Why are people virtuous when they are?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Caroline
 
Reply Mon 23 Mar, 2009 08:52 pm
@Jacob phil,
ok i think i get it, i think.
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 04:48 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
ok i think i get it, i think.


Really? What's the idea? If virtue is a sham, then what motivates people to practice the virtues? Are Temperance, Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude all a sham? Are they not widely acknowledged across various cultures to be good things and worthy of respect?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 06:13 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
Really? What's the idea? If virtue is a sham, then what motivates people to practice the virtues? Are Temperance, Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude all a sham? Are they not widely acknowledged across various cultures to be good things and worthy of respect?

Hmm, what I think what Icon is saying is that, (I haven't totally grasped it so i could be totally wrong), virtue is a sham because man creates it and you are only virtuous because the situation demands it you're not actually born with it so it's kinda false and thus a sham, (but that's probably totally wrong im so confused, my brain hurts!) Smile i probably need to read more on meno to comment properley. What do you think? Do you think that the virtues you've mentioned are worthy of respect and are good things?
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:35 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Hmm, what I think what Icon is saying is that, (I haven't totally grasped it so i could be totally wrong), virtue is a sham because man creates it and you are only virtuous because the situation demands it you're not actually born with it so it's kinda false and thus a sham, (but that's probably totally wrong im so confused, my brain hurts!) Smile i probably need to read more on meno to comment properley. What do you think? Do you think that the virtues you've mentioned are worthy of respect and are good things?


I have no idea what Icon may be trying to say.

Personally I find it undeniable that there are human virtues. What motivates people to be virtuous must vary, as others have emphasized. Whether or not virtuous behavior can be taught is debatable, but I think it can be.
 
Caroline
 
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2009 09:45 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
I have no idea what Icon may be trying to say.

Personally I find it undeniable that there are human virtues. What motivates people to be virtuous must vary, as others have emphasized. Whether or not virtuous behavior can be taught is debatable, but I think it can be.

You think it can be taught, how? Myself i recognise what is right and wrong or what is best and act accordingly?
 
rhinogrey
 
Reply Thu 26 Mar, 2009 12:12 pm
@Jacob phil,
Virtuous behavior must be taught, IMO. People have a natural inclination towards projecting a sense of virtuousness or anti-virtuousness onto acts, thoughts or objects. But the specific Virtue Scheme under which one operates, though she is inclined to adopt a scheme a priori, is a product of environmental factors that shape her subconscious worldview.

I think people act virtuous when they do because of prior histories; the impulse to assign virtue is there naturally, but taking virtuous action emerges from a subconscious pool of prior observation.
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 04:44 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
You think it can be taught, how? Myself i recognise what is right and wrong or what is best and act accordingly?


I think that we see the "teachability" of virtues all the time. Anyone that has raised children and put them through school has seen that if parents and and the school environment both reinforce certain ideas and qualities, then in all likelihood, the children will adopt those ideas and develop those qualities. We teach children to exercise self control, for example, at a very early age. Is that not a virtue? In what sense is that a sham?
 
Joe
 
Reply Fri 27 Mar, 2009 06:06 am
@Dichanthelium,
I think the issue with Virtue is like most other moral based ideas, in that contrast makes it uncertain to individuals of different perceptions and circumstances. That alone deems Virtue a possible sham. Its pointless though to try to prove either way. That's what makes the matter frustrating.

If I had to reduce virtue to something simple enough to be hard to refute..........maybe it would be something like, virtue is participation without a emotional agenda. I would say this because removing the emotional spectrum always is a interesting idea when it comes to moral inclined actions. The action would become Neither negative or positive. So how can you say if it is Virtuous or not? I don't think you can, and so like most things, you look at the reaction instead of the action. It might not be the reality, but, whose to say Virtue isn't without emotion. The agenda is what separates the judgment of many. That's a problem I see in defining Virtue.:mouth-shut:
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 03:41 pm
@rhinogrey,
rhinogrey wrote:
Virtuous behavior must be taught, IMO.

People have a natural inclination towards projecting a sense of virtuousness or anti-virtuousness onto acts, thoughts or objects.

But the specific Virtue Scheme under which one operates, though she is inclined to adopt a scheme a priori, is a product of environmental factors that shape her subconscious worldview.

I think people act virtuous when they do because of prior histories;

the impulse to assign virtue is there naturally, but taking virtuous action emerges from a subconscious pool of prior observation.


