My understanding is that virtue is a desirable quality that, according to Aristotle, is in a balance.
Yeah, my extensive research of the wikipedia page seemed to indicate that individulal virtues are almost a separate concept, although it did mention courage as being an example of a balance between cowardice and foolhardiness.
edited 7th Mar '13 10:46:47 AM by Elfive
I know, but my course never actually explicitly called virtues by name. That's the weird part.
Also, speaking of virtues and vices, if we go by Aristotle's deficiency of vice, shouldn't there be fourteen deadly sins to counter the Seven Heavenly Virtues, to take deficiencies as well as excesses into account?
edited 7th Mar '13 10:49:22 AM by SantosLHalper
I don't think the seven virtues were a thing when Aristotle was alive.
To be honest what counts as a virtue could well encompass a discussion in itself. I don't personally think Faith is all it's cracked up to be.
Cephalopod Lothario
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Depends on what you mean by faith. I think you could consider, religious or not, "belief in a higher cause than yourself" (For instance, I have "faith" in utilitarianism. I have faith in the ability of science to better the quality of people's lives. I have faith in the potential of humans as a species.) to be a good thing. In moderation.
Faith, along with the other six, need to be looked at in context of the culture.
But in modern terms, consider trust a virtue. Too much and you become a naive pushover. Too little and you become a nitpicky sociopath or something. That goes for both other persons and the higher cause.
Yeah, it does come down to semantics. I meant faith in the sense of "belief without evidence".
I feel it is too often left free to roam untempered by rationality. I trust science and my friends, for example, but that trust has been earned.
edited 7th Mar '13 11:07:19 AM by Elfive
People don't mean it that way when it comes to their faith.
It's more of whether you give benefit of the doubt more, or you're more careful. I actually tend to be careful in many ways.
edited 7th Mar '13 11:12:36 AM by Trivialis
I guess it comes back down to Aristotle's balance idea. Anything can be unhealthy if you overdo it.
It should be noted that Faith was one of the Theological Virtues, not the Seven Heavenly Virtues. The Seven Heavenly Virtues are Charity, Chastity, Diligence, Humility, Kindness, Patience, and Temperance.
Also, is it just me, or has the definition of 'Virtue' has drifted? As I noted above, there seems to be a dichtonomy between Vice and Virtue, with 'Vice' only meaning an excess instead of an extremity.
edited 7th Mar '13 11:40:04 AM by SantosLHalper
United Earth
Difference?
Crossposting from here
:
...But I do have rules. I just don't consider those rules to be facts. Instead, those rules are just stuff that I choose to do our of empathy for other people. I also contend that all morality is not fact but stuff people choose to do for one reason or another, be it empathy or fear or strategy or something else.
Yes, they're arbitrary, but that doesn't mean they're bad. Every moral system is arbitrary.
It's not false, in my opinion. As an expressivist, I'm a non-cognitivist, so I don't think that moral statements can be true or false. They just aren't truth-apt. Instead, they're expressions of how you feel on certain issues. I don't like killing, so I consider it to be wrong.
They aren't lies, either. Instead, they're things that we created. It's not that they were false until we believed in them. It's that they did not exist until we came up with them.
...Well, maybe not truth, but only maybe on that.
Anyway, personally I'm a utilitarian, sort of. Rather than focusing on raising the average utility, I give preference to raising the lowest utility. In addition, since I value more than happiness, I include more than happiness in my utility calculation.
edited 17th Apr '13 10:50:47 PM by deathpigeon
EDIT: Tag fixing. I swear I'm gonna automate that shit one of these days...
edited 17th Apr '13 11:54:04 PM by Meklar
Join my forum game!
...I feel like I was unclear in my word choice when I said arbitrary, there. What I meant by that is that every moral system ever is a human conception. That is, all moral systems are human constructs and do not exist independent of human thought. Arbitrary is probably not the right word for that, but, at the time, I was more concerned with making my word choice mirror the word choice of what I was responding to in order to give it more resonance with the person I was responding to than I was concerned with making my meaning clear through my word choice.
United Earth
Huh, very Nietzschean. I've been reading The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music... this is very different from Genealogy of Morals. He's so verbose...
And I've come to these conclusions on my own without ever having read any of Nietzsche. I really want to read some Nietzsche at some point as, from what I can tell, my beliefs and his beliefs are very similar, but I've never owned any Nietzsche, before, nor had the opportunity to borrow any of his works.
United Earth
No, not the conclusions, the choice of giving priority to poetic impact over clarity and actual thruth. "God is dead" is an oxymoronic statement, but it packs a lot more punch than "We've outgrown need for a concept of God".
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Ah, I see. Makes sense.
Poetic impact is definitely very important. Someone can make a very valid point that is completely true, but, because of how it is said, have it get ignored, but, through poetic impact, the statement becomes harder to ignore. If we couch our arguments in the terms of our enemies and still make them work, they will be that much more persuasive. If we make our arguments with great shock value, they will be that much more persuasive. To quote Keyes, "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking.”
edited 18th Apr '13 1:46:40 AM by deathpigeon
United Earth
Because obviously morality is something that's written out there in some metaphysic sphere, like arithmetics, and it's our job as humans to write it down and follow it. Religious people tend to have that stance. Well, beginners at least. Usually, as they grow, they wise up to the fact that even with Commandments brought down from the sky, you still need to make it up as you go along.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Except, Meklar is an atheist...
United Earth
Well, then my hypothesis is invalidated.
Isn't it obvious, though, that morality is simply a set of guidelines, for humans, by humans, for our convenience, appetites, satisfaction, and happiness?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
Do you know what's weird? The philosophy course I took went through Aristotle's virtue morality without mentioning the concept of 'virtue' once, despite calling it by name. All it talked about was how Aristotle believed that we should lived balanced lives in tune with reason, not about specific virtues like courage, prudence, and so on.