A Closer Look at the Adequacy of Proposed Frameworks for a “Virtue Theory for Moral Enhancement”

Rather than presenting a fully developed virtue theory for moral enhancement, Fabiano’s (2021) “Virtue Theory for Moral Enhancement” seeks traction for a virtues approach by linking virtues to five “frameworks”: the Big Five model of personality (BFM), Peterson’s model of Character Strengths (CS), Social Good Cognitive-Affective Processing Systems theory (CAPS), Social Value Orientation (SVO), and Kohlberg’s model of moral development (KMD). Each framework is subjectively evaluated for its ability to meet a number of desiderata. These evaluations are quantified on a scale from 0 (none) to 3 (high). Desiderata considered to be more important are weighted double. Summing these quantified judgments led Fabiano (2021) to conclude that SVO “is significantly superior to the other frameworks being considered” (99). Evaluating the ability of each framework to meet each desideratum obviously requires a thorough understanding of both the frameworks and the desiderata. When psychologists have judges engage in this kind of rating task, each judge is required to be familiar with the targets of judgment and is trained in applying the rating criteria on which the targets are judged. The reliability of the judgment process is assessed by comparing the ratings of the judges. In the current case, there is only one judge, Fabiano, so the reliability of his judgments is unknown. Although we can safely assume that he understands his own desiderata used as criteria to judge the frameworks, an examination of his judgments of the five frameworks raises questions about his understanding of them. Space limitations prevent a complete accounting of possible misunderstandings, so this commentary presents some examples. The desideratum that Fabiano (2021) calls virtue mapping refers to the degree to which the traits in a framework are either virtues themselves or at least correlate with virtues. The Big Five model of personality traits (BFM) was assigned a virtue mapping score of zero. Contrary to this judgment, however, virtues have been empirically mapped onto the BFM (Cawley, Martin, and Johnson 2000). A complete mapping can be found in the article; here I simply list a few examples. Empathy and compassion correlate with BFM Agreeableness and Openness to Experience. Discipline and scrupulousness correlate with BFM Conscientiousness. Resourcefulness and sagacity correlate with BFM Conscientiousness and negatively with BFM Neuroticism. And forgiveness and patience correlate with BFM Agreeableness and negatively with BFM Neuroticism. Fabiano’s (2021) judgment of zero compliance of the BFM to virtue mapping is clearly incorrect. The desideratum that Fabiano (2021) calls correct balance refers to the optimum level of a virtue-related behavior. This optimum is said to vary, depending on the presence of other virtue-related behaviors and social context. According to Fabiano (2021), Chris Peterson’s model of character strengths (CS) completely fails to consider issues of correct balance. However, a chapter on character strengths and virtues (Peterson 2006, chap. 6) and a closely related chapter on values (Peterson 2006, chap. 7) show great sensitivity to issues of balance. For example, chapter 7 begins, “One of the questions raised about our work on character strengths is whether these strengths can be used for the wrong purposes. Although a character strength is by definition morally valued, a despot can be an effective leader, a suicide bomber can be brave, and a bitingly sarcastic person can be humorous . We need other considerations to deem a person good, and these include the larger goal to which his strengths of character are directed” (Peterson 2006, 165). Peterson (2006) also present an empirically derived circumplex model that explicitly maps trade-offs among virtues.