We
are machines. As reflective machines we want to be well-honed, highly
skilled and knowledgeable. We want to live in strong families and
strong societies, ones that help us build things and explore more
things, and that help us have more pleasures, probably both base and
more refined.
There
is no reason to call the capacities we arrive at virtuous. The definition and connotation of the word simply means it needs to be abandoned. We
understand the well-honed nature of the machines we can be. What it
means to be skillful or not skillful. What it means for a machine to
be able to perform an activity to a greater or lesser extent. Why we
would take machine-like activity and describe its functioning, and
then tack on the idea that a certain threshold performance of the
machine is virtuous, just seems flat out unnecessary.
I
am also a strong moral anti-realist, meaning there is no such things
as morality (and hence ethics in many configurations). The language
of morality or ethics is not the best descriptive language in the
end, and I argue that it will not help us achieve the best societies
and worlds, mainly because of its descriptive muddling. We want to
build robust selves and a robust social world, probably because it
will lead to even more robust selves and burgeoning worlds.
No comments:
Post a Comment