I don't know whether I agree or not. Personally, I have a hard time evaluating assertions without reference to specific examples. Would you offer a specific example or two?
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 03:48 pm
@Joe,
Joe wrote:
I think the issue with Virtue is like most other moral based ideas, in that contrast makes it uncertain to individuals of different perceptions and circumstances. That alone deems Virtue a possible sham. Its pointless though to try to prove either way. That's what makes the matter frustrating.



Sorry Joe! I don't follow you! Let's examine specific cases. Is self control a virtue? I sure wish I had more of it! Looks good to me! I admire people who apparently posses it! I'm very happy with myself when when I feel that I have exercised it, and I'm very unhappy with myself when I feel that I have failed to exercise it (eat too much, drink too much, etc.).
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sat 28 Mar, 2009 04:28 pm
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
I think that we see the "teachability" of virtues all the time. Anyone that has raised children and put them through school has seen that if parents and and the school environment both reinforce certain ideas and qualities, then in all likelihood, the children will adopt those ideas and develop those qualities. We teach children to exercise self control, for example, at a very early age. Is that not a virtue? In what sense is that a sham?

Ask Icon............
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Mon 30 Mar, 2009 03:15 pm
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
Ask Icon............


What's your opinion?
 
Icon
 
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 09:40 am
@Jacob phil,
I will give the best example that I can.

Is greed a virtue?
How about lust?
Pride?


You ask if self control is a virtue. No it is not. Not always. Sometimes the virtuous must not control themselves in order to accomplish good. Virtue is a sham because there is no standard for measuring it. All things are subjective in this field of study. Here is another example...

Justice... Was it just for terrorists to attack the twin towers and kill that many people? It all depends on who you ask. Was it Just for America to retort and kill 10 times that many only to get back at a few? Depends on who you ask.

Virtue can never have a standard measure because virtue is entirely subjective.
Greed can be a virtue if it inspires a good act.
Lust can be a virtue if it supplements love.
Pride can be a virtue if it holds to strong mutually beneficial values.

Virtue is a sham because it is nothing which we can guarantee. All virtues are subject to the perception of those who hold them to be virtuous.
 
Joe
 
Reply Tue 31 Mar, 2009 11:38 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
Sorry Joe! I don't follow you! Let's examine specific cases. Is self control a virtue? I sure wish I had more of it! Looks good to me! I admire people who apparently posses it! I'm very happy with myself when when I feel that I have exercised it, and I'm very unhappy with myself when I feel that I have failed to exercise it (eat too much, drink too much, etc.).


I understand your position. Thats why I said in contrast in individuals with different perceptions and situations.:surrender:
 
Caroline
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 02:53 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
What's your opinion?

I think virtue can be taught but when you're an adult although I know it is right to exercise self-control, (for example), because that's what others think, i exercise self-control because it would make me feel bad if i didnt so i dont do it coz i was taught i do it because it is the right thing to do for myself.
 
Dichanthelium
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 04:09 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:
You ask if self control is a virtue. No it is not. Not always. Sometimes the virtuous must not control themselves in order to accomplish good. Virtue is a sham because there is no standard for measuring it. All things are subjective in this field of study.


These are assertions, not arguments. And the mere fact that you can't measure virtue does not at all lead, logically, to the conclusion that it is a sham.

Icon wrote:
Here is another example... Justice... Was it just for terrorists to attack the twin towers and kill that many people? It all depends on who you ask. Was it Just for America to retort and kill 10 times that many only to get back at a few? Depends on who you ask.


Variance of opinion is not a sufficient reason to conclude that none of the opinions are intelligent or logical.

Icon wrote:
Virtue can never have a standard measure because virtue is entirely subjective.
Greed can be a virtue if it inspires a good act.
Lust can be a virtue if it supplements love.
Pride can be a virtue if it holds to strong mutually beneficial values.


Again, these are assertions. Are you suggesting that all things that do not have standard measure, or that involve some degree of subjectivity must be a sham? There's no standard measure for the quality of a piece of art or the quality of the performance of a song, but we don't conclude that the piece of art or the song are shams. As for greed, lust, and pride, your hypothetical examples are not sufficient to support your claim. I would be interested in how you define the terms and examining some specific examples.

Icon wrote:
Virtue is a sham because it is nothing which we can guarantee. All virtues are subject to the perception of those who hold them to be virtuous.


The fact that we can't guarantee something doesn't make it a sham. And everything in the world is subject to our individual perceptions. Would you argue that everything in the world is a sham?
 
Icon
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 06:52 am
@Dichanthelium,
Dichanthelium wrote:
These are assertions, not arguments. And the mere fact that you can't measure virtue does not at all lead, logically, to the conclusion that it is a sham.

