questions.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
best philo channel!
Thank you :)
Fabulous explanation....very much thankful....plz share more videos like this on Analytic philosophy also
Thank you! And yes we will look into this.
that was outstanding
Thank you!
Thank you! This was engaging and well explained.
Glad it was helpful!
What might be noteworthy to add, is that contemporary virtue ethics has made a lot of connections to psychology as well. G. E. M. Anscombe made famous contributions in her essay Modern moral philosophy, and tried taking it back to it's Aristotelian roots, meanwhile criticizing consequentialism. I think she makes a noteworthy distinction since she also criticizes Aristotle and adds layers that take into account human nature which Virtue ethics fortunately does. In addition, in contemporary works virtue ethics is being polished with virtues being added with proper justification, which means that Virtue ethics is now layered to a degree in which there is scientific explanation for it's virtues. If you take into account the foundationless-ness of consequentialism, and Nietzsche's critique in the genealogy of morals in which he essentially takes us back to Aristotle, I believe picking up where contemporary virtue ethics is for me is a virtuous thing to do;)
I love Virtues ethics.it can leads to happy life
I disagree with the last criticism. I don't think virtue ethics is necessarily selfish. In fact, one of the main Aristotelian dictums is that humans are necessarily political animals. That means, they fulfill their potential by participating in the Polis decision-making process. There is no possible way they could do this if their only concern was about themselves.
this was super helpful!! thank you
A pleasure, glad we could help :)
Thank you! This was very helpful with my revision.
Glad we could help, thanks for watching.
Thank you so, so much!
You're welcome!
Thanks for saving my ethics exam!
You're welcome :D
Really helpful and well explained! Thank you😁
A pleasure, thanks for watching!
that crease in the carpet is driving me crazy
At the end he says it's selfish that you seek eudimonia for yourself, but if you achieve it by selfish means then you haven't really achieved is as doing so would violate 2 of the 11 virtues.
Things like duty, and maximizing pleasure are bad because they are not vague enough to allow for an individual.
Many of us are looking at ethics wrong. It needs looked on from the individuals perspective up not societiew perspective down.
Buddhism and Aristotle Nicomachean ethics share allot of similarities in fact both have 11 virtues and only truly disagree on 3 of them.
Can virtue theory really be considered selfish? Even when one of its core dimensions is generosity?
I love the Golden Mean
i agree , you dont selfish and ego in journey .
selfish in a sense of growing one's self and reaching one's telos. thank you for this informative video
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks
You're welcome, and thank you for supporting the channel :D
Virtue ethics isnt solely selfish...
Here is why....
Virtue ethics depends on the assumption that Everybody's goal is to be happy
So if anyone wants to be happy, he has to make other people feel happy. cause upsetting other by stealing their stuff or killing their relatives will prolly get you some response from them.
Which is gonna gonna be at odds with your happiness.
So in a nutshell, the ultimate goal of life, which is happiness is the basis for everything
Would love to get some objections
wowww, well-explained! great!
Thank you, glad you enjoyed.
I have been studying for a universtity course in which we went a bit deeper and have to say I feel like that some aspects of Aristotles virtue ethics are portrayed incorrectly in this video. Firstly, I think you mixed up "telos" and "ergon". While telos is the goal a certain action is striving towards, what you described concerning the whole idea of "the point of a knife is to cut, so a knife that cuts well is a good knife" is considering the characteristic function of an object, which Aristotle calls its "ergon". The ergon of humans is the "activity of the soul in the way of reason" (I'm studying this in German so I'm a bit unsure about some of the translations so please be kind, but do let me know if there is a more fitting description). We fullfilling our ergon means living a virtuos life (the whole thing about the Golden Mean and so on, I agree with your explanation of this). The other point I noticed is that you described eudaimonia as "the ultimate goal of being alive" and so on, but it seems improtant to note, that according to Aristotle, eudaimonia is not a state you can archieve but rather an activity to pursue. For a more detailed and in my opinion fitting explanation of this concept you can check out th Crash Course video on virtue theory ruclips.net/video/PrvtOWEXDIQ/видео.html&ab_channel=CrashCourse. This is still a nice overview and in general well done though and I appreciate the effort of trying to share knowledge online :)
I really like the part when you defended the Theory
Thank you :)
I have a criticism of the theory of causation. What if something was created with an evil purpose? This would create a contradiction between the theory of causation and the purpose of the evil thing. Under this theory, if a thing had a purpose of being evil, and it fulfilled its purpose of being evil, then it would be good. This obviously and self evidently can not be true. Something that was created to be evil can not become good by fulfilling its purpose to be evil.
