Be virtue ethicist toward yourself, a deontologist towards others, and a utilitarian towards policy

[jack]

I saw someone on tumblr say "Be virtue ethicist toward yourself, a deontologist towards others, and a utilitarian towards policy". I can't find the link now, I don't think I have the words exactly right.

But the more I think about it, the more I think, "isn't that the perfect description?"

Types of ethics

I tend to think of myself as utilitarian, even though I know it isn't perfect. In fact, I tend to think of *everyone* as utilitarian, as I think most people find the good thing about an ethical system, that it makes things better for themselves and others. Even if there are people who genuinely don't think that "I will do the right thing even if I'm damned for it".

However I think a big dollop of the other ethical systems is helpful in practice.

Self

The thing is, most of the time you're not facing a stark choice, "A or B." You're facing an endless series of choices, some small, some big, and will never get them all right, from a mix of "I don't have the energy to decide every case perfectly" and "I'm not that much of a saint (even if I should be)."

So cultivating a habit of choosing a virtuous choice is most of the time, more useful than agonising over the individual choice. A lot of good happens because of people who try to always be compassionate and are compassionate when it matters. A lot of harm happens when people think, oh it doesn't matter that much, don't I deserve something for myself, and get caught out when it DOES matter.

Others

When it comes to how you treat others, you want to follow your virtue ethics, but you need to default to some deontological rules too, because consistency is beneficial: e.g. usually not imposing on people who don't want you to, even if you think it would help.

And when it comes to your opinion of other people's morals, you can judge their intentions, and please do, help them if you can, but in practice, you often need to judge their actions: if they act harmfully, you may need to protect yourself, them, or others, regardless of WHY they act harmfully. If they act virtuously, it's not productive to second guess them.

Utilitarian

And when you're considering policy, you often don't have the luxury of doing what seems right, if something else is proved to be more helpful in practice, directly or indirectly.

Hm, now I'm not sure it made as much sense as when I first saw it, but I still keep thinking about it.

Comments

[jack]

Part of it is that I suspect people differ about whether their brand of ethics is fundamental (and would genuinely double down on "yes, you should be virtuous even if it continually causes giant harm" or vice versa), or whether another brand of ethics is fundamental but that's so obvious it's insulting to debate it, the important thing is that their OWN ethics is how you should actually behave.