The fact that you cannot measure virtue does in fact mean that it is a sham as it is a form of measurement. If an inch had no measurement associated with it then it would be a useless word. Just as virtue is measuring the legitimate ethical nature of an action or state, without an associated, constant measure, it has no value.


Dichanthelium wrote:
Variance of opinion is not a sufficient reason to conclude that none of the opinions are intelligent or logical.


You did not address my point at all. Are you a politician? I don't ever remember talking about inteligent or logical. As a matter of fact, I don't see those two terms in my post anywhere.

Variance of opinion is EXACTLY what I am talking about. When you have something based entirely on subjectivity, as virtue is, opinion is all that matters because opinion is what defines it. If you have a difference of opinion then you have a difference of definition. With a difference of definition, the word begins to lose meaning in that it cannot sustain any form with varying root elements. If it cannot sustain any form then it cannot be used as a measurement for anything and without being able to be used as a measurement, it is worthless in that the purpose of the word virtue is to measure the value of an act as positive or negative. Variance of opinion breaks the word virtue at its purpose.

Now if you would like to state that this is merely assertions again, I suggest you review scientific method and etymology. Also, since you have decided to refute my point by avoiding my points entirely, I would like to point out that there is no science for virtue and thus all of your points have been assertions as well. Fortunately for the continuation of this conversation, I am not so quick to dismiss ideas which I do not agree with.

Dichanthelium wrote:
Again, these are assertions. Are you suggesting that all things that do not have standard measure, or that involve some degree of subjectivity must be a sham? There's no standard measure for the quality of a piece of art or the quality of the performance of a song, but we don't conclude that the piece of art or the song are shams. As for greed, lust, and pride, your hypothetical examples are not sufficient to support your claim. I would be interested in how you define the terms and examining some specific examples.


Again with your claims of assertion.
You are correct. Art is not a sham and a song is not a sham because the song is the act. Virtue is not the act but the meassure of the act.

Two people stand in front of a peice of art. One believes it is a fowl and disgusting chunk of trash which doesn't belong in a homeless den while the other sees it as an amazing work which could inspire the imagination and passion of an entire generation. The art itself is not the sham. The two men arguing over who is right by trying to use some standard definition which varies from person to person is the sham. Just as with virtue. Virtue is used to meassure an act or state. The act or state is not a sham because it is happening or has happened. The meassure of the act is the sham because it cannot be held as a constant.

Same with the song. If someone sing s a song and one person thinks that it is beautiful while another thinks it is terrible, the song is not the sham for it is the act. The scale with hich the two are using to measure is the sham because it has no standard for measurement.

Virtue is a measurement with no measurement behind it. That is like having fruit juice with no fruit. We call that a sham.

Greed
Pronunciation: \ˈgrēd\
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
Date: 1609
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Pride
Pronunciation: \ˈprīd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English prȳde, from prūd proud - more at proud
Date: before 12th century
1: the quality or state of being proud: as a: inordinate self-esteem : conceit b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>

Lust
Pronunciation: \ˈləst\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton
Date: before 12th century
1 obsolete a: pleasure , delight b: personal inclination : wish
2: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3 a: an intense longing : craving <a lust to succeed> b: enthusiasm , eagerness <admired his lust for life>

A man is so greedy that he dedicates his life to getting more money by creating things which will profit him. In doing so he creates a bit of tech which saves thousands of lives. The man's greed for money created a virtuous act.

A man has so much pride in his apartment that he cannot let a man jump off the roof and sully his reputation so he is able to talk a man down from the edge of a building. He committed a virtuous act out of pride.

A man is so lustful for a woman that he dedicates himself attaining her. They get married, have children and he keeps her happy for all of their days in order to retain his lust. He is a virtuous husband.

Dichanthelium wrote:
The fact that we can't guarantee something doesn't make it a sham. And everything in the world is subject to our individual perceptions. Would you argue that everything in the world is a sham?


I would argue that any level of measurement which has no standard for measurement is a sham, yes sir. Perception does create many shams. As a matter of fact, without perception there would be no such thing as shams because they do not occur naturally. It is another human creation. So, since you have argued your way around my points, let us see you do it again. Or perhaps you would actually like to approach my ideas as if you were not afraid of doing so.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 08:13 am
@Icon,
When we speak of anything ethical I always see these two statements . . . "everything in this field is subjective" or, "everything in this field is relative". Firstly, subjectivity and relativity are not synonymous in this context. When we say subjective, we are saying that these concepts are mind-dependent, where as something that is objective is mind-independent. When we say relative, we are saying that the concept cannot be universally applied and that the rightness or wrongness of the concept is relative to the valuer.

