Ethics - Intellectual Virtues, Lecture notes of Ethics

Are there different types of virtues? Can we distinguish between intellectual and moral virtues?

Typology: Lecture notes

2018/2019

Uploaded on 04/14/2019

rajan-kooner
rajan-kooner 🇬🇧

4

(1)

2 documents

1 / 7

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Virtue – Intellectual Virtues
PLAN
• Varieties of Virtue: Moral and Intellectual Virtues
• The Conation Problem
(a) Driver’s Negative Arguments
(b) Driver’s Positive Proposal
• Outcome: Remaining Questions
So far we’ve been cashing out being a morally admirable person
as being a morally virtuous person
While virtue theorists working in ethics tend to focus on moral
virtues, those working in epistemology try to understand
intellectual/epistemic virtues
Ethicists = mroal virtues
Epistemologists = intellectual virtues and knowledge
Interesting to see where the lines between these lie
Some Possible Examples [?/Provisional]:
Actual list given by how we attempt to identify virtues
Moral Virtues: Compassion; Courage; Honesty;
Loyalty;Temperance; Justice; Generosity; etc...
Intellectual Virtues: Inquisitiveness; Intellectual Courage;
Intellectual Rigour; Intellectual Perseverance; Open-Mindedness;
etc...
Since we’re focusing maonly on MV in this unit then the main
question we trying to answer is: how are these two lists related?
Perhaps the goal of education is to instill these traits in
people: make them inquisitive and intellectually
persevering
If so then we have reason to want to know what the
intellectual virtues are
Baehr gives us a possible answer
Three Options:
a) The Reductive Thesis:
There is no principled distinction between moral and
intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues just are moral
virtues.
The alleged list of IV are just examples of MV rub out
the line
b) The Subset Thesis: Intellectual virtues are moral virtues,
but they form a distinguishable sub-set of moral virtues.
Agree that IV are just MV BUT there is something
dierent about IV
IV’s have something in common with each other
which sets them apart (special quality)
c) The Independence Thesis: Intellectual virtues are distinct
from moral virtues.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Ethics - Intellectual Virtues and more Lecture notes Ethics in PDF only on Docsity!

Virtue – Intellectual Virtues

PLAN

  • Varieties of Virtue: Moral and Intellectual Virtues
  • The Conflation Problem (a) Driver’s Negative Arguments (b) Driver’s Positive Proposal
  • Outcome: Remaining Questions
  • So far we’ve been cashing out being a morally admirable person as being a morally virtuous person
  • While virtue theorists working in ethics tend to focus on moral virtues, those working in epistemology try to understand intellectual/epistemic virtues - Ethicists = mroal virtues - Epistemologists = intellectual virtues and knowledge - Interesting to see where the lines between these lie
  • Some Possible Examples [?/Provisional]:
  • Actual list given by how we attempt to identify virtues
  • Moral Virtues: Compassion; Courage; Honesty; Loyalty;Temperance; Justice; Generosity; etc...
  • Intellectual Virtues: Inquisitiveness; Intellectual Courage; Intellectual Rigour; Intellectual Perseverance; Open-Mindedness; etc...
  • Since we’re focusing maonly on MV in this unit then the main question we trying to answer is: how are these two lists related? - Perhaps the goal of education is to instill these traits in people: make them inquisitive and intellectually persevering ■ If so then we have reason to want to know what the intellectual virtues are - Baehr gives us a possible answer
  • Three Options:
    • a) The Reductive Thesis: There is no principled distinction between moral and intellectual virtues. Intellectual virtues just are moral virtues. ■ The alleged list of IV are just examples of MV rub out the line
    • b) The Subset Thesis: Intellectual virtues are moral virtues, but they form a distinguishable sub-set of moral virtues. ■ Agree that IV are just MV BUT there is something different about IV ■ IV’s have something in common with each other which sets them apart (special quality)
    • c) The Independence Thesis: Intellectual virtues are distinct from moral virtues.

■ Totally distinct types of virtues ■ One way of being virtuous is morally, a completely separate way is intellectually

  • Baehr’s example of Smith, whose moral failings are compatible with his intellectual excellence.
  • Smith is “an accomplished biologist with a genuine thirst for knowledge and understanding of the natural world, and... this desire leads him to engage in scientific inquiry that is systematically careful, thorough, fair‐minded, rigorous, and tenacious.”
  • BUT he neglects his children, unfriendly to his neighbours, generally a cold person etc
  • Learning the intellectual qualities about Smith gives us no reason to reassess our moral evaluation of Smith - Whatever information we’re given about IV doesn’t make us suddenly rethink whether he’s a morally virtuous person - Doesn’t lead to change in moral assessment - IV are distinct from MV in some way
  • Given this, it seems that our evaluations of moral virtue and of intellectual virtue can come apart reject reductive thesis
  • More generally, virtue theorists since Aristotle have tended to accept a distinction between moral virtues and intellectual virtues.
  • That is the orthodoxy in the literature, and given the info given by the Smith example it looks like we should attempt to come up with a workable method for making that distinction the conflation problem (Driver) - Trying to avoid conflating MV/IV need a distinction
  • We’ll focus on one contribution to this topic from a theorist we are already familiar with... Julia Driver.

