Blog

The art and science of ethics

5/15/2025

The following thoughts originated from a discussion on living virtuously. It harkens back to ideas I've had since my studies of philosophy, now over ten years ago.

Though we may not think of ethics as a science, much of modern ethics follows the systems of modern science. The archetypal strands of deontology and consequentialism attempt to answer the question "what should I/we/x do?" in a vacuum as much as possible, and as objectively as possible.

But in our daily lives, most of us do not aspire to act according to a strict moral code. Some do, but even they often have trouble. A paper that changed the way I think about this topic was Susan Wolf's Moral Saints, in which she argues that people who act in strict accordance with a moral code appear to "us" to be lacking humanity.

Does that mean we should not aspire to "do the right thing" at all? Certainly not. My interpretation of her conclusion is that we should not regard moral theories as something to devote our entire lives to, casting aside our nonmoral interests, or even nonmoral virtues (note that some philosophers might argue these don't exist).

I see a connection here between these strict moral theories, and the less scientific, and also much harder to grasp sibling: virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has never quite fit well in the comparison, since it has a language to speak about virtues that consequentialism and deontology don't talk about. Humour, wit, devotion to reading literature, playing an instrument... These are virtues. We cannot deny these are things we admire in people. Susan Wolf beautifully says: "a life in which none of these possible aspects of character are developed may seem to be a life strangely barren."

Another dimension here is that we do not get to start living our moral life after studying moral school. We are forced to make moral decisions from an early age, and we continue to be at increasing intensity. It may be at inopportune times, there may be mixed interests, and as we develop loyalties, and become more invested in people, communities, ideas or perhaps objects, the complexity of these decisions only grows.

So perhaps, alongside the scientific aproach to ("the science of") ethics, we should think about the art of ethics. Perhaps, the art of virtue, or of self-improvement. The science cannot teach us how to balance its theory with our (moral and nonmoral) virtues. It cannot teach us in any and every moment what to do. It is up to us to learn this. Like any learning, it is a cycle.

Making moral decisions, many of them, in practice. Reflect. Repeat. It is comparable to mastery over an instrument, a tool, a sport... We train our judgment, we develop a subconscious, we make better choices. But the art is never perfect, never finished.