Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:


Calendar Quick Links open HelpRegister
Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Virtue Ethics » Virtue Ethics

Virtue Ethics
Is it even possible to learn to be good?

printPrint


Page: 1 2

Virtue Ethics
coffeeprincess
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Location: Emmaus, Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 31
Posted 02/09/08 - 11:21 AM:
Subject: Virtue Ethics 		quote post
#1
There was a previous thread on virtue ethics but it is old so this is the new one.

Virtue ethics as a system originally arose almost simultaneously in Greece and China. It was the ethical system, arguably, of Aristotle and Xunzi, respectively.

Anyway, it has since been heavily research, especially in the last twenty years. All kinds of classical and medieval people have had this system attributed to the. Even people like Zhuangzi, anti-rationalist renegades, have been described as virtue ethicists.

Modern scholars on the subject are people like Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Eric Hutton.

In short, it is the belief that Virtue can be learned under the correct circumstances.

There are four types of people:

Incontinent: People who try to do right, but fail. Good intentions, bad action.
Continent: People who do what is right because they know it's expected. Good actions, wrong reasons.
Vicious: People who do bad out of a perverse sense of satisfaction, or some other thing. Bad actions, Bad intentions
Virtuous: People who do the right thing for the right reasons.

You need a moral exemplar, preferably someone you know and respect, someone fallible and contact-able.
Not Jesus, but go ahead, aim high.

You try to do what your exemplar does until you learn how it benefits you more than a bad action.
Eventually you will be good, too.

I have a paper on the subject...

Here it is, enjoy with earl grey, no sugar, no milk.

NO KANT!

I'm only posting some of my paper. Contact me of you want to read the whole thing. No stealers, okay? I don't believe in intellectual property but god help you if you do:

...Aristotle’s conception of moral virtue, then, is clearly stated and well fortified, but an eye that feeds on inconsistency and fault is quick to find objection to his claims. The main objection I would make is concerned with the fourth component, practical wisdom. Although I have shown how crucial this virtue is to an understanding of Aristotle, it may argued that to be truly virtuous, to truly act with your eye on what is noble, to choose an act for its own sake, it should arise from the heart, not the mind. By this understanding, you simply feel what is right for you to do, without neither a moments’ hesitation nor a long, convoluted rationale. Not only does this make it simpler to do what is virtuous, but makes it quicker, which may be important. It seems counter-intuitive that it would require deliberation to come to a decision about helping a person who has broken their ankle by slipping on ice on the path before you. A virtuous person would aid those in trouble, whereas deliberation in a situation like this seems ridiculous: “should I help them? But I promised to pick up the dry cleaning, and what if this person is a rapist?” Unless one is faced with a situation that involves two great goods that must be chosen between, or two great evils, deliberation is rarely necessary.
However, Aristotle could counter this attack with the simple argument that practical wisdom does not take so much of your time. It is reasonable to think that a virtuous person also has a quick mind to handle obvious situations in a manner that does not require lengthy pondering and philosophical musings, but instead quick judgment and simple logic. The convoluted rationale can be saved for the most perplexing situations.
Aristotle’s understanding assumes that it requires reason to determine what is virtuous in a situation, but simply by observing virtuous acts of others and practicing ourselves, we could conduct ourselves in a virtuous manner without practical wisdom. Perhaps we would not be prepared for a situation that is unfamiliar, but we would probably get along in the world quite well and be thought of as virtuous by those around us. Also, by learning to think like the man of practical wisdom, we could eventually acquire the virtue ourselves. Even without practical wisdom, it seems that if you deliberate, you deliberate about what is noble, or what seems so to you, which is not always what you want to do. However, if you work at it enough, it could become what you desire. This line of reasoning leads us back to Aristotle who prompts this action through his doctrine of “right education” (1104b10-15). Understanding is not enough, however, as he would be sure to note: right education is only a stepping stone toward moral virtue, and the other components are required to be in possession of the goal. In conclusion, Aristotle’s doctrine provides a clear, powerful insight into what it is to truly be virtuous. In a world full of pretense and semblances, his philosophy is refreshingly wise
thaKillingToke
Philosopher Stoned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133
Posted 02/09/08 - 01:57 PM:
Subject: Moral Apprenticeship 		quote post
#2
This sort of moral learning might bettr be calld 'moral apprenticeship'. It takes the basic and familiar form of apprenticeship--of learning through doing, of being immersd in an authentic situation. But then again, how is this any diffrnt than mere socialization?


coffeeprincess wrote:

You try to do what your exemplar does until you learn how it benefits you more than a bad action.
Eventually you will be good, too.


But does this imply that 'good' actions are only those that are most efficacious for a situation? The ones that 'work the best'?

How can we say such a one is 'good'? No one really knows what 'good' means yet--theyre just emmulating someone who is doing something that is practically effective for some achieving some end.


coffeeprincess wrote:

NO KANT!


Aww, poor ol' Kant!!


coffeeprincess wrote:

...it may argued that to be truly virtuous, to truly act with your eye on what is noble, to choose an act for its own sake, it should arise from the heart, not the mind. By this understanding, you simply feel what is right for you to do, without neither a moments’ hesitation nor a long, convoluted rationale.


This is just good conditioning. It applies to all forms of action and thought, not just moral situations. The best mathematician is the one who 'intuitively' solves a problem at first glance without long deliberation, the best athelete or warrior makes the 'right' strike without taking the time to deliberate, etc.

Howevr, on what grounds might we assert that a 'truly virtuous' person is one who acts in this automatic, reflexive mannr? Why could a person not engage in lengthy and well-reasond deliberations and still be truly virtuous?


coffeeprincess wrote:

Not only does this make it simpler to do what is virtuous, but makes it quicker, which may be important.



Or it may not be. Not all moral situations are time sensitive.


coffeeprincess wrote:

It seems counter-intuitive that it would require deliberation to come to a decision about helping a person who has broken their ankle by slipping on ice on the path before you. A virtuous person would aid those in trouble, whereas deliberation in a situation like this seems ridiculous: “should I help them? But I promised to pick up the dry cleaning, and what if this person is a rapist?” Unless one is faced with a situation that involves two great goods that must be chosen between, or two great evils, deliberation is rarely necessary.


