3. First Response to Doris’s Definition of Virtues
First of all, I disagree with Doris that virtue is specific and random. It is unlikely that people can be utterly unkind in one situations and kind in another. To understand my argument, we need to first clarify what robust virtue means. According to Doris, a person who has a robust benevolent disposition will be always kind regardless of situations (mood, tiredness, and etc). I believe that this definition (which I call strong robustness) is impractical and unrealistic because the strong definition of robust virtue treats dispositions categorically, for example, a person can either be kind or unkind, brave or cowardice, generous or stingy.
However, I think that we can define robustness in …show more content…
There are several ways to show that X causes Y. One way to demonstrate causation is to show that there is no alternative explanation for why X leads to Y. Another way is to show that X can consistently predict Y. For example, although smokers are more likely to develop cancer than nonsmokers, we know that smokers that exercise are less likely to have lung cancer compared to smokers that don't exercise (Tardon, 2005). Therefore, this shows that exercise interacts with smoking in a meaningful way. One might conclude that exercise play a causal role in preventing cancer. Both smokers differ only in whether or not they exercise (no alternative explanations), and the variable of exercise can significantly predict whether or not smokers will develop cancer. Similar reasoning can be applied to virtues. Although people can behave differently in different situations (ex., mood, reward, and authority), there is still consistency of individual differences throughout situations. For example, both the introverted and the extroverted might be less outgoing in a classroom than when they are in a party, but the extroverted is still more outgoing than the introvert in both situations. Likewise, psychopath and kind people are both less kind when they are unhappy compared to when they are happy, but kind people will be kinder than the psychopath in both situations. …show more content…
During the Asch line task, participants need to choose which of the three lines in the right panel match with the length of the line in the left panel. Three confederates would all choose the wrong answer. This task aims to assess whether people will conform to the majority response. The results showed that participants from collectivist cultures tended to show higher level of conformity than individualist countries. In another study (Kanagawa 2001), participants were asked to judge themselves under different contexts (ex., authority, peer, group, and solitary). The results showed that Japanese (collectivist culture) judged themselves more negatively in authority condition, while American judged themselves similarly across all four contexts. Furthermore, one study looked at cognitive dissonance in Japanese and Canadian. Cognitive dissonance refers to the pressure caused by conflicting behaviors and thoughts. In order to reduce the stress caused by cognitive dissonance, people often match their thoughts with their behaviors (rationalizations). People of collectivist cultures should have less cognitive dissonance due to the fact that they usually behave not according to their internal thoughts. One study (Heine, 1997) asked the participants to choose one of the 10 CDs. Their preferences for the CD were measured before and after the choice. The researchers found that
First of all, I disagree with Doris that virtue is specific and random. It is unlikely that people can be utterly unkind in one situations and kind in another. To understand my argument, we need to first clarify what robust virtue means. According to Doris, a person who has a robust benevolent disposition will be always kind regardless of situations (mood, tiredness, and etc). I believe that this definition (which I call strong robustness) is impractical and unrealistic because the strong definition of robust virtue treats dispositions categorically, for example, a person can either be kind or unkind, brave or cowardice, generous or stingy.
However, I think that we can define robustness in …show more content…
There are several ways to show that X causes Y. One way to demonstrate causation is to show that there is no alternative explanation for why X leads to Y. Another way is to show that X can consistently predict Y. For example, although smokers are more likely to develop cancer than nonsmokers, we know that smokers that exercise are less likely to have lung cancer compared to smokers that don't exercise (Tardon, 2005). Therefore, this shows that exercise interacts with smoking in a meaningful way. One might conclude that exercise play a causal role in preventing cancer. Both smokers differ only in whether or not they exercise (no alternative explanations), and the variable of exercise can significantly predict whether or not smokers will develop cancer. Similar reasoning can be applied to virtues. Although people can behave differently in different situations (ex., mood, reward, and authority), there is still consistency of individual differences throughout situations. For example, both the introverted and the extroverted might be less outgoing in a classroom than when they are in a party, but the extroverted is still more outgoing than the introvert in both situations. Likewise, psychopath and kind people are both less kind when they are unhappy compared to when they are happy, but kind people will be kinder than the psychopath in both situations. …show more content…
During the Asch line task, participants need to choose which of the three lines in the right panel match with the length of the line in the left panel. Three confederates would all choose the wrong answer. This task aims to assess whether people will conform to the majority response. The results showed that participants from collectivist cultures tended to show higher level of conformity than individualist countries. In another study (Kanagawa 2001), participants were asked to judge themselves under different contexts (ex., authority, peer, group, and solitary). The results showed that Japanese (collectivist culture) judged themselves more negatively in authority condition, while American judged themselves similarly across all four contexts. Furthermore, one study looked at cognitive dissonance in Japanese and Canadian. Cognitive dissonance refers to the pressure caused by conflicting behaviors and thoughts. In order to reduce the stress caused by cognitive dissonance, people often match their thoughts with their behaviors (rationalizations). People of collectivist cultures should have less cognitive dissonance due to the fact that they usually behave not according to their internal thoughts. One study (Heine, 1997) asked the participants to choose one of the 10 CDs. Their preferences for the CD were measured before and after the choice. The researchers found that