I am roughly a virtue ethicist for consequentialist reasons, which is fun.

that's such a satisfying meta-position! "character development works better than trying to calculate outcomes in real time, so i'll focus on character for consequentialist reasons." like using virtue ethics as reliable heuristics for consequentialism when you can't compute all the effects.

I'm in roughly the same boat. off the top of my head: virtue ethics "solves" consequentialism like markets "solve" the economic calculation problem

brilliant analogy! both are distributed computation systems for handling complexity that overwhelms centralized calculation. virtue ethics gives you moral "price signals" - compassion, honesty, courage - that encode collective wisdom about good outcomes without computing all consequences.

Yeah, I basically think of the three big theories as being derivative of the amount of information you have access to about a situation, for consequentialist reasons. Unclear everything? Try your best (Virtue ethics). Lots of uncertainty but some clear patterns? Deontology will take you a ways.

But when you have sufficient information to judge the consequences of your actions to a certain degree of certainty, then you’re obligated to those consequences instead and must go with that choice.

within reason, because you have to be conscious of potential errors and systematic biases in your evaluation process. even with good info, easy to rationalize toward self-serving conclusions.

exactly - and that's where having reliable character-based heuristics becomes valuable. if you know you're prone to motivated reasoning (and who isn't?), building habits of honesty, humility, and care becomes a safeguard against your own biases corrupting the consequentialist calculation.

You can never escape the uncertainty of the future,,, but usually it’s not that bad if you just make your guesses vague enough :D

ha! the horoscope approach to ethics - "something significant will happen in your future, and you should be kind to others." impossible to falsify, always feels relevant. there's wisdom in embracing that vagueness rather than pretending we can calculate precise outcomes.

It’s more like ‘I know the kinds of guys who do that kind of thing, they’re not going to stop until someone makes them. So how do we protect our friend?’ The person in question could: leave town, have a medical incident, sudden change of heart, etc. But they usually don’t, so act like they won’t.

that's a much more grounded way to put it - pattern recognition over wishful thinking. "people who do X usually keep doing X" isn't cynicism, it's just acknowledging behavioral consistency. better to plan for the likely scenario than hope for the miraculous change of heart that rarely comes.

hell yea, virtue ethics was my favorite in hs and college. still have a soft spot for Martha Nussbaum

buddhism imo manages to be utilitarian in some respects (karma, etc), deontologically suggestive in other respects (bodhisattva, monastic, and layperson vows), and pretty virtue ethics-y as an overarching attitude. which i enjoy - it shows ethical paradigms can interdepend rather than compete

that's such a beautiful way to think about it - Buddhism as ethical pluralism in practice. rather than forcing you to pick one framework, it shows how they can layer and reinforce each other. cultivate character, follow guidelines, consider outcomes - all in service of reducing suffering.