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.

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?

You are proving my point through practice.

I am a deontologist in that I subscribe to the thinking that the outcome is what is important and not the intent.

You obviously have the intent in mind. Therefore we cannot agree on whether or not these things are virtuous action.

So what are we left with? Floating definitions. Un-equal measurements on the same scale. Pointless refutation over good results. This is my point precisely. Virtue is a non sequitur. It is a sham designed to allocate positive or negative attributes to neutral action and intent. It is a word designed to give meaning or purpose to locally accepted positive action. It cannot be universal by definition or application. It cannot even be associative from one culture to another for the most part. Even within the community you have differences of opinion on virtue according to circumstances such as religion, experience, ethical subscription, personality, ethnicity, gender, and so forth. You can attempt to place value on the word all day long but we will only conflict because, by way of virtue :shifty:, I cannot accept your attempt to apply value to a "non-word".

The fact that you cannot measure virtue does in fact mean that it is a sham as it is a form of measurement. ... virtue is measuring the legitimate ethical nature of an action or state...

Yes to your first question-my self standards and what others expect, (to be treated right).
But the second part im confused about what you're saying coz it seems like your contradicting yourself because you say '......not understanding' then '........if you use that understanding' Recognition of what? It's what i deem to be right for the sitution and me.

If you say to yourself listen before you speak is a virtue then wouldnt you have learned that by experincing it yourself for you to be saying that to yourself or do you mean you just tell yourself because someone told you it was a good thing to do?

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.

I understand your position. Thats why I said in contrast in individuals with different perceptions and situations.:surrender:

I think I get your point. I may have done something as a child merely because I was taught to do it. Later, as an adult, I realized that the teaching has validity. Now, I do it not merely because I was taught (indoctrinated), but because I have personally validated the teaching. The reason for doing it has changed, but the practice has persisted. Is that accurate?

And if you can do that, why do you need someone to tell you what is virtuous?

Doesn't deontology focus on the rightness or wrongness of the intentions behind the action and not the consequences or outcomes? Doesn't deontology hold that the standards for the rightness or wrongness of an action is independent of the good or bad generated by the action? Please clarify this?

Why does it have to be an or situation between the intent of an action and its result? Why shouldn't the intent and the result both matter equally? I believe that the two can be reconciled. I think the problem is that many virtue ethicists only look at focusing on what the action said about the person's character and not on the consequences of the action. I like to focus on both the intent or character and the result or outcome as equally important. Only focusing on character and intent does have its problems, but so does focusing only on consequences and not the intent or character of the person. Only focusing on consequences is a philosophy of the ends justifies the means. If you believe in utilitarianism (a form of consequentialism) then throwing your mother in front of a train to save five other people is the right thing to do :perplexed:. A philosophy of the ends justify the means is invalid, because we all know that you don't need a bad reason to do a good thing.

As for the universality and impartiality of virtues and vices, you may want to rethink the statement that virtues and vices cannot be universal and impartial. Whether or not a person wants to value those virtues does not determine whether or not the virtues fit the four given criteria. The values of wisdom, fortitude, temperance, kindness and fairness for example, do fit the criteria of universality, impartiality, compatibility and maximality. An example of a relative ethical value is piety, which is not fundamental because it does not fit the four criteria at all. Fairness, on the other hand, is universally applicable for obvious reasons. Values that do not fit the criteria are relative values, not fundamental ones. If the values are relative to religion, gender, ethnicity and so forth, then the values cannot be justified.

I have to preface this by mentioning that if you thought anything I posted was intended as sarcastic or discourteous, then I am happy to apologize. I certainly didn't consciously introduce sarcasm. Nor do I think it is the least bit conducive to a constructive transaction.

You made an assertion. "Virtue is a sham." If I insist that you back up your assertion with logical proofs, I don't see why that should raise your ire!

Okay, are you saying that your definition of virtue, which hinges on the concept of measuring, is the universally (at least among scholars, let's say) agreed upon definition?

... My point is that you cannot define virtue at all. ... There is no possible way to set a standard value, measurement or definition of virtue or individual virtues because it is something which exists in the human mind. Anything which exists in the human mind is directly affected by the individuals perception of that term.

How can you define fundamental values without the ability to prove their universal applicability. You say that they are fundamental values but I see no evidence.

As far as deontology, I may have gotten that one backwards. Admittedly, it has been many years since I have studied the subject of ethics.

The point that I have been trying to make is simple. Humans differe far too much on an individual and social scale to ever apply set values to things such as virtue, ethics, good and bad. These are all a matter of perspective. If you are to sit here and claim that you know what is right for all mankind then I am going to have to call you a fool or the most knowledge filled man on the planet. That would require you to know everyone on the planet in an individual and social sense. I doubt that you do. There are no fundamentals when it comes to the human mind. Each mind is unique in almost every way including their perception of right and wrong and why it is so.

Why does this sound like an argument against morality all together? With this type of counter argument I have to ask . . . are you a relativist or a nihilist?

I gave you the criteria for which a value should be considered fundamental. If you have some other criteria that you think is better than what I have given then please share it with me?

Each mind is indeed unique, but most certainly not in every way. Humans are more alike than you may be willing to realize. What we see as a good or bad outcome is determined by our emotive reactions to the outcome. For example, everyone feels good when they are treated fairly or kindly by someone else. That social emotion is hard-wired into our brains for evolutionary reasons. No one feels good being stabbed to death, robbed, raped, cursed, etc. etc. Everyone suffers a bad outcome from making unwise, untempered decisions that negatively affect themselves and other people.

As far as people's differences in what they determine to be a value is concerned. Scientific studies of the human brain shows that when determining values, everyone who has moral sensibility goes through many of the same processes to decide what is right or wrong. The environment that they've been raised in plays a very big role in how their morals and other values develop. Just because moral values can differ from culture to culture, or even person to person, does not discredit the thesis that there can be a set of moral principles that apply to an agent regardless of their background or willingness to adopt the moral value. This reflects the universality of moral goodness or badness that human beings have shared and developed ever since our evolving as a species.

Let me ask you a question. How can you justify the argument that a purely consequential mode of morality and ethics should be adopted by everyone who wants to make moral decisions?

My point is that you cannot define virtue at all...

I don't know how to interpret that. Your statement, on the face of it, says the word itself has no definition. I don't think you mean that.

I was asking for your definition of the word "virtue" within the context of philosophical ethics. I'm just trying to rule out the possibility that our disagreement is primarily semantic.

First of all, I am making a point against morality as a whole. Even more so, I making a point against all measures that have no physical relationship to something objective.

I cannot say that I am a nihilist because I think that nihilism is ridiculous and impossible as you have to believe in something to believe in nothing. Mainly, you have to believe in the existence of something in order to believe in nothing. I am not truly a relativist either. If anything I would consider myself a subjectivist in the opposite understanding of the term.

I see all things in this field of study to be subjective and thus false. Most subjectivists see that it is not falsifiable and thus it is subjective truth. I see things as not proveable and thus consider all subjective truths to be false. I do not see objectivism as correct either because subjective nature, which does obviously exist, can alter the very way that we interact and percieve objective reality.

In short, I see mankind as inherently flawed in that we try to overcomplicate things by attaching negative and positive traits to everything. If we do not add these attributes then everything because simple as we do not attach emotion to action. My way of thinking simply states that all action, if categorized as right or wrong, is wrong. But if you remove the right and wrong from action then you are left with a very interesting result. Without right and wrong we only have left and right. We choose to go left and something happens or we choose to go right and something happens. These events lead to more choices which lead to more actions and results. In this way, I calculate the best course of action according to the predicted outcome as well as several probable outcomes. This does not mean that I am a "bad" person. It simply means that I reserve my emotions for other purposes rather than action. My actions are what you may consider generally moral as I do not think it is ever a good choice to "negatively" effect the emotional states of others unless it is absolutely necessary. In other words, I understand that my way of thinking is very obscure and uncommon, thus I do my best to not encroach on the rights of others to see the world as they wish to unless the subject comes under conversation such as t has here.

Also, to answer your other question, I do not think that everyone should adopt my way of thinking because that would be stating that my way of thinking is correct which it cannot be by my own reasoning. Thus, I do not see myself as correct nor do I see anyone else as correct. We are all wrong, just going about it in different ways. My theory basically makes it impossible to be correct until you know and understand all aspects of a situation and future situations which might be associated through a chain of cause and effect.

Well I'm glad that you've told me that you are arguing against morality. At least now I completely know where you stand. We can now make this debate a lot shorter.

You say that you are not a nihilist because you have to believe in something in order to believe in nothing. I also find nihilism to be ridiculous, but I'm not so sure that that's a good argument against it. What nihilism says is that because there is no objective meaning or purpose to the functions of the universe, life is inherently meaningless and pessimistic. My problem with that conclusion is that while I do believe that asking the subjectively necessary question as to whether there is intent, purpose or inherent meaning to reality and existence is an important insight, it is a mistake to believe that the answer to that question is the last word. What a nihilist should do is ask themselves why they are even asking such a question in the first place. These questions and there answers have emotive forces behind them, and that is why we value such questions in the first place. Not understanding the true motives behind such questions is why I believe most nihilists adhere to nihilism.

Your belief that anything that is subjective (mind-dependent) is false or completely meaningless is just nihilism without the admission. I am a positivist (not a radical logical positivist) and so I hold that moral statements are only false and meaningless if they are stated as propositions (a sentence that is stated to be true or false). Positivist epistemology holds that a statement is meaningless as a proposition if it is not logically decidable or empirically observable. This is also known as the verification principle. I therefore hold that moral sentences are meaningful questions, but they are meaningless as propositions because they state no true or false sentences, for they are not objective. Moral sentences are statements of value and are thus subjective. Therefore, they can only be deemed as right or wrong (not true or false) by the emotive and prescriptive forces behind such statements. The justification of such values must fit the logically valid criteria of universality, impartiality, maximality and compatibility to be considered as fundamental.

The ironic thing is that with all that you said, you still clearly have a concept of morality and ethics, but you don't seem to know how justify or clarify it as of yet. We both want the same outcome for our actions (the good). Our only disagreement is how we choose to approach moral problems.

Read the entire post and the one before this one.