"I have Given Virtue enough thought now. And so it is, in my opinion, that the only obvious way to practice, AND, understand virtue, is to be within the moment. Every moment. There can be no other explanation for the notion of virtue."
- Joe

If you are of the moment then you as honest with yourself as consciously possible. All the Virtue you agree or disagree, stems from that state of mind. If you reflect on something's character of moral and ethics......it basically doesn't matter in that moment of virtue. Its useless. That goes for all reflections and predictions. If I say "I will give my life for another", its not virtuous. Its not of the moment. It cant be virtuous.

Damn, sometimes my arm just isn't long enough. lol, kidding.

"I have Given Virtue enough thought now. And so it is, in my opinion, that the only obvious way to practice, AND, understand virtue, is to be within the moment. Every moment. There can be no other explanation for the notion of virtue."
- Joe

If you are of the moment then you as honest with yourself as consciously possible. All the Virtue you agree or disagree, stems from that state of mind. If you reflect on something's character of moral and ethics......it basically doesn't matter in that moment of virtue. Its useless. That goes for all reflections and predictions. If I say "I will give my life for another", its not virtuous. Its not of the moment. It cant be virtuous.

Damn, sometimes my arm just isn't long enough. lol, kidding.

... Living in the moment is an important thing to do. Especially when you consider all of the stress people put into worrying about the future all of the time. I do, however, believe that the virtues and vices are ethically teleological...

This brings up an interesting dynamic. "Living in the moment" seems like a virtue until you notice that you have failed to consider what turn out to be negative long-term consequences of your actions. On the other hand, as you indicate, it's also possible to be overly preoccupied with possible negative consequences--to allow worry to become unhealthy.

Icon's emphasis on the relativistic nature of virtue and the impossibility of accurate measurement of virtue would seem to be part and parcel of this dynamic. We seek a balance between worry and carelessness, but where is that balance? It differs for different situations and different people.

Personally, I find the possible solution in recognizing Prudence as the virtue we seek. Prudence, as a character trait, is the quality that we seek when we hope to find the balance in this department. We know people who seem to have a knack for it, and we respect them. We recognize when we are missing it, and in such cases we regret it. We recognize when we seem to possess it, and we are happy with ourselves.

... Indeed, prudence is a reflection of wisdom, the highest virtue...

Presumably, Wisdom would give birth to any and all of the virtues. I would be interested in defining the term to see how true we might suppose that to be. I have found it difficult to find any virtues that cannot be summarized within the ancient four, Temperance, Prudence, Justice, and Fortitude, unless they be the additional ones identified by Christian scholars, Faith, Hope, and Love. But, as always, an analysis ought to begin with a definition of terms...

I would define wisdom as the intelligent ability of an agent to guide his or her actions with consideration, reason and the understanding of the knowledge that the agent has acquired. As an agent's beliefs inform their actions, wisdom also entails the agent's ability to hold sound beliefs as to the nature of knowledge itself.

I have also found that most, if not all of the virtues, can be summed up in the five virtues of wisdom, temperance, fairness, kindness, and fortitude. The value of faith or piety is relative, because faith, as proposed by the religious, is incompatible with wisdom. Faith or piety entails the belief in divine revelation and is exempt from doubt.

I like your definition of wisdom.

I suppose that a notion of fairness is equal to justice. Or do you make a distinction?

As for kindness, I would suppose it cannot be much different from the Christian notion of love--in the sense of the Greek "agape."

As for faith, I think it is commonly confused with credulity--no doubt because certain strains of Christianity have deliberately cultivated this notion. I think to get at the most fundamental meaning of faith, we have to divorce it from the fundamentalist Christian propaganda, and think of how we use the word in other contexts. I have faith in my president. I have faith in my spouse. Then apply that kind of faith to the ultimate mystery, the creative force of the universe.

Yes, fairness is equal to justice, but I rather use the word fairness because I think it's more of a character definition, while justice is more of a general idea.

The faith that the Abrahamic religions speak of is just blind hope.

The kind of faith you speak of is simply trust. I think that trust can be summed up in kindness. To be kind is to treat people with the best motive that is consistent with available evidence of their intentions. If their is enough evidence to indicate that you can trust someone, then it is kind to do be trustworthy in return. This can also be summed up in wisdom - making sound judgments with available evidence.

I don't know about having faith or trust in the natural, physical forces of the universe. Those physical forces can destroy me in an instant quicker than it took for me to be released from the womb.

