If you are more virtuous, then it follows that you will be more moral...

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

That "some people think" that screwing other people is a good business practice does not make that a virtue of business.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Maybe I'm using the wrong terminology, but I think I'm talking subjectively not objectively. When you are dealing with other people you hve to take into account their mindset. You can't force your ethics on others. You just learn who they are and then decide wither to hae them around or not.

 

[dgiharris]

Whenever these sorts of questions are asked, I always sense an underlying theme.

in this case, I feel the theme is righteousness. If you are righteous, if you are on the side of all that is right in the universe, then whatever actions you take are right. Whatever beliefs you have are right. Whatever your attributes are will be considered good attributes.

I'm not a fan of the above mindset as it is way too easy to be wrong.

Exactly what is right and what is wrong?

And therein lies the rub. Almost impossible to discuss the ramifications of being virtuous and moral without defining morality and right and wrong...

FWIW, I subscribe to The Utilitarian viewpoint in regards to right and wrong

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

 

[Chad Farwell]

sadly humans are surrounding any virtue or circumstance with their version of humanity

 

[Gottservant]

As people go, smarter people ____ are virtuous ____ ____ about being more moral ___ ___ ___ when possessed (by ___ the ____ Devil ____ ____ ____ ____).

 

[variant]

Not necessarily.

Scenario: Complete sociopath cures cancer.

 

[Gottservant]

I cannot really understand how or why you think cancer is related to psychopathy, sorry.

If you were me, I think you would treat it as an insult - unless qualified ____ as otherwise.

 

[variant]

I cannot really understand how or why you think cancer is related to psychopathy, sorry.

I don't, just that sociopaths aren't moral. So you've misunderstood.

If someone is a sociopath (immoral) and cures cancer (an act of virtue) then the two things virtue and morality are not correlated.

If you were me, I think you would treat it as an insult - unless qualified ____ as otherwise.

You probably aren't qualified to insult me properly.

 

[Gottservant]

I wouldn't say sociopaths aren't moral, just that being minimally moral ____ they rarely express it as consistently or hypocritically ____ ____ as ____ ____ ____ others.

 

[variant]

I wouldn't say sociopaths aren't moral, just that being minimally moral ____ they rarely express it as consistently or hypocritically ____ ____ as ____ ____ ____ others.

Not moral as in they are not motivated by morality.

I am saying that virtuous acts (outcomes) needn't be motivated by virtuous intent.

What's with the dashes?

 

[Gottservant]

I don't think it's really fair, for you to just disqualify the simplicity of what you said about immorality and sociopathy being linked - actually.

You clearly said there was a connection ____ and nothing, else.

The problem I think (I'm not trying to be upset ___ actually) is that you go on to act as if you are qualifying it with a term that is so weak - it almost means nothing ("needn't").

I don't want to preach, so I'll stop ____ ____ there (dashes are for the purpose of correctly specifying the most literal link between the emphasis desired and the patience required).

 

[Chad Farwell]

I don't, just that sociopaths aren't moral. So you've misunderstood.

If someone is a sociopath (immoral) and cures cancer (an act of virtue) then the two things virtue and morality are not correlated.

You probably aren't qualified to insult me properly.

curing cancer would be the opposite of a sociopath thus they are related as the opposite of each other...anti venom is worthless without venom

 

[grasping the after wind]

Not necessarily.

Scenario: Complete sociopath cures cancer.

You are assuming that curing cancer is a virtuous act and being a sociopath is an immoral state. One may agree or disagree with either of those assumptions. If one cures cancer without intending to do something they consider good but only because one knows it will be very materially profitable for them is that a virtuous act? If one has a strict moral code but a code that causes them to do what others believe to be monstrous things is that being immoral? IMO the OP statement is not provable in any objective way and must depend upon a very subjective definition of the terms virtuous and moral. .

 

[Chad Farwell]

yes, mistakes can be advantageous

 

[variant]

curing cancer would be the opposite of a sociopath thus they are related as the opposite of each other...anti venom is worthless without venom

You can cure cancer for purely selfish reasons.

 

[variant]

You are assuming that curing cancer is a virtuous act and being a sociopath is an immoral state. One may agree or disagree with either of those assumptions. If one cures cancer without intending to do something they consider good but only because one knows it will be very materially profitable for them is that a virtuous act? If one has a strict moral code but a code that causes them to do what others believe to be monstrous things is that being immoral? IMO the OP statement is not provable in any objective way and must depend upon a very subjective definition of the terms virtuous and moral. .

Sociopaths are extremely antisocial, lack empathy and conscience, they aren't creatures of high morality.

I assume that curing cancer is virtuous by the matter of fact that it is a great achievement that would help virtually everyone.

But more simply:

Morality is about WHY you do things, and virtues are often times about outcomes about good outcomes and the two do not have to be related.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Sociopaths are extremely antisocial, lack empathy and conscience, they aren't creatures of high morality.

Not by your or my standards of what is moral but have you asked a sociopath what they consider to be morally upright? Perhaps to that person antisocial, unempathetic behavior is to that sociopath the correct moral stance to take?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I assume that curing cancer is virtuous by the matter of fact that it is a great achievement that would help virtually everyone.

That depends on an assumption that being virtuous stems from the results of your behavior and not from your intentions which is an assumption that is not universally accepted. It also depends upon an assumption that the absence of cancer in humans would be on the whole a good thing which is probably a very well accepted assumption for most humans, but not all, as there are those that believe the human race is the scourge of the planet and that the universe would be better off without us.

 

[Chad Farwell]

selfish choices have affects on (was going to say unselfish, but do they exist?) those around or assiciated with the selfish

You can cure cancer for purely selfish reasons.

 

[Chad Farwell]

but wait those associated with the selfish would be the World

 

[Chad Farwell]

and I am not meaning those only 'of the world'