By combining Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, you achieve better outcomes than either alone
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
A lot of people criticize Utilitarianism because it cannot put value on all things, and measuring certain things are extraordinarily difficult. I then propose, that we add virtue ethics, putting an infinite value on human dignity, freedom, and valuable characteristics (allowing them to overcome any amount of financial gain), in addition to the vague "happiness" that is harder to measure. With both of these moral systems combined, I argue that the most moral actions can be concluded.
Utilitarianism: the idea that the greater the happiness (and minimalizing the amount of harm), the more moral the action is
Virtue ethics: the idea that some things must always be done and achieved through.
I meant flexibility of thought, not 'delibility', sigh.
I had to leave some type of comment, since I defended Utilitarianism in my first debate.
I'm curious to see a debate about this happiness monster...
I think your resolution would be better suited as "By combining Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics, you achieve better outcomes than either alone" otherwise you risk someone pointing out any other moral system, and merely having a more frequent "moral" action within it to defeat the current resolution.
what's your initial thoughts? I feel like at least "Happiness monster" is defeated, as human rights to their lives have infinite value under this new system while happiness monster cannot generate infinite happiness, therefore you wouldn't sacrifice the humans to the happiness monster.