Originally posted by karoly aczelI'm hoping to generate enough answers that Andrew Hamilton will grasp what he is missing. Beetle's answers will, I hope, produce the desired effect.
It appears that you dont mind whether AH or blackbeetle answers your questions so how about me?
1.yes
2.yes
3.it is a virtue but not always in the short term..
4.i suppose it does until they stop being virtuous.
5. anythings possible.
Now where are you going with these questions?
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage…Can you demonstrate a substance called Happiness?
Do they? Can you demonstrate a substance called Happiness?
Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
...
I don’t know what you mean by a “substance” called Happiness.
I cannot PROVE that I am happy to somebody else but I CAN prove that I am happy to myself because I directly observe that feeling of happiness so to my personal experience it is an empirically verifiable fact which I can only prove to myself and not others.
…Have you ever met a helpful person?
Does the quality of helpfulness exist?
….
Yes and yes.
…Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
…..
If what you mean by “virtue” is something like “exclusively MORALLY excellence and righteousness” then the answers are no and no and no.
If you mean something different by “virtue” then you would have to clarify before I can answer.
Originally posted by twhitehead…To a large extent I say something is 'morally wrong' if it impinges on someones likes or causes someones dislikes.
I think the word "moral" takes on various meanings but one of them is a sort of human instinct that I believe has evolved due to our need to live in societies. If we wish to cooperate we must respect others likes and dislikes and to some extent demand that they respect ours. To a large extent I say something is 'morally wrong' if it impinges on someones l ...[text shortened]... on your part, but I still maintain that the code is as existent as your likes or dislikes.
...
In that case what you mean by “moral” is quite different from what I mean by “moral”.
I strongly suspect that our main area of disagreement really just boils down to mere semantics.
Originally posted by black beetle…what is the nature of the "reality" of the emotion of happiness that you experience?
Your mind is the agent that offers you the experience of the experience that "you" experience. It seems to me that you use solely your mind in order to experience whatever you experience. Your mind determines your nature and it conducts this process according to its own nature, therefore your nature is just the nature of your mind (if you disagree, then ...[text shortened]... ow, what is the nature of the "reality" of the emotion of happiness that you experience?
😵
...
-Don’t know (and I agree with everything you said there) - I don’t know the “nature” of any emotion which is why I cannot define what is an emotion.
Never the less, I believe I am justified in my claim that I can rationally know that the emotion exists for, although I cannot define it or understand it, I do appear (to myself that is) to directly ‘observe’ its existence.
Originally posted by black beetle…Helpfulness exists as an extrapolation of the awareness of the mind of the helpful person.
Many times I was in touch with helpful persons.
Helpfulness exists as an extrapolation of the awareness of the mind of the helpful person.
Helpfulness is the result of a specific modification of the mind. Helfulness can be evaluated at a given spacetime and at given circumstances as a virtue, as stupidity, as an attitude that plays no role at all, ...[text shortened]... s you to behave. If you are determined to apply a certain "virtue", you will apply it.
😵
...
I find that odd -I didn’t think a theory of mind was necessary here.
I don’t think I mean the same thing by “helpfulness” as you do.
To me “helpfulness” means the tendency to give either useful or favourable outcomes -but, admittedly, this is just a matter of personal semantics.
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI see tedious communication problems looming.
[b]…Is helpfulness a virtue?
Does possessing virtues make one virtuous?
Is it possible to behave virtuously?
…..
If what you mean by “virtue” is something like “exclusively MORALLY excellence and righteousness” then the answers are no and no and no.
If you mean something different by “virtue” then you would have to clarify before I can answer.[/b]
If you're interested:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-virtue/
Maybe this will work.
Does it make sense to describe a person as 'honest' or 'dishonest'?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI decipher emotions as an interaction between the entity you consider "your self" and the situations that they trigger miscellaneous potentialities and/ or cause events that they have an impact to "your self". The footprints of this interaction are your emotions, and these footprints are generated strictly from your self, thus they have not an existence "as is". This is a typical case of emptiness/ sunyata, therefore in my opinion you "observe" a "hologram"
[b]…what is the nature of the "reality" of the emotion of happiness that you experience?
...
-Don’t know (and I agree with everything you said there) - I don’t know the “nature” of any emotion which is why I cannot define what is an emotion.
Never the less, I believe I am justified in my claim that I can rationally know that the emotion exi ...[text shortened]... fine it or understand it, I do appear (to myself that is) to directly ‘observe’ its existence.[/b]
😵
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonNo, I know you don't. That was a general "you"; I perhaps should have made that clear (or, rather, I should have learned by now on here that the use of the second-person pronoun needs to be made clear!).
