Are there self evident truthes

Jim · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
Wouldn't "domestication" entail neurological alteration, though, rather than just diverting our natural aggression into more benign outlets like team sports?

Good point. Also, I want to back away from calling it “domestication,” because domesticating plants and animals involved breeding, and that isn’t what I’m thinking.

osgart · May 25, 2019

Jim said:
This might be an answer to a question that I’ve been wondering about. When you meditate on virtues, are they associated with images or feelings or impressions of a person who exemplifies those virtues? Is your relationship with the meanings like a personal relationship in some ways? Apart from all that, do you have any concept of someone or something that you love, that moves you to want to live virtuously and resist temptations to to do otherwise?

My mother always inspired me to live virtuously.

I see virtues first and foremost as qualities of being that in general you either have or do not have. I do not attach it to other people when i meditate on the qualities themselves. Benevolence is a virtue that means to take care of others and self. Deservingness is a virtue that means to earn the right. I will consider virtues as i see them in other people but i take the virtues as a quality of the heart's intentions first and foremost for myself.

osgart · May 25, 2019

Jim said:
@osgart Another question: Can you think of any stories that you’ve read or heard about, some time in your life, that have influenced your thoughts and feelings about virtues? For example I might have got some of mine from Oz stories.

I had a few childrens books i considered virtue worthy. King Arthur and The Knights of The Roundtable. King Arthur was known for his bravery and loyalty obviously. Dr. Seuss told us to note that he was neat, so i took that as cleanliness as a virtue.

I thought some of the old Star Trek serieses exemplified virtues in their approach to comraderie and friendship, as well as their approach to new life forms. Seeking out peaceful coexistence and diplomacy was something i admired in the characters.

Valjean · May 25, 2019

osgart said:
I had a few childrens books i considered virtue worthy. King Arthur and The Knights of The Roundtable. King Arthur was known for his bravery and loyalty obviously. Dr. Seuss told us to note that he was neat, so i took that as cleanliness as a virtue.

I thought some of the old Star Trek serieses exemplified virtues in their approach to comraderie and friendship, as well as their approach to new life forms. Seeking out peaceful coexistence and diplomacy was something i admired in the characters.

Wasn't King Arthur a tribal warlord?

...and loyalty?" -- since when is personal loyalty a desirable quality?

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
160 virtues? OK, now you're just teasing us --- Give.
With such a long list there are sure to be many I and others will disagree with; enough to keep the debate section hopping for months.
Didn't many of history's most notorious tyrants have good intentions?
I seem to recall something being said about intentions and the road to Hell....
Doesn't 'virtue', in the modern sense, call for suppressing our natures? It was tribalism and a narrow moral focus that got us through the Pleistocene, but the behavior that's "virtuous" among competitive hunter-gatherers -- our 'evolutionary nature' -- is pernicious in a diverse, civilized society.

Virtues:

Truth
Patience
Charity
Deserve
Benevolence
Loyalty(to all virtues)
Love
Care
Selflessness
Self
Understanding
Humility
Kindness
Decency
Peace

Among others.

I take virtues as standards. The virtues work together hand in hand. Without intentions there would be no actions.

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
Wasn't King Arthur a tribal warlord?
...and loyalty?" -- since when is personal loyalty a desirable quality?

He was a king that sought peace for his people. Loyalty to virtue is desireable. Trustworthiness and peace is the goal of all virtues.

I have a personal loyalty to my family because they are peaceful, and they love me.

Valjean · May 25, 2019

Interesting... but I see a lot of overlap here. Couldn't some of these be united?
Some I don't get: Deserve?
Some need clarification: Charity? Benevolence? Love? Care? Kindness? -- to whom?, and at who's expense?

What qualities entitle someone to moral consideration? Should there be a hierarchy of moral consideration?

osgart · May 25, 2019

Since when is good intentions the pathway to Hell?

True Goodness is about making peace with those that are peaceful. It is also about defending peace.

What is your definition of good? Mine is that which promotes life and peace.

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
Interesting... but I see a lot of overlap here. Couldn't some of these be united?
Some I don't get: Deserve?
Some need clarification: Charity? Benevolence? Love? Care? Kindness? -- to whom?, and at who's expense?

What qualities entitle someone to moral consideration? Should there be a hierarchy of moral consideration?

The ultimate goal is not to be at the expense of anyone.

Moral consideration is for those who are not contrary against virtues.