DRIVER’S NEGATIVE ARGUMENTS

  • Julia Driver builds on her CONSEQUENTIALIST APPROACH to identifying moral virtues in order to address the conflation problem.
  • Nice amendment to what we’re already familiar with
  • Driver’s strategy has two parts:
    1. Argue against existing proposals. 1.a.Take out the opposition look at alternatives for solving CP and show why wrong negative project
    2. Provide a new positive proposal. 1.b. Having cleared the path, sets up own positive proposal
  • She discusses loaaads of alternatives but we will focus on two here. - DON’T BASE YOUR ESSAY ON THIS PAPER
  • Moral Virtues Cannot Be Used for Evil
  • All
  • This approach needs to identify:
  • (i) A characteristic motivation shared by all intellectual virtues, and; (ii) A characteristic motivation shared by all moral virtues.
  • (b) (i) Characteristic Motivation of IV
  • Is there a characteristic motivation for all IV? This is probably the only option in town…
  • This is one people tend to have in mind
  • One candidate for the characteristic motivation of intellectual virtues is the motive towards epistemic goods (such as knowledge and understanding).
  • (Note: This is Baehr’s view of the intellectual virtues. It is also held by Linda Zagzebski.) - ‘cognitive contact with reality’ – catch all term for epistemic goods such as knowledge - so knowledge is having a cognitive contact with reality
  • Idea that all IV involve being motivated for these things
    • Being inquisitive is WANTING TO UNDERSTAND/KNOW STUFF
    • Having intellectual courage is not backing down from arguments/challenges because you want to get to know stuff and get things right pursuit of epistemic goods
  • Drivers response to this is very quick
    • Counter-example to show not all IV involve being motivated for epistemic goods:- “some intellectual virtues may involve an at least limited failure to consider various aspects of reality – for example, focus and concentration may involve the capacity to exclude irrelevant (but true) facts.”.
    • If you’re really focusing/concentrating on one thing, there might be a load of things you miss out on because you’re not paying attention to those
    • Too narrowly focused
    • Not paying enough attention to true beliefs, for eg
    • there are worries for this response ■ Not immediately clear that focus/concentration is a character trait ■ Even if they are traits, it might still be the case that focus/concentration might still get you epistemic goods - Someone who’s motivated to focus a lot might be motivated to get a deeper understanding of one subject matter even if there’s some things they’re not paying attention, they’ll still be trying to understand that’s an epistemic suggestion still good
  • (ii) A characteristic motivation shared by all moral virtues
  • One candidate for the characteristic motivation of moral virtues is the motive towards helping other people.
  • Note: Driver ascribes this view to Francis Hutcheson. It is also similar to Michael Slote’s view in his Morals from Motives.
  • Is this true? Driver says no via counterexamples
    • She claims there are moral virtues that do not necessarily involve being motivated to help other people.
    • Driver suggests justice and honesty as examples. ■ If someone’s incredibly just/fair, not necessarily care about helping other people, rather they’re concerned about truth
    • If plausible, can have these MV without being motivated to help anyone else, then this idea then all MV have shared characteristics won’t work, because there are counterexamples to it
  • Driver could accept that things like justice and honesty as a matter of facr are good for other people, maybe they help societies to function well, so justice and honesty has a consequence that other people benefit
  • BUT this is different between saying the honest person is motivated by bring those consequences about
  • Having good consequences via vs being motivated by those good consequences
  • Being honest helps others but you can be honest without caring about that you just want to be truthful
  • Having dismissed several rival approaches to solving the conflation problem, Driver then sets out her own positive proposal.
  • We already know to expect that Driver will favour a CONSEQUENTIALIST APPROACH. But we need to know how she makes the distinction between moral virtues and intellectual virtues...
  • To make the distinction, Driver (2003, pp. 381-382) tells us that we need to consider both the type of good that each trait produces and who that good is primarily produced for.
  • These are two moving parts: the type of good produced and who for?
  • We already know her account of moral virtues: Moral virtues are traits that (systematically) produce well-being for other people.
  • We now get her account of intellectual virtues: Intellectual virtues are traits that (systematically) produce epistemic goods for the agent.

Questions: (1) Can you think of a non-virtuous character trait that would be classed as either a moral virtue or an intellectual virtue by Driver’s proposal? (2) Can you think of any intellectual virtue that would be classed as a moral virtue by Driver’s proposal (or vice versa)?

REMAINING QUESTIONS

Questions: (1) If correct, would Driver’s proposal imply the reductive thesis; the subset thesis; or the independence thesis? (2) Which of the alternative proposals that Driver dismisses is the most promising? Why? (3) What is the most damaging objection to Driver’s own proposal? Should we accept her proposal regardless?