Howevr, having this effectively conditiond moral reflex begs the question of how to distinguish 'right' and 'wrong' ends, what 'good' or 'bad' is.


coffeeprincess wrote:

However, Aristotle could counter this attack with the simple argument that practical wisdom does not take so much of your time. It is reasonable to think that a virtuous person also has a quick mind to handle obvious situations in a manner that does not require lengthy pondering and philosophical musings, but instead quick judgment and simple logic. The convoluted rationale can be saved for the most perplexing situations.


Being quick of mind is certainly valuable, but I dont think there is any good reason for excluding the slow and dim from being truly virtuous if in fact they act in the same mannr, choosing ends that turn out good and right (for a situation).


coffeeprincess wrote:

Aristotle’s understanding assumes that it requires reason to determine what is virtuous in a situation, but simply by observing virtuous acts of others and practicing ourselves, we could conduct ourselves in a virtuous manner without practical wisdom. Perhaps we would not be prepared for a situation that is unfamiliar, but we would probably get along in the world quite well and be thought of as virtuous by those around us. Also, by learning to think like the man of practical wisdom, we could eventually acquire the virtue ourselves. Even without practical wisdom, it seems that if you deliberate, you deliberate about what is noble, or what seems so to you, which is not always what you want to do. However, if you work at it enough, it could become what you desire.


Mere emmulation doesnt seem to me to be very 'virtuous', for it does not allow for a true recognition of the value of a 'good' or 'right' action. Such a process will utlimately break down when latr apprentices finally ask 'why is this way of doing things 'good'?' and no one has an answr because they have all been emmulating each othr for generations.


coffeeprincess wrote:

This line of reasoning leads us back to Aristotle who prompts this action through his doctrine of “right education” (1104b10-15). Understanding is not enough, however, as he would be sure to note: right education is only a stepping stone toward moral virtue, and the other components are required to be in possession of the goal. In conclusion, Aristotle’s doctrine provides a clear, powerful insight into what it is to truly be virtuous.


It can be grantd that being able to act is important for moral situations. One cant be an effective hockey playr just knowing the rules and strategies thoroughly but nevr setting skate on the ice.

But, without a rational analysis of what value is, of what constitutes a moral situatuon, and so on, how is anyone to identify a moral exemplar or know and undrstand that what they do is actually good? Isnt this like saying 'do what Im doing, but dont think too much about why...'?

cheers,

8)

_____________________
"In a place where something can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata" --Buddha, from Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra ('The Diamond That Cuts Through All Illusions' )

~Homage and peace be to the Buddha of the Light of the King of Flame, illuminator of all Buddha Lands of the 10 Quarters, Amituofo~
coffeeprincess
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Location: Emmaus, Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 31
Posted 02/09/08 - 02:16 PM:
quote post
#3
Thanks for the detailed post. To answer your last questions first, moral exemplars, for me, are found among college professors.

Or I read Sartre and think what would Sartre do.

And lastly, your final question is the real one. How do we valuate moral ction? Zhuangzi said it's different for everyone based on our relationship with the Dao, Aristotle said it lies in a mean between two extremes, Xunzi thought it was ritual propriety and confucian Legalism fusion.

Who's right?
Hypothesis
Free Spirit
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2004
Location: England
Total Topics: 30
Total Posts: 613
Posted 02/09/08 - 02:35 PM:
quote post
#4
By all means people should be virtous, but I'm reminded of Shakespeares's Othello.

"Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall".

Sartre, I would class as a Pseudo-Philosopher, so ignore him. Ask yourself what would Jesus Do ?

We evaluate moral action by intentionality and then outcome. Or either. In our post-modern age morals/values don't mean much. And when they do it's for propaganda puproses.


_____________________
over and over and over and over and over
like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
the joy of repetition really is in you - Hot Chip
coffeeprincess
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Location: Emmaus, Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 31
Posted 02/09/08 - 02:41 PM:
quote post
#5
You really like Jesus that much? I can think of lots of better moral exemplars.
Maybe I have an odd sense of morality.
Or no sense of morality.
thaKillingToke
Philosopher Stoned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133
Posted 02/09/08 - 06:21 PM:
quote post
#6
The question is, othr than pointing out a couple of people we feel are exemplars, are there any distinct criteria we can apply to allow us to know definitively that this person is a moral exemplar and this person is not?

Of course, its tough if not impossible, to come up with a universally valid criterion, since what one person will feel is exemplary anothr may not. Like Jesus. Some people uphold his charactr as the epitome of morality, othrs, like yourself, dont. Who is correct? Both! So long as there is a reason backing the choice, and not a mere unreflective prefrnce.

Sartre is an odd choice. College professors maybe, BUT, just as many could be jerks like the rest of us, lol.

What Hypothesis says is correct, in that when we judge someone as being moral, we look at both their intention and the outcome of their act. But we have to hold this up against a value standard that defines our situation as being 'moral'. This standard will be chosen by moral agents, and is relative to context. So it looks like Aristotle has a bettr method for making a sound judgmnt here. Zhuangzi leaves us in a position of saying 'its up to you', which sounds just like saying 'if you feel this person is moral, then they are (for you).'

cheers,

8)

_____________________
"In a place where something can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata" --Buddha, from Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra ('The Diamond That Cuts Through All Illusions' )

~Homage and peace be to the Buddha of the Light of the King of Flame, illuminator of all Buddha Lands of the 10 Quarters, Amituofo~
Shamus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15
Posted 02/10/08 - 04:55 AM:
quote post
#7
The 'best' action (I'm substituting this for virtuous if nobody minds) in any case is the one that brings about the best result.

If one of my mates is being a dickhead, I'm going to call him exactly that to negatively reinforce his actions, hopefully bringing about the best result (ie. change in style --> happy times). Though I doubt anyone would account for such namecalling as 'virtuous'?


Thus I propose we do away with exemplars & all that nonsense, & regard everything in terms of intentions, & to what extent somebody can fulfill such intentions.

Those with good intentions, for examaple, range from the incontinent to the virtuous. The wholly virtuous person embodies somebody who reaps the best result through all his/her actions - should this person exist, they would put to rest all wars, poverty & suffering - whereas the incontinent seek the best, but cannot fulfill their intentions.

Those who fall in the lll-intented category are the vicious IMO.

As for the continent (whom I haven't yet accounted for), either they aim for the best result but aren't as convinced as the incontinent or virtuous (not as well conditioned) or have sinister motivations.



