@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.