Post #3: A Comparison of Appiah and Gazzaniga

By: Clara Ramos

                In “The Case Against Character”, Appiah tries to determine what defines virtuous behavior. The common belief is that virtuous behavior is acting in a way that a virtuous person would act. However, no one knows what truly makes a person virtuous and, thus, no one knows how to act like a virtuous person. Appiah himself agrees with Rosalind Hursthouse’s view on virtue ethics, as defined on page 402:

                “1. The right thing to do is what a virtuous agent would do in the circumstances.
                2. A virtuous person is one who has and exercises the virtues.
                3. A virtue is a character trait that a person needs in order to have eudaimonia—that is, in order                  to live a good life.”

Opposing this idea, however, is the Situationist Challenge. Situationists believe that outside factors such as mood and environment influence a person’s decision to make the ethical move. It seems credible; people’s actions are a decision that they consciously makes; they have free will to act according to ethical values or not.

Similarly, Gazzaniga’s “Toward a Universal Ethics” tries to find the source of distinguishing between what is ethical and what is not but purely from a scientific standpoint. Gazzaniga argues that the brain plays a role in deciding what is ethical because humans, just like any other creature, are “hardwired” to survive. The brain contains standards and behaviors that increase the likelihood of survival for the human. This sort of defines what is ethical: a person does something nice only because it is for his own benefit. The more he is kind, the more likely the kindness is reciprocated, especially during times of need. The question, however, is whether these standards are innate or whether they were taught to people based on the views of society.

There is an argument for this though (one that makes particular sense to me). The argument states that every society, no matter how different or distant from one another, has the same or similar standards. As stated by Gazzaniga, “Highest among these are that all societies believe that murder and incest are wrong, that children are to be cared for and not abandoned, that we should not tell lies or break promises, and that we should be loyal to family” (p 421). Since all of these societies, spanning centuries and distances, have the same beliefs, these values are naturally within people. Society may just be playing a role to bring out these values and enforcing them as true.

Professor Middleton; CAL-103-H