In fact, I think we can break it down further to conditioning. Really all this stems from how an organism has grown & is conditioned/socialised into an independant agent at any one moment (obviously they change from moment to moment). Let me recap.


1) Somebody grows up with value of selflessness imparted upon them. They are either taught to be entirely selfless (ie. aiming for the best outcome), entirely selfish (ie. aiming for the most sinister outcome), or somewhere inbetween. AKA SELFLESSNESS VALUE

2) The strength of conditioning depends on how convinced this person becomes. (this stage allows for the continent, those who 'know' in the virtuous thing to do, but are less convinced of it) AKA STRENGTH OF CONDITIONING

3) One's propensity to fulfill their intentions. This allows for the incontinent, who aim for the best, but fail to reach the mark. AKA CAPACITY


Thus, mathematically:

the virtue of any one person = CAPACITY (STRENGTH OF CONDITIONING (SEFLESSNESS VALUE) )



I'm sure this isn't fullproof. Can anyone find fault?
RelativeIrregularity
Initiate
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 11, 2008
Location: Hopkinton, Rhode Island
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3
Posted 02/11/08 - 09:03 AM:
quote post
#8
Turning virtue into mathematical formulae of conditionitioning is one way to go about things, though I'm not terribly fond of math.

Let's go all the way to the top and ask ourselves, what exactly is virtue?
This would be as forementioned, the best actions for the best results, in the best manner.
To me, virtue would be civil war, followed by absolute deconstruction of industrialization.(Mind you, I do realize this more or less as a notion to be toyed with)
To a Jihadist, virtue would be the destruction of capitalism.
To a die-hard Catholic, virtue would be the destruction of anything non-conservative.

Who is right? Who is wrong? People are products of their enviroments, and virtue is any mainstream thought of their enviroment. How they perceive the world around them, perhaps?

If this were to be the case, virtue is really just one's own system of thought based on ones own perception of one's own world. Good and bad, postive and negative, virtuous and vicious, are all just creations of a persons perception.

From there, you could say acting on this in a timely, conditioned manner depends on how one is conditioned to act of their own will. The person not sure of themselves and not confident in their actions will deeply analyze most situations to cover their ass and try to prevent humility to themselves and from others. One assured of owns actions will need little time to act on "virtue" for they are confident their results will turn out to the best end.

As far as good intentions and bad results, for the most part, I would say that would be circumstantial.

_____________________
"There is no viable truth in this world outside the confines of your own mind. And even those truths are replications of these outside 'probabilities'."
thaKillingToke
Philosopher Stoned
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Location: Canada
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133
Posted 02/11/08 - 11:10 AM:
Subject: How to define 'best'...? 		quote post
#9
Something to reflect on is how we define 'best'.

For any given end, E, there will be a numbr of means, M, possible such that 'IF M then E'. There could be M, M', M'', N, O...etc, all of which result in E as a state of affairs. But these are all sufficient conditions, and are all, by that standard, since they do in fact result in E, of equal value.

What we need is an 'efficient condition', the 'best' condition or best M that will give us E.

Here we immediately run into value relativism. The reason is that reason alone cannot specify which M is bettr for making E happen unless we import some furthr criteria for deciding between Ms. And these will not specifically be concrnd with the mere occuring of E, but with a host of cocomitant occurences that happn as a result of E or in conjunction with E.

Hence, we might say that the M that is most efficient (best) is the one that creates E with the minimum quantity of time and resources. Or, we might say that the best M is the one that enables the widest distribution of resources to create E, or which enables the widest instantiation of E (beyond a local effect to a more global event). Here is also where we can considr 'intention' as being important: The best M is the one whose intention is grounded in x,y,z, whatevr we define as being the 'best intention'.

The thing to considr is that there is both a subjective and objective component at work.

RelativeIrregularity suggests that--

RelativeIrregularity, Post #8 wrote:

Good and bad, postive and negative, virtuous and vicious, are all just creations of a persons perception.


This is both true and false. It is true in the sense that what we ultimately label as 'good/bad', 'virtuous/vicous' depends on what criteria we select to make of judgmnt, and true also in the sense that moral agents, in determining said criteria, must rely on their ability to perceive the world around them, to undrstand laws and law-like events and principles, ie, to rely on the state of their knowledge/beliefs at the time; but it is false to say that the resulting judgmnts are 'just' a product of those perceptions.

The objective component is the relationship of means and ends in the light of the standard of value we moral agents choose to adopt. Once we make such a choice, once we choose a standard, it is not a mattr of personal prefrnce which means are 'good' and which are not. When we determine that we want to build a house with the least amount of resources usd, in the quickest possible time, with the greatest stability, that satifies determinate dimensions, we are restrictd by those standards, and all means that come undr considration will eithr satisfy our criteria or not. Those means that satisfy the criteria to the highest degree will be the 'best'.

This assumes a continuum of values for each possible means. But it also suggests (or rathr does not negate) that it may be possible for two (or more) means to be equally 'best' by attaining the same level of relative criteria satisfaction for our statd end.


To say as Shamus does, that virtue=capacity (to follow through) seems reasonable when judging person virtuous. But of course, we need to specify before hand undr what criteria they are acting in the good. Because, if we leave it as 'best' then this is open to radical relativism--for instance, a war mongr might find the 'best' solution is the most widespread destruction of all life. As RelativeIrregularity asks, who is right? It all depends on which end or standard we select. Hence the war-like find virtue in the killr, while the meek find virtue in the pacifist. Each may, relative to their chosen standards, employ the 'best' means to attain the 'best' results. And it may not be a mattr of prefrnce whethr their chosen acts are good or not, relative to their chosen standards.

Evn Aristotle is subject to this relativity. He selects eudamonia as the ultimate human standard. But this is not the only standard possible. Certainly, moral agents are moral agents in virtue (so to speak) of their freedom to choose values. Hence, the Aristotlean virtue ethic becomes only one of a numbr possible.

cheers,

8)

_____________________
"In a place where something can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata" --Buddha, from Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra ('The Diamond That Cuts Through All Illusions' )

~Homage and peace be to the Buddha of the Light of the King of Flame, illuminator of all Buddha Lands of the 10 Quarters, Amituofo~
ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149
Posted 02/12/08 - 06:30 PM:
quote post
#10
coffeeprincess wrote:


In short, it is the belief that Virtue can be learned under the correct circumstances.