Video Ideas:
A priori vs A posteriori
Analytic vs Continental
Thanks :)
Great suggestions, thank you.
I have an exam in a few hours, Thank you.
Good luck in the exam!
Thanku ❤❤❤
You're welcome :)
That walnut does not walnut very properly if it turns into a flower.........
This "selfishness" is more aptly considered "rational self-interest"; which tends to favor voluntary cooperation with others (hardly "selfish").
thank you so much
You're welcome.
well said 👏👏
Nice! keep it up
Thank you 😀
Awesome !!!
Thank you.
We need another Aristotle.
Beautiful
Make a video on objectivism the philosophy of Ayn Rand
Very good!
Thanks
I loved this
Thank you.
Who came first Aristole or Zeno? What are the differences?
virtuos is not about self in a selfish way it is to realize that by benefiting yourself by stealing cheating causing conflict etc. that your setting a poor example for others and eventually you will have those around you doing the same and nobody wins. however if you focus on the benefit of other around you and are kind and friendly to those around you eventually the whole community will follow your trend of such living but mainly only if you are happy in doing so. usually people at they're core value being liked and so they are happy living minimalist stoic lifestyles because then others show gratitude and appreciation for it and appreciation reciprocating endlessly improving the lives of all those around via our happiness and in this everyone is living the best of all lives possible no matter how far advanced everything is because everyone respects and appreciates eachother. it also breeds the seeds of great leaders because a leader is not someone that strives to lead over a society of people but who's main goal is to live a life that others will look up to and that sets a great example for others regardless of the hardships they are put through. successfully living the lifestyle that others respect love and look up to brings followers and followers makes a person a great leader. leaders don't command they're people they're people look to the leaders for answers.
thank uuuu
You're welcome.
Profound!!
I love virtue ethics
Aristotle's Doctrine of Means is similar to Buddha's Middle Way.
Facing the challeging questions arisen at the end, I think Aristotle would defend himself showing all his outward (and very humanistic!) approach and emphasizing his steadfast concernements about social and political life. Aristotle´ ethics doesn´t seem a "selfish" approach. Ethics, for him (at least in my understanding) is all about human relationships - and the golden mean is for the sake of the whole society. I think that even "eudaimonia", for Aristotle, can only exists insofar as individuals are subordinated to values held to be right and fair by others. The individual can only flourish if the things he or she does are good or beneficial to others as well. It´s not by chance that in "The Nicomachean Ethics" Aristotle is all the time considering the role of laws and governments in the development of virtues in our society. Sincerely, this outward approach doesn´t sound me like a "selfish" one. It´s true that decisions are up to individuals to make - and this is one of the most important assumptions stated by Aristotle. But a right decision, for him, is not just a self-centered one - on the contrary, it is made taking into account the interest of others.
Apart from that, the explanation is perfect! Thanks for posting!
Be good and happy person is helping good and happy world more than anything , as more individuals are like that better world, so to say its selfish is not intelligent
The idea that bliss is a goal of individuals is a perverse invention of the solipsism of the those with power, who would envision using their power to overcome life's endless travails by putting those burdens onto others, reserving eudaimonia for themselves at other's expense. No realistic person of average power would claim bliss attainable in fact. This is in practice true even for the powerful, adding insult to the injury created by their pursuit of their nonsense goal. "Practical wisdom" would deem bliss illusory and deceptive.
I can't believe I am listening to philosophy with concentration
Glad we could help!
Does virtue ethics demand to much to us?
Any BSIT-1B hereee?
♥️
I am striving to get paper read but I can't afford the purchase. Sorry. Poverty is issue for where I live. If ethics was applicable to all the world would be a monastery. 🥲
Aristotle was not a hedonist, so equating the concept of eudaimonia with what people today would call "happiness" is very misleading. Eudaimonia for Aristotle means living an active life pursuing worthwhile goals in accordance with reason.
Calling it a selfish approach to ethics isnt an actual critique. As if you take the moral skeptic position then you would have to warrant why selfishness is wrong. You cant presuppose another ethics system while critiquing another. Then there would be no way to analyze. In regards to the 11 virtues. We could easily take an intuitionist approach or a behaviorist apporach seeing these are necessary preconditions for man to achieve Eudaimonia as the 11 virtues create a consistent relationship with reality. Courage and the like are virtues because the create social cohesion. As Aristotle puts in Nichomachean Ethics, "any man who needs nobody but himself is either a beast or a god. Even people like Jung, Freud, and Lacan would agree that we repression of desire for a selfish outcome is the basis for society. Which is sustenance of ones self.