[b]…If you define “morality” as following some “divine command” system of fiat behaviour
...
-I don’t. I don’t personally take the word “morality” to have anything to do with “divine” although I am sure there are no end of religious nuts that take one as having a lot to do with the other.[/b]
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI’m not sure that the semantics here are “mere”. 🙂 There seem to be a sufficient number of people here who have questions about what your rejection of “morality” entails to suggest that the semantics might be important.
[b]…To a large extent I say something is 'morally wrong' if it impinges on someones likes or causes someones dislikes.
...
In that case what you mean by “moral” is quite different from what I mean by “moral”.
I strongly suspect that our main area of disagreement really just boils down to mere semantics.[/b]
I find this discussion interesting because it dovetails with my own attempts to clarify—to myself—a language that allows me to articulate my own view of a eudaemonist “virtue ethics” without using that deontological imperative “ought”. I’ll continue to just read what you all are presenting for awhile…
Originally posted by vistesdThey are not "mere", sure thing.
I’m not sure that the semantics here are “mere”. 🙂 There seem to be a sufficient number of people here who have questions about what your rejection of “morality” entails to suggest that the semantics might be important.
I find this discussion interesting because it dovetails with my own attempts to clarify—to myself—a language that allows me to articul ...[text shortened]... ological imperative “ought”. I’ll continue to just read what you all are presenting for awhile…
On the other hand, this expectation of yours to overcome deontology it could turn into a mission impossible: since “virtue” is a pure product of the Aristotelian (and, later on, of the Christian amongst else) aretology, I have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered under given conditions by a given moral plexus and they do not stand alone as is. Maybe Mr Hamilton feels the impact of the “ego” and of the “out there” continuum and he then interprets "morality" as equivalent to the “absurd” (in his opinion) forced actions due to “irrational” (in his opinion) “forced emotions" which they push the morality driven Human to react in accordance to the deontology of specific ethics. Dualism is a bitch I reckon.
If Andrew Hamilton could confirm that this is indeed the case, it seems to me my dear vistesd that it' s the right time for you to examine and for us to evaluate; otherwise, we will have to wait Andrew to clarify why a morality based attitude is in his opinion irrational, and why an attitude which is not based on morality is in his opinion rational;
😵
2 edits
Originally posted by black beetleI wasn’t sure if I understood the word “deontology” so I looked it up:
They are not "mere", sure thing.
On the other hand, this expectation of yours to overcome deontology it could turn into a mission impossible: since “virtue” is a pure product of the Aristotelian (and, later on, of the Christian amongst else) aretology, I have the feeling that the emotions regarding this product, eudaimonia included, are triggered und tional, and why an attitude which is not based on morality is in his opinion rational;
😵
http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology
“…the ethical doctrine which holds that the worth of an action is determined as by its conformity to some binding rule rather than by its consequences
…”
I am not sure what it means by “worth” of an action above but, at least on a personal emotional level, I would say the “worth” I put on an action is more determined by motive rather than consequences.
However, having said that, for me at least I would say I wouldn’t say the “worth” I put on an action is determined by its conformity to some “binding rule” so I would, at least on a personal emotional level, disagree with deontology.
…If Andrew Hamilton could confirm that this is indeed the case,
...
I am having difficulty clearly interpreting some of what you say but, unless I am mistaken, I think I can confirm that (but I could be wrong).
…otherwise, we will have to wait Andrew to clarify why a morality based ATTITUDE is in his opinion irrational,
….(my emphasis)
I don’t think it is quite correct to say I think that a morality based “ATTITUDE” is “irrational” but, rather, more specifically, I think that a morality based “BELIEF” is “irrational” if that morality based “BELIEF” is of the form “X is morally right” or “X is morally wrong” and when those propositions are supposed to have a truth value that is independent of our emotions and are supposed to be something more than something that is just merely purely subjective.
…and why an ATTITUDE which is not based on morality is in his opinion rational; …..(my emphasis)
Again, I would say specifically “BELIEF” rather than “ATTITUDE”:
I would not say a BELIEF that is not based on morality is necessarily “rational” (try not to be confused by the double negative I put in that statement).
I don’t think an “ATTITUDE” (as what I normally mean by that word) can literally be “rational” or “irrational” -but perhaps I am attaching a different meaning to the word “ATTITUDE”?