I will only deal with this statement. "1.moral excellence; goodness; righteousness." from dictionary.

Anything that is a direct explaination of, or based absrtactly on existent reality, can be learned. The reason is because: it is right infront of you. You need only look, or invent the tools required to see beyond your perception, both physical (5 senses) and abstractly (methods for measuring reality).

Morals are concepts that, like all (valid) concepts, are absractions of some part of reality. Ergo Virtue, is like any other bit of knowledge. It can be learned, if one is dedicated to knowing the facts (abstractions) required.

_____________________
An absolute peg in a subjective hole
From the desert that is the human intellect.
Retired.
Shamus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15
Posted 02/12/08 - 07:14 PM:
quote post
#11
RelativeIrregularity wrote:
Let's go all the way to the top and ask ourselves, what exactly is virtue?
This would be as forementioned, the best actions for the best results, in the best manner.
To me, virtue would be civil war, followed by absolute deconstruction of industrialization.(Mind you, I do realize this more or less as a notion to be toyed with)
To a Jihadist, virtue would be the destruction of capitalism.
To a die-hard Catholic, virtue would be the destruction of anything non-conservative.

Who is right? Who is wrong? People are products of their enviroments, and virtue is any mainstream thought of their enviroment. How they perceive the world around them, perhaps?


Utilitarianism: the 'best' outcome is the greatest level of net happiness shared by all.

People have different attitudes, beliefs, internal constructs, & therefore the 'best' outcome would accomodate all these.

It is my belief that the 'best' outcome is achieved when everyone has similar, tolerant & optimistic attitudes. This is immaterial though, all we could hope for is better, an improvement of the human experience.

So again, our (ongoing) solution must accomodate all these beliefs.
Shamus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15
Posted 02/12/08 - 07:25 PM:
quote post
#12
thaKillingToke wrote:
Something to reflect on is how we define 'best'.

For any given end, E, there will be a numbr of means, M, possible such that 'IF M then E'. There could be M, M', M'', N, O...etc, all of which result in E as a state of affairs. But these are all sufficient conditions, and are all, by that standard, since they do in fact result in E, of equal value.

What we need is an 'efficient condition', the 'best' condition or best M that will give us E.

Here we immediately run into value relativism. The reason is that reason alone cannot specify which M is bettr for making E happen unless we import some furthr criteria for deciding between Ms. And these will not specifically be concrnd with the mere occuring of E, but with a host of cocomitant occurences that happn as a result of E or in conjunction with E.

Hence, we might say that the M that is most efficient (best) is the one that creates E with the minimum quantity of time and resources. Or, we might say that the best M is the one that enables the widest distribution of resources to create E, or which enables the widest instantiation of E (beyond a local effect to a more global event). Here is also where we can considr 'intention' as being important: The best M is the one whose intention is grounded in x,y,z, whatevr we define as being the 'best intention'.



You've defined the ends (E) incorrectly, as the ends (which I prefer to call the 'human experience') should not be measured at any time-frame/instant, but rather from this moment onwards.

& thus, the 'means' is merged into the 'ends', because we are always working towards this, & every forthcoming instant.
Shamus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted 02/12/08 - 07:33 PM:
quote post
#13
ugx2000 wrote:
I will only deal with this statement. "1.moral excellence; goodness; righteousness." from dictionary.

Anything that is a direct explaination of, or based absrtactly on existent reality, can be learned. The reason is because: it is right infront of you. You need only look, or invent the tools required to see beyond your perception, both physical (5 senses) and abstractly (methods for measuring reality).

Morals are concepts that, like all (valid) concepts, are absractions of some part of reality. Ergo Virtue, is like any other bit of knowledge. It can be learned, if one is dedicated to knowing the facts (abstractions) required.



Though you've departed from our focus on the 'best' outcome (feel free to tackle it though).

If we ignore your concrete version of virtue, & take onboard that virtue begets the best, then we deal with the chaotic system that is the universe we inhabit.


One can never 'predict' a chaotic system (we rely on trends & past experience), & thus one can never predict the best.


Virtue IS NOT knowledge, & it IS NOT concrete. Rather, virtue an understanding of a dynamic system (our universe & everything inside) which only approaches a value, but due to the unpredicability of the uiverse, never reaches it.
ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149
Posted 02/13/08 - 08:41 PM:
quote post
#14
Shamus wrote:


If we ignore your concrete version of virtue, & take onboard that virtue begets the best, then we deal with the chaotic system that is the universe we inhabit.


One can never 'predict' a chaotic system (we rely on trends & past experience), & thus one can never predict the best.


Virtue IS NOT knowledge, & it IS NOT concrete. Rather, virtue an understanding of a dynamic system (our universe & everything inside) *which only approaches a value, but due to the unpredicability of the uiverse, never reaches it.


Definition Chaos

1.a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.

This term contradicts itself , and should be self evident. It is an absolute and it is contradictory. Think about this one before responding.



"Virtue IS NOT knowledge" True, but that is not what I said. Virtue can only be achieved through knowledge, and application.

* This is a contextual mistake. This one I will not elaborate on, for specific reasons.


_____________________
An absolute peg in a subjective hole
From the desert that is the human intellect.
Retired.
maseltah
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5
Posted 02/15/08 - 04:48 PM:
Subject: Virtue Ethics 		quote post
#15
I have never perscribed to the realm of ethics, especially not along the lines of the Greek philosophers. Aristotle was pressing for happiness or flurishing - however your translation puts it- with various aspects from friendship to the most important of ethics. We see the same in the stoic philosopher of Epictitus placing ethics above all else, but I merely see it as a method to continue the civilization. Concepts like courage and self scrafice are best upheld within civilizations that want soldiers to die for the reasons of the continuation of the society, however, without such a setting I doubt that it would take place. As humans I believe that our nature is to thrive and pursue self preservation so that we may continue our genes. Ethics like courage are counter productive to this end. I believe that such ethics are based within societies and must be learned because they are in opposition with our nature.
Aristotle talks about what makes humans unique, not only the fact that we have functions beyond that of the animal who seeks only pleasure, or the god who comptemplates for eternity, and he comes to the conclusion that it is for our ethics and political selves, but that is a leap of logic that I simply cannot follow. Philosophers will talk about the pursuit of ethics as the upstanding reason for survival, and yes I include Kant who believes the same, and I have always failed to see where these beliefs originate. Depending upon the time period of your philosopher of ethics, whether Greek or in the case of Kant christian German, their base line of ethics seems to originate from within thier society and lacks real justification other than the instances upon which it should be used. I think that this is a result of the socialization that has taken place and thus colored the philosopher.
Perhaps I am simply a deranged individual who fails to see the obvious, but I feel that virtue and ethics are a tool used to control the masses, and are a necessity to civilization. In and of themselves I do not believe that they should be the highest value, but then again I have yet to determine what should be.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533
Posted 02/16/08 - 10:26 AM:
quote post
#16
don’t look to closely at morality - under a fine enough gaze it dissolves.