If we ask what is the virtue of a carpenter, we might say it is his skill in building what he sets out to build. Or if we ask what is the virtue of a singer, we might say that he/she produces pleasing sounds with the voice. So when we ask what is a virtuous human being, in the broadest sense, ought we not to look for some specific skills and qualities?

Here, I think you should notice a distinction between what is taught by the tradition and what is taught by certain sects and cults that have sprung from the tradition. I think you are drawing your conclusion from observation of fundamentalist strains of the tradition.

I see faith and kindness as clearly distinct, since faith, in the Judeo-Christian sense, is directed toward the Creator. Also, there may be a distinction between your virtue "Kindness" and the Christian virtue "Love." As taught by Christ, Love is a pretty radical notion, involving deep-seated goodwill toward everyone, regardless of how that person may have acted. Thus, "Love your enemies, etc." Quakers and a few other sects within Christianity have taken this notion seriously, but most, I would venture, find ways to circumvent the teaching and rationalize their lack of goodwill.

To have faith in the Creator/Natural Forces of the Universe/"I AM" whatever you may wish to use, may be the most fundamental concept of the tradition. Creative, yet destructive, nurturing, yet terrifying, sublime, yet hideous. Why direct trust toward such a power? On the other hand, since we are, in the final analysis, helpless before it, it seems we really have no other choice.

That's Aristotle's view. But isn't the question whether being a person is like being a carpenter? Being a carpenter is a kind of "job" for which special skills are required, and being a good or virtuous carpenter is having those skill to an excellent degree. But, is being a person a kind of "job" too, for which special skills are required, and so a good or virtuous person is a person who has those skills to an excellent degree? Does that analogy work? What is the "job" of being a person? and what are those "special skills"?

I'm drawing my conclusion from any religious tradition that places empty hope in supernatural agency.

... Personally, I cannot love someone who has tried to cause me harm. I maybe can forgive them, but I can't love them based on the idea that one should love their enemy just because. I find that to be a ridiculous notion.

Sure we have a choice. In a universe without intent or purpose, we are free to choose our own values. I can't put my unconditional trust in situational and circumstantial forces that have no intent. Nature is neither malevolent nor benevolent, so I hold no resentment towards misfortunes that are imposed by nature.

The ultimate mystery is whatever we want it to be. I believe that there will always be a cosmological mystery because we will always have a question for an answer. It's the price of being animals capable of abstract thought.

No doubt, the vast majority of us have trouble with it, yet, it is not at all unreasonable when you notice that sometimes the only way to reduce conflict is to be the first to offer kindness (an act of love in the Greek "agape" sense) to someone who doesn't logically deserve it. In this sense, loving your enemy is in fact quite logical and pragmatic.

I would argue we are all trusting it all the time, to some extent, unless we are cowering or insane. The only difference is that some of us make it a thorough, conscious, and deliberate choice. But again, this might make a good discussion in the Religion forum.

One could just as well assume that the ultimate mystery is what it is regardless of what we may want it to be. Again, a Religion topic.

It's not pragmatic or logical if the person continues to take advantage of you. If you extend a hand and someone slaps it away, it may be time to stop reaching out.

This is a topic of metaphysics, not religion. How are we always trusting the "force" of the universe? To always put your trust in the situational and circumstantial universe is irrational. I just believe that saying "I trust the force of the universe" is a meaningless statement. What does that even mean?

Dichanthelium wrote:

I hear that. The principle is that kindness may give rise to a peaceful solution, not that it must. You don't know unless you try. How long you choose to persist in trying depends on myriad factors. But one thing is certain, as Gandhi said, an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

True. An eye for an eye can make the whole world blind, but then again, an eye for a hand shake could just make you blind. It's all about making sound decisions based on the situation and circumstance at hand.

Quote:

Perhaps metaphysics is within the realm of religion or vice versa. Anyway, none of us has any control over the world around us. We take it as it comes. We trust our senses, the people around us, everything, or else we worry and fret and imagine disaster looming. Or we alternate between the two extremes. You don't need to trust? You can effectively guard yourself against all the forces that may line up against you? You have control over the world around you? If you think you do, then you must have a very narrow view of the forces of the universe that can change your life and fortunes in an instant.

The philosophy of religion definitely has a relationship with metaphysics. In response to all of your questions - I think it's clear that I don't believe that we have control over everything that happens around us. I'm also aware of the fact that the natural forces and events of the universe can change your life and bring about misfortune in an instant, which is why I don't put all of my trust or faith in nature.