Any and all conceptions of values are indeed subjective, for there is no objective purpose or intent behind the nature of reality, and therefore values are dependent upon the minds that infer them.

All of this falls under axiology, the study of values and their meanings. The two fields involved in this study are ethics and aesthetics. Everything in aesthetics is relative to the valuer, because, as far as I know, there really is no convincing way that the many conceptions of beauty can be universal or impartial. So the rightness or wrongness of anything aesthetic is relative to the valuer. If anyone can tell me of any aesthetic concepts that are universal and impartial, please do?

The field of ethics, on the other hand, is of a different consequence. Like all statements of value, ethics makes no objectively true or false statements. The statements of ethics, like aesthetics, are stated to be right or wrong depending on the emotive and prescriptive forces behind the statement. As far as I know, ethics is the only axiological field where statements can be justified by the four criteria. In order for a value to be fully justified it must be 1. universal, 2. impartial, 3. compatible, and 4. maximal. With those four criteria, we can justify some ethical values. The four ethical values that immediately come to mind with these criteria are the virtues of wisdom, temperance, fortitude, kindness and fairness. The vices that one should resist are sloth, timidity, intemperance (including lust), greed and malice.

A virtue is such because of its capacity or tendency to produce a good outcome, while a vice is such because of its capacity or tendency to produce a bad outcome. As long as a virtue or vice can be universally applied to all relevantly similar valuers it can be justified.
 
Joe
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 08:15 am
@Caroline,
Caroline wrote:
I think virtue can be taught but when you're an adult although I know it is right to exercise self-control, (for example), because that's what others think, i exercise self-control because it would make me feel bad if i didnt so i dont do it coz i was taught i do it because it is the right thing to do for myself.


So Virtue is a effort based on self standards?

I wonder if virtue has anything to do with mind constructs. You may say to yourself that listening before you speak is a virtue. But then I wonder about if listening is worth its weight in virtue without understanding. Then comes the question of if you use that understanding to formulate your own view on things. It just seems that our actions are a systematic result of wherever virtue comes from. So when you say self-control is a from of virtue, does it mean its how we express virtue through some form of self recognition?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Wed 1 Apr, 2009 08:48 am
@Icon,
Icon wrote:

Greed
Pronunciation: \ˈgrēd\
Function: noun
Etymology: back-formation from greedy
Date: 1609
: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

Pride
Pronunciation: \ˈprīd\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English prȳde, from prūd proud - more at proud
Date: before 12th century
1: the quality or state of being proud: as a: inordinate self-esteem : conceit b: a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c: delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental pride>

Lust
Pronunciation: \ˈləst\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton
Date: before 12th century
1 obsolete a: pleasure , delight b: personal inclination : wish
2: usu. intense or unbridled sexual desire : lasciviousness
3 a: an intense longing : craving <a lust to succeed> b: enthusiasm , eagerness <admired his lust for life>

A man is so greedy that he dedicates his life to getting more money by creating things which will profit him. In doing so he creates a bit of tech which saves thousands of lives. The man's greed for money created a virtuous act.

A man has so much pride in his apartment that he cannot let a man jump off the roof and sully his reputation so he is able to talk a man down from the edge of a building. He committed a virtuous act out of pride.

A man is so lustful for a woman that he dedicates himself attaining her. They get married, have children and he keeps her happy for all of their days in order to retain his lust. He is a virtuous husband.


I think that you make some valid points in regard to the sometimes unpredictability of a value. Determining the outcome of a value is the not the same as determining the outcome of say a collapsed star. Things that are dependent on the will of the mind can be unpredictable at times. However, the examples you give reflect good by-products of the vice, not a direct product of the vice itself.

Example 1. Desire for profit is not always the result of greed, but let's assume the man is greedy. If the man happened to create a technology that helped save thousands of lives, it was not a direct result of greed. It was a by-product with no intent whatsoever.

Example 2. I know that pride is often considered to be a vice, but I think it depends on the type of pride. A little bit of pride in yourself goes a long way. Excessive pride or ego is the vice, because it often leads to a bad outcome.

Example 3. The man may have attained the woman due to lustful desire, but his staying faithful and marrying her was not an act of lust. It was an act of love.

As I said, you made good points, but I think that all it shows is that things that are mind-dependent are more unpredictable than things that are mind-independent. It may also reveal that every right entails a wrong, and vice-versa. Whether or not something is considered to be a vice or virtue depends on its tendency or capacity for good or bad outcomes, and you don't need bad reasons to do good things.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/11/2024 at 12:29:26