An act is good if we define it as good - and that is circular. Alternativly it might simply be good - this is not circular, but is unsupported. The trouble is we always want to know why something is correct, and so we keep asking "why is this correct?", and so we either have to chose to answer that why, or else admit there is no ultimate reason.

Religion tries to circumvent all of this with talk of god. If you are religious you can say that it is right because it is god’s will.
You might also say something is right because of history - it has always been so.

In recent times we have attempted to prove that some things are morally correct through logic, but to my mind we end up inserting our moral system as a premise of our moral system - which again is circular.

So yeah, why not just find someone you think is a good chap/chapess and emulate them until you think you’ve got the knack. This works fine for me. At least it’s a straightforward, honest way of doing things.
ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149
Posted 02/16/08 - 05:27 PM:
quote post
#17
To act morally, is to act in accordance with a moral. A moral is an abstraction. An abstraction is only valid if it mirrors reality. Therefore a proper moral is based on some reality. It's bases is the subject to which it applies. This is what separates an actual moral from a contextually removed abstraction being passed off as a moral (this is typical).

So actual moral activity, holds up to the scrutiny of reality. The reason is that a real moral is derived from reality.

Ethics is the necessary social contract, that is based on moral premis. The numero uno example is individual rights. This social contract dictates that every man has a right to exist for their own sake. The price of this right is that everyone must uphold that right for others. That the individual who violates the right to individual rights, abdicates their own in the process.

It spreads out from there.

An individual who seeks to swindle another, abdicates the respect of honesty in their direction.
An individual who invades anothers privacy, abdicates the right to privacy.
An individual who seeks take advantage of others, abdicates the respect of fair play.
An individual who seeks to cheat, abdicates the right to fair play.

etc.

Note the effects when this social contract is ignored.

Take the steroid issue in sports. What happens when people cheat. Especially if is not completely condemned. The net result is the best skilled cheater wins. It is no longer the best athlete. It is the best combination of drugs and skills and dishonesty.

The same type of example can be given for business, or any other social endeavor.

So it really comes down to what people value. An ethical social contract that is morally based on the individual, or an non ethical system based on random edicts with no foundation (this opens loop holes).

Look around and see what we have.






Edited by ugx2000 on 02/16/08 - 07:40 PM

_____________________
An absolute peg in a subjective hole
From the desert that is the human intellect.
Retired.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533
Posted 02/17/08 - 05:13 AM:
quote post
#18
ugx2000 wrote:
To act morally, is to act in accordance with a moral. A moral is an abstraction. An abstraction is only valid if it mirrors reality.

How can you tell if your abstraction is the correct one? What criteria would you use? In my experience it has seemed quite hard to chose one persons abstraction over another’s, unless one is already convinced of one of them - though perhaps you can explain how it is possible at least?

ugx2000 wrote:

Therefore a proper moral is based on some reality. Its bases is the subject to which it applies. [/b]This is what separates an actual moral from a contextually removed abstraction being passed off as a moral (this is typical).

You seem here to be talking about a thing in itself. Now I would hate to be the one to bring up the forbidden philosopher IK, But it seems to me that we will never know a direct experience of "an actual moral" and only ever the "contextually removed abstraction". Further, direct experience of morals as “things in themselves” seems to me impossible for creatures existing within the world with finite knowledge - and such a form of existence seems necessary given what we understand of the universe. Perhaps you can explain how this is not a problem for you, and how you can therefore talk usefully about morals as things in themselves?

ugx2000 wrote:


So actual moral activity, holds up to the scrutiny of reality. The reason is that a real moral is derived from reality.

Ethics is the necessary social contract, that is based on moral premis. The numero uno example is individual rights. This social contract dictates that every man has a right to exist for their own sake. The price of this right is that everyone must uphold that right for others. That the individual who violates the right to individual rights, abdicates their own in the process.

It spreads out from there.

An individual who seeks to swindle another, abdicates the respect of honesty in their direction.
An individual who invades anothers privacy, abdicates the right to privacy.
An individual who seeks take advantage of others, abdicates the respect of fair play.
An individual who seeks to cheat, abdicates the right to fair play.

etc.


How very Hobsian of you. Social contract theory is useful, but how do you counter the anarchists objection - that never has anyone signed a social contract, either between separate citizens or with the state. If they have, then it was certainly not I who did so, and surely my father’s could not have agreed to anything which could conceivably bind myself. Further is the objection of the fool, who claims that there is no justice - but I will get to this shortly.
ugx2000 wrote:

Note the effects when this social contract is ignored.

Take the steroid issue in sports. What happens when people cheat. Especially if is not completely condemned. The net result is the best skilled cheater wins. It is no longer the best athlete. It is the best combination of drugs and skills and dishonesty.

So the athlete claims to know that he who cheats, and cheats well, wins. Thus cheating becomes the true game. This issue does not in itself define what is right or wrong - unless we insert the premise that sports should only be about fair and equal competition. Because me and you agree on this premise, we can also agree that such cheating is wrong, and organise drug tests to stamp it out: However if I were to claim that sports should not be about fair and equal competition, no such agreement could be reached. The trouble is that our attitude to the nature of moral imperatives must be stated, and can never be backed up entirely. It is always possible to ask - but why should sports be equal? Why should they be fair? What do we base this upon? we are forced to either appeal to authority (God says it is fair, it should be fair BECAUSE) or else justify each question. Because we must then justify our justifications (or else be subject to the same criticism again) we suffer an infinite regression of justifications. Both are unsatisfactory as logical proofs - and to claim an objective morality you would have to somehow get around this.

ugx2000 wrote:

The same type of example can be given for business, or any other social endeavor.