Those that pursue peace, those that live peacefully, those that do not seek harm to others. Those are the deserving. Those that defend peace.

Charity is that you would desire to help people live.

Without being virtuous then one is not trustworthy. Virtues are laws of being.
Virtue is what deserves. The goal of virtue is peace for all. But there are those that desire none such peace. They make exceptions of themselves. So one has to defend against such. Mercy is for those that repent.

Surely you would help those you regard if they needed it. Surely you have developed trust in your relationships. You have come to know people and you know what they will do and what they will never do.

Valjean · May 25, 2019

osgart said:
He was a king that sought peace for his people. Loyalty to virtue is desireable. Trustworthiness and peace is the goal of all virtues.

I have a personal loyalty to my family because they are peaceful, and they love me.

What if they became violent, and hated you?

osgart said:
Since when is good intentions the pathway to Hell?

True Goodness is about making peace with those that are peaceful. It is also about defending peace.

What are we to do about the less-than-peaceful?

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
What if they became violent,

What are we to do about the less-than-peaceful?

You have to defend against violence.

There are degrees of severity. By necessity we have laws that the less than peaceful should fear.

A non violent person need not fear just laws because they have no intentions to break such laws.

Valjean · May 25, 2019

osgart said:
The ultimate goal is not to be at the expense of anyone.

Isn't altruism, by definition, at individual expense?

Moral consideration is for those who are not contrary against virtues.

Moral consideration is only for those not contrary to your own idea of virtue? Wouldn't that result in a pretty small moral universe, with each tribe extending consideration only to those in agreement with its own thinking?
Doesn't everyone claim to have God on his side?
I think I have a moral duty toward many I don't agree with, as well as many who are completely indifferent to or hostile to me.
[/quote]Those that pursue peace, those that live peacefully, those that do not seek harm to others. Those are the deserving. Those that defend peace.[/quote]Wouldn't that apply only to a handful of people? And who decides who is deserving?

Valjean · May 25, 2019

osgart said:
You have to defend against violence.

There are degrees of severity. By necessity we have laws that the less than peaceful should fear.

A non violent person need not fear just laws because they have no intentions to break such laws.

Gandhi was a non violent man, but he violated what were considered just laws repeatedly.
Isn't Jackson soon to be replaced by the outlaw Harriet Tubman on our $20. bills?

Righteous, non-violent people are always violating 'just' laws. Without such dissidents and troublemakers there would be little social progress.

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
Isn't altruism, by definition, at individual expense?
Moral consideration is only for those not contrary to your own idea of virtue? Wouldn't that result in a pretty small moral universe, with each tribe extending consideration only to those in agreement with its own thinking?
Doesn't everyone claim to have God on his side?
I think I have a moral duty toward many I don't agree with, as well as many who are completely indifferent to or hostile to me.

Those that pursue peace, those that live peacefully, those that do not seek harm to others. Those are the deserving. Those that defend peace.[/quote]Wouldn't that apply only to a handful of people? And who decides who is deserving?[/QUOTE]

I agree with that moral duty and that is virtuous to do so.

Well with altruism everyone must decide for themselves what and who is deserving, and to what measure.

Even without altruism we are necessitated to make judgments on deserve.

Valjean · May 25, 2019

osgart said:
Those that pursue peace, those that live peacefully, those that do not seek harm to others. Those are the deserving. Those that defend peace.

Wouldn't that apply only to a handful of people? And who decides who is deserving?

Click to expand...

I agree with that moral duty and that is virtuous to do so.

Well with altruism everyone must decide for themselves what and who is deserving, and to what measure.

Everyone already does

Even without altruism we are necessitated to make judgments on deserve.

Everyone already does

osgart · May 25, 2019

Valjean said:
Gandhi was a non violent man, but he violated what were considered just laws repeatedly.
Isn't Jackson soon to be replaced by the outlaw Harriet Tubman on our $20. bills?

Righteous, non-violent people are always violating 'just' laws. Without such dissidents and troublemakers there would be little social progress.

Obviously not every law that is considered just is in fact just. Im glad Harriet Tubman stood for truer justice.

Human law is fallible. I hold to more universal standards that i consider higher then the laws of humanity.

Gandhi was right to break laws that did not equate to justice.

Are there self evident truthes

Jim

Nets of Wonder

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Valjean

Veteran Member

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Valjean

Veteran Member

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Valjean

Veteran Member

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Valjean

Veteran Member

Valjean

Veteran Member

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure

Valjean

Veteran Member

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure