That's true, but only if her *overriding/ultimate* purpose is to be a morally good person with concern for ethics, ie virtue, and not doing good in the world.
It seems self evident to me that beneficence is more desirable as an ultimate aim than virtue (whose value is instrumental) and easy moral choices that lead to better outcomes are as ultimately desirable as hard ones -- outside our limited human minds concerned with self image and social status.
Pursuing "being a moral person" seems to me not to be a particularly moral goal but more like a self development or well being one. More like staying fit (in fact similar to not smoking) than feeding the hungry.
It's very possible I'm getting this wrong by using non philosophical frameworks.
That's an interesting thought. Ultimately it depends on your moral framework - under utilitarianism, for example, being virtuous would be synonymous with having a character that makes you likely to undertake actions wich produce the most welfare.
Christianity has an additional twist where being virtuous might have extremely valuable effects in the afterlife, regardless of how much good it results in currently. Different theologies have a different take on what this would mean exactly.
Great post, Amos!
🫶
Good point. For what it's worth I agree that Swinburne "is the most important living Christian philosopher and philosophical theologian"
That's true, but only if her *overriding/ultimate* purpose is to be a morally good person with concern for ethics, ie virtue, and not doing good in the world.
It seems self evident to me that beneficence is more desirable as an ultimate aim than virtue (whose value is instrumental) and easy moral choices that lead to better outcomes are as ultimately desirable as hard ones -- outside our limited human minds concerned with self image and social status.
Pursuing "being a moral person" seems to me not to be a particularly moral goal but more like a self development or well being one. More like staying fit (in fact similar to not smoking) than feeding the hungry.
It's very possible I'm getting this wrong by using non philosophical frameworks.
That's an interesting thought. Ultimately it depends on your moral framework - under utilitarianism, for example, being virtuous would be synonymous with having a character that makes you likely to undertake actions wich produce the most welfare.
Christianity has an additional twist where being virtuous might have extremely valuable effects in the afterlife, regardless of how much good it results in currently. Different theologies have a different take on what this would mean exactly.