So it really comes down to what people value. An ethical social contract that is morally based on the individual, or an non ethical system based on random edicts with no foundation (this opens loop holes).

Look around and see what we have.

It seems the human world is something like your description of sports, with the best and most creative cheats winning, and others who live virtuous lives suffering as a consequence (yet perhaps gaining psychologically?)


Cheers
ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149
Posted 02/17/08 - 07:31 AM:
quote post
#19
I only have a very limited time to respond.
Makarismos wrote:

How can you tell if your abstraction is the correct one? What criteria would you use? In my experience it has seemed quite hard to chose one persons abstraction over another's, unless one is already convinced of one of them - though perhaps you can explain how it is possible at least?


This one is answered by the quote you are responding to. Think it through some more.



Makarismos wrote:
You seem here to be talking about a thing in itself. Now I would hate to be the one to bring up the forbidden philosopher IK, But it seems to me that we will never know a direct experience of "an actual moral" and only ever the "contextually removed abstraction". Further, direct experience of morals as "things in themselves" seems to me impossible for creatures existing within the world with finite knowledge - and such a form of existence seems necessary given what we understand of the universe. Perhaps you can explain how this is not a problem for you, and how you can therefore talk usefully about morals as things in themselves?


There is an answer here, but I will not give it. Knowledge is a reward for effort. That is if it is accurate. You can not fake something, and get the benefit.


Makarismos wrote:
How very Hobsian of you. Social contract theory is useful, but how do you counter the anarchists objection - that never has anyone signed a social contract, either between separate citizens or with the state. If they have, then it was certainly not I who did so, and surely my father's could not have agreed to anything which could conceivably bind myself. Further is the objection of the fool, who claims that there is no justice - but I will get to this shortly.


The state, nor any government has anything to do with it. It is the natural extrapolation, of the nature of the species.

On your father binding you. If you live in America, you may be of an age were your father signed you into social security, without your consent. But this is not part of the topic.


Makarismos wrote:
So the athlete claims to know that he who cheats, and cheats well, wins. Thus cheating becomes the true game. This issue does not in itself define what is right or wrong - unless we insert the premise that sports should only be about fair and equal competition. Because me and you agree on this premise, we can also agree that such cheating is wrong, and organise drug tests to stamp it out: However if I were to claim that sports should not be about fair and equal competition, no such agreement could be reached. The trouble is that our attitude to the nature of moral imperatives must be stated, and can never be backed up entirely. It is always possible to ask - but why should sports be equal? Why should they be fair? What do we base this upon? we are forced to either appeal to authority (God says it is fair, it should be fair BECAUSE) or else justify each question. Because we must then justify our justifications (or else be subject to the same criticism again) we suffer an infinite regression of justifications. Both are unsatisfactory as logical proofs - and to claim an objective morality you would have to somehow get around this.


If it is stated that it is open chemical competition, then it is open cheating. Though it would seem to have some honesty to it. It really isn't. It is a group of people willing to risk destroying themselves, in order to eliminate competition. It is just a sad statement on human nature. Cheating is seeking some shortcut, or tool out side of the abilities of one's mind and body, to overcome their short comings. Allowing them to achieve what they can not do, on their own.



Makarismos wrote:
It seems the human world is something like your description of sports, with the best and most creative cheats winning, and others who live virtuous lives suffering as a consequence (yet perhaps gaining psychologically?)


This is in fact true. A cheat, when faced with a superior competitor they have bested through dishonest means, has to live with several facts.

1) They lacked the courage to compete on their own merit.

2) They know that they have abdicated their right to cry foul when facing dishonesty. You can only expect what you have earned. By cheating they have abdicated the right to expect honesty. They have to live their life knowing this. It is quite a far reaching consequence. Everyone has to be looked at as a cheat / liar. They can not expect honesty. They do not deserve it.

3) An honest person can always expect honesty. Once again, this has a tremendous impact on a person's life.

If you are ever in a position to see this, you will get it.


Edited by ugx2000 on 02/17/08 - 07:40 AM

_____________________
An absolute peg in a subjective hole
From the desert that is the human intellect.
Retired.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533
Posted 02/17/08 - 09:34 AM:
quote post
#20
ugx2000 wrote:
I only have a very limited time to respond.
Makarismos wrote:

How can you tell if your abstraction is the correct one? What criteria would you use? In my experience it has seemed quite hard to chose one persons abstraction over another's, unless one is already convinced of one of them - though perhaps you can explain how it is possible at least?


This one is answered by the quote you are responding to. Think it through some more.

I suggest you think about it some more wink - What if I think one abstraction accurately reflects reality, and you think a different abstraction accurately reflects reality - you have given no reason to favour your abstraction over mine. It is not only possible, but common for this kind of difference in opinion to to occur. You have not answered the question sufficently to stop such critisism.
ugx2000 wrote:

There is an answer here, but I will not give it. Knowledge is a reward for effort. That is if it is accurate. You can not fake something, and get the benefit.

I propose there is no answer to the question I pose. Your idea of a direct knowledge of "actual morals" seems implausible to me, as even if one had such access, we would have to take their word for it.
Incidentally, you can fake something and get a benefit. Jewish people who faked atheism during Nazi reign certainly got some benefit by their actions. Bank robbers gain money, fraudsters the same. Cheating at a test gives high grades – unless caught.
ugx2000 wrote:

The state, nor any government has anything to do with it. It is the natural extrapolation, of the nature of the species.

If not the state, or the government, then surely you refer to every individual member of humanity (or else what exactly?). Your use of "natural" and "nature" is so vague as to become meaningless. Different cultures hold vastly different values: free speech and liberty is valued by the western culture, but it was not always so. If by "natural" you mean how humanity would behave in nature then you are at a loss. Either all human society is natural, and the conflicting values are all correct, else the past was natural and then humanity became artificial - in which case we should surely not emulate the natural (rape, murder, cannibalism could all be deemed natural by a historical justification) modern society is surely not natural by any normal definition.
ugx2000 wrote:

On your father binding you. If you live in America, you may be of an age were your father signed you into social security, without your consent. But this is not part of the topic.

Would you visit the crimes of a father on his son? Or a mother on her daughter? Would your father be able to sign your life in to slavery? perhaps under a different morality than ours - but I doubt many would find this acceptable today. This being the case, how could we agree to live by societies laws before becoming subject to them? If there is no choice, then "contract" is a poor name indeed for your conception of "an abstraction which mirrors reality". It is rather an unchangeable law given at birth which we must either accept or else face serious hardship, become ostracised, and perhaps die.
ugx2000 wrote:

If it is stated that it is open chemical competition, then it is open cheating. Though it would seem to have some honesty to it. It really isn't. It is a group of people willing to risk destroying themselves, in order to eliminate competition. It is just a sad statement on human nature. Cheating is seeking some shortcut, or tool out side of the abilities of one's mind and body, to overcome their short comings. Allowing them to achieve what they can not do, on their own.

The question that you must answer, if you are to give a plausible account how abstractions might be known, is why exactly is the game you describe a sad statement upon human nature? Is it just because it does not sit well with you? What if someone were to find such a game not only fair, but even honourable? How could you possibly offer proof that your position was correct?

Have you ever played the card game known by the name Cheat? The Deck is divided between all players, each takes turns to place cards of the same face down on the deck, and say what they have placed down. The object of the game is to get rid of all your cards as quickly as possible, with the proviso that each set of cards you place must be one higher or lower than the previous set. Within the game cheating is not a bad thing - on the contrary it is what you must do in order to win. If you are caught (if someone challenges you, and you are found to have cheated) then you are punished by having to pick up the entire pile placed down. Within the game cheating is the object, and therefore not immoral in the slightest. The conclusion I would draw is that cheating is not absolutely wrong, what would you say?
ugx2000 wrote:

This is in fact true. A cheat, when faced with a superior competitor they have bested through dishonest means, has to live with several facts.

Personally I must say I agree with your statement here - But not with your reasons. I do believe that acting honourably will lead to a more fulfilling life for an individual – however an individual might not see it this way. They might face hardship in order to live their lives in such a way – unless all individuals live by an equally honourable code of behaviour.
ugx2000 wrote:

1) They lacked the courage to compete on their own merit.

This is simply not true - If the game is as we describe (either the drugged up sportsmen, or the card game Cheat), the only merit is the ability to cheat and remain undetected. To say that cheating is merely bad is rather begging the question of wither cheating itself is ‘objectively wrong’, wouldn’t you say?
ugx2000 wrote:

2) They know that they have abdicated their right to cry foul when facing dishonesty. You can only expect what you have earned. By cheating they have abdicated the right to expect honesty. They have to live their life knowing this. It is quite a far reaching consequence. Everyone has to be looked at as a cheat / liar. They can not expect honesty. They do not deserve it.

Far from it. a cheater will cry fowl, and in doing so continue to cheat. They may give up their legitimate right to cheat, but they rather ignored their legitimate rights in the act of cheating already! Why would they then worry that their subsequent act lacked legitimacy? We can be certain that a cheater will use any possible advantage in order to secure victory.
ugx2000 wrote:

3) An honest person can always expect honesty. Once again, this has a tremendous impact on a person's life.

If an honest person can always expect honesty, then surely there is no reason to worry that anyone will ever lie, so long as no-one ever lies! On the contrary, an honest person surrounded by liars will - as noted by Machiavelli - soon fall fowl of their own honesty. They will be tricked, lied to, caught in the deceits of their peers. The honest person gains the satisfaction of being honest, but at the cost of success in the game we call life.
ugx2000 wrote:

If you are ever in a position to see this, you will get it.

Implying a lack of morality because of the questioning of your abstraction which accurately mirrors reality is acutely circular, and therefore illogical. One who holds such an opinion may as well justify ones claim to the truth by advising all who disagree that they are simply wrong, and offering no further justification, on the basis that if one can’t already see the truth then it cannot be explained. You may as well say that any who disagree are plain wrong, and save yourself time in replying so thoughtfully.

Many thanks
maseltah
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5
Posted 02/17/08 - 11:19 AM:
quote post
#21
Since morality exists and revolves around the realm of abstract and is difficult to define, or even broadly justify, I think that it is the incorrect way to base ones life.

It is easy to blindly follow teachings and rules as so many individuals do, and there is some good in it. As I stated earlier it does make it eaiser for society to function, and in some cases it becomes necessary. Take for example Kosher food. It was instituted during a time when people could not properly store or prepare pork, so for the safety of the people it became unclean and religously untouchable. This was for the preservation of the society, however, since it has holy status it has remained in todays Jewish and even Muslim religions. We have lost the purpose for Kosher food given our technology, yet there still remains the following of obsolete tenants. Morality itself has a religous conotation, yet it is still considered to be justification enough for actions. Ethics is the same way. They have been so fully entrenched into our society that they are the expected means for action within the society, and to act outside of the ethical realm could mean your detriment, especially in the business world. But just because they are socially expected and the way things are done does not mean that they hare the correct purpose for humanity or even our most important function as Aristotle would lead you to believe. In and of themselves, ethics are only a means of maintaing the peace within a society that has itself steeped in a long dead empire. It is a way of conduct that allows norms to be created and followed, and they are a wonderful tool to control the masses by justifying them in the name of some god or higher authority that we mere mortals cannot or should not question. In the end, if you take away the trapings of civility and god like purpose, I still fail to see the greater reason or necissity of ethics. If you take yourself away from the social constrains that have the expectation of morality, then they are abstract concepts that sometimes contridict our baser instincts as humans and counter act our will to survive.

Take the belief that sucide is wrong. There is also the contridictory belief that courage is also a great moral, which is you death for others. It builds a sense of strong self preservation that is in accord to the human's wish to survive, however it is also considered wrong to kill. What if your survival is based upon the others death? This could be considered to be self defense and is how people justify war, but if you apply all of this to the universal as Kant would like you to, you face a contridiction in your duties. Many morals come in conflict with one another, and they really are circular reasoning. I am not quite sure where they all originated from, but by god they are good at sticking even with their shaky foundations.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533
Posted 02/18/08 - 09:27 AM:
quote post
#22
I think the point is that they can have no foundations - or at least not logically sound ones. They must always rely on a "brute fact" of their own correctness, or else an endless regress. As you rightly point out though, we do require moral codes in order to exist as a society - so we are at an impasse.

The solution may be virtue ethics. It is not an exact science, but it seems that ethics as a field of enquiry does not allow for a strictly scientific, and logically coherent foundation. The main task in ethics is to hold up a maxim, and have the majority agree with it - and after that event, it seems that you can build from that: confident that you have the most solid foundation possible.

Morals are not universal, to a considerable extent our moral system is bassed merly upon opinion - however this does not make them arbitrary, as there are laws, institutions, habits, engrained teachings which form these opinions - which would be as hard for us to move as the distant stars.
maseltah
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 15, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 5
Posted 02/18/08 - 10:10 AM:
quote post
#23
Thank you. You stated it so much better then I could manage with my ramblings.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 533
Posted 02/18/08 - 10:59 AM:
quote post
#24
Thankyou very much!

I usually expect critisism when checking threads, so a compliment is most welcome.

Cheers
ugx2000
.............

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 03, 2005
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 149
Posted 02/20/08 - 12:06 PM:
quote post
#25
Makarismos wrote:


This one is answered by the quote you are responding to. Think it through some more.

I suggest you think about it some more wink - What if I think one abstraction accurately reflects reality, and you think a different abstraction accurately reflects reality - you have given no reason to favour your abstraction over mine. It is not only possible, but common for this kind of difference in opinion to to occur. You have not answered the question sufficently to stop such critisism.


As stated, all abstraction must be tested against reality. Reality will dictate what is right.

Makarismos wrote:
I propose there is no answer to the question I pose. Your idea of a direct knowledge of "actual morals" seems implausible to me, as even if one had such access, we would have to take their word for it.
Incidentally, you can fake something and get a benefit. Jewish people who faked atheism during Nazi reign certainly got some benefit by their actions. Bank robbers gain money, fraudsters the same. Cheating at a test gives high grades – unless caught.


Implausible or not it is indeed a fact. Absractions that do not have a direct foundation in reality are ... nothing but gibberish.

The benefit to be had through deception is always tainted. In the example you give, The Jewish person had to deny part of their person. This example does not work well for me as I see no value in beliefs. That said if you really value who you are. Hiding from anything is a self inflicted punishment. Much more so if the value you are hiding is reality based.


Makarismos wrote:
If not the state, or the government, then surely you refer to every individual member of humanity (or else what exactly?). Your use of "natural" and "nature" is so vague as to become meaningless. Different cultures hold vastly different values: free speech and liberty is valued by the western culture, but it was not always so. If by "natural" you mean how humanity would behave in nature then you are at a loss. Either all human society is natural, and the conflicting values are all correct, else the past was natural and then humanity became artificial - in which case we should surely not emulate the natural (rape, murder, cannibalism could all be deemed natural by a historical justification) modern society is surely not natural by any normal definition.


The problem with your position is that you assume that numbers make for a correct answer. Correct answers are not the product of consensus. Their are a product of exacting abstraction as dictated by reality. I million people can claim 1 object plus another (1) object = 3 objects. One person says the answer is 2. The correct answer is 2, regardless of the faulty consensus.

This further applies to behavior and ethics. Their are correct answers, regardless of the overall ignorance. At this point stating that cultures have no validity in the matter at all, is superfluous.

Makarismos wrote:
Would you visit the crimes of a father on his son? Or a mother on her daughter? Would your father be able to sig your life in to slavery? perhaps under a different morality than ours - but I doubt many would find this acceptable today. This being the case, how could we agree to live by societies laws before becoming subject to them? If there is no choice, then "contract" is a poor name indeed for your conception of "an abstraction which mirrors reality". It is rather an unchangeable law given at birth which we must either accept or else face serious hardship, become ostracised, and perhaps die.


The first part involving all the questions, I am at a loss as to why you are asking. I stated that individual rights are a natural occurring abstraction based on the nature of the species.

Again, on societies laws. Most are random and baseless. Usually set up to control things that are no one's business, while other's are set up to give some an advantage in certain endeavors.

Makarismos wrote:
Far from it. a cheater will cry fowl, and in doing so continue to cheat. They may give up their legitimate right to cheat, but they rather ignored their legitimate rights in the act of cheating already! Why would they then worry that their subsequent act lacked legitimacy? We can be certain that a cheater will use any possible advantage in order to secure victory.

If an honest person can always expect honesty, then surely there is no reason to worry that anyone will ever lie, so long as no-one ever lies! On the contrary, an honest person surrounded by liars will - as noted by Machiavelli - soon fall fowl of their own honesty. They will be tricked, lied to, caught in the deceits of their peers. The honest person gains the satisfaction of being honest, but at the cost of success in the game we call life.


First statement: Cheater would have no problem lying even more. True, yet they still must live with it.

Second statement: That is not what I said. I said an honest person can always expect it. That is, in proper trade. That people lie regularly is a true statement. That honest people get burned by dishonesty, is true. That said, they have a righteous position. If cheating is defined as success, then a cheater is successful. Then the word success must include this negative aspect in it's definition.

If an honest person loses to deceit and is superior, then who loses in the end. Example:

If a medical student cheats to become a doctor, more over cheats so well that they get an important decision making job, over the honest (truly skilled) student, who loses. Not just the actual superior person who lost, but all the patients who are now at the mercy of the successful hack.

Post note: Abstractions are not detached from reality. They orignate from reality.

Finally: Answers are independent of individuals. Unlike opinions, actual answers are based on reality. I am not seeking to jerk you around by not answering some things. The reason I avoid some things is for very specific reason, value exchange. The sad fact of a society that thinks cheating is an acceptable way to win, is that anyone who develops, or discovers anything, has to protect it from the dishonest. This again points to the actual underlying disadvantage we all suffer do to cheating. That is the lack of unfettered exchange of knowledge.

Side note:
People who cheat spend time creating their game (cheating skills), and sometimes answers.
People who are honest spend their time seeking answers (only).

Who is really more valuable?

_____________________
An absolute peg in a subjective hole
From the desert that is the human intellect.
Retired.
Download thread as

Page: 1 2



You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.

Contact the Administration

Powered by WSN Forum

15 total queries
This page was created in 3.97 seconds
Memory used: 6789036 bytes
Server Status: time since last reboot is 100 days, 1:39, load average: 1.12, 1.03, 1.10