Virtue & Prudence

[von_Rivers]

@Stuartp523

von Rivers, I misread your post. I went to your link and just quickly looked through it, you seem to be the first person I’ve ever met who believes in moral objectivity and is willing to go to great lengths to defend that view. I think sometime I’ll read through that thread and then see what I have to say.

Cool. I am a river to my people.

[statiktech]

@phyllo

By “rich”, I took you to mean having excess.

That will be a subjective judgement made by people.

What constitutes a legitimate benefit is—you guessed it—prudence.

Again, prudence is a judgement.

As far as I know, most human societies don’t consider stealing to be moral. (When it’s ‘moral stealing’ it’s called taxation.)

Again, irrelevant.

I don’t understand why you try to remove people out of everything.
Either ‘what is moral’ is established by God - which you don’t believe. Even in this case, people decide who is a true prophet of God and who is not.
Or it is discovered by people (like universal gravitation) - in which case people write it down in a book and pass it on.
Or it is fabricated by people for what they believe is a practical purpose - in which case they write it down in a book and pass it on.

On none of these cases is ‘moral’ floating around without context or reference to people. People are the judges of what is moral.

…what? How am I trying to remove people out of everything? Morality is about how people should act. Yes, people make judgments. And?

What I’m trying to tell you is that the number of people who disagree with my position is not an argument against it. That’s an argumentum ad populum.

[phyllo]

What I’m trying to tell you is that the number of people who disagree with my position is not an argument against it. That’s an argumentum ad populum.

I didn’t say anything about the ‘number of people’. I said wise and virtuous people decide. Presumably they guide the direction that societies take and therefore most societies consider stealing to be immoral.

Are you suggesting that there is some other process for adopting moral codes?

[statiktech]

No, I’m suggesting that wise and virtuous people can be mistaken and what most societies consider isn’t an argument against my position.

[phyllo]

@statiktech

No, I’m suggesting that wise and virtuous people can be mistaken and what most societies consider isn’t an argument against my position.

If wise and virtuous people are wrong and dumb people are wrong then how can you know what is moral? There is no longer any reference point to use for calibrating moral action.

[statiktech]

Prudence, silly.

[phyllo]

@statiktech

Prudence, silly.

Then you are deciding what is right.
But how do you know that you are not wrong? After all, you just said that the wise and virtuous may also be wrong and they also used prudence.

[statiktech]

I don’t but my position is that I’m not wrong. Can you prove I am?

[phyllo]

Only one way that I can see. Compare your evaluation of the situation to the evaluation done by wise and virtuous people. If they disagree with you then you are probably wrong.

[statiktech]

That method assumes totally subjective criteria, whereas mine doesn’t. We’ve been over this.

[Only_Humean]

@statiktech

@Only_Humean

Which are?

I don’t know, that’s why I asked you. I mean, if you’re harming the animal, for example, it isn’t prudent. Would you say it’s prudent to harm anything for sex?

I don’t think harm need be committed. I think if you have sex with a six-year-old and it’s loving and mutually satisfactory, it’s still immoral, and I think you do too, no? Because we probably agree that sexual activity is something that requires informed consent, and should ideally involve an attitude of mutual respect, and that’s not there with children and animals - regardless of the consequences.

Prudence, on the other hand, insofar as it is about foresight, is consequential. The negative consequences of having mutually pleasurable sex with a sheep is that people will find out about it. I don’t know many moralists, even hard-line consequentialists, that hold that things are only immoral if there’s a risk you’ll get caught.

So you’d say it’s moral to marry someone you’re not that into, but will give it a go for the sake of the security?

Yes, under the right circumstances; like if my family genuinely needed that security. In other words, if the benefit to my family was greater than the cost to me and my bride, I think I’d be obligated.

What about just you? If you judge the benefit to you outweighs the cost to the bride? You could fake it well, and have considerably more pleasure in your life.

I do think we’ve arrived at a fundamental disagreement. What you seem to be saying here is that prudence and morality are very much the same for a consequentialist, but not so much for a deontologist, which I agree with. My contention is that deontic morality goes wrong in separating virtue and prudence.

That’s a long argument, with quite the pedigree.

I think only of myself when I choose to brush my teeth and floss every night. I’m not keeping these teeth warm for someone else, you know

Exactly. And that’s prudent; no?

I’m talking about selfishness here, not prudence. It’s not selfish for me to brush my teeth and floss every night because it doesn’t inconvenience anyone. It’s selfish to use up their toothpaste and floss.

@von Rivers

Frankly, I would say this is imprudent for the same reason it is immoral. It’s not imprudent because others might find out about it—it’s imprudent because of what they’ll think if they do. And what they’ll think if they do find out about it is the same reason it is immoral. That’s my suspicion.

Let’s assume for a moment that “prudence” and “morality” are interchangeable terms, as you propose. The reason you give that it’s immoral to screw a sheep because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral… for the reason that it’s immoral… which is because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral. So people think acts are immoral because other people would think they’re immoral because other people would think they’re immoral… That’s pretty circular. So why is it immoral?

As another example, it might be considered prudent to marry the daughter of a powerful family, to ensure your wealth and your family’s security. That’s not why it would be moral to marry her - it might be prudent yet immoral, if she is besotted with you and you only have your eye on her family status.

This is an example that does not work. Why are you assuming it is immoral to marry the girl to secure your family? Why are you assuming marrying someone is immoral if the reasons why you’re marrying are different from your partner’s?

I’m not assuming anything, I’m offering the suggestion that it might be considered one way or another. The point implied being that many people find the respect towards others of not using them as means to an end generally outweighs the hedonic calculus.

[von_Rivers]

@Only_Humean

Let’s assume for a moment that “prudence” and “morality” are interchangeable terms, as you propose. The reason you give that it’s immoral to screw a sheep because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral… for the reason that it’s immoral… which is because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral. So people think acts are immoral because other people would think they’re immoral because other people would think they’re immoral… That’s pretty circular. So why is it immoral?

There’s a reason why fucking a sheep is immoral, if it is immoral. That’s for you to come up with, not me: it’s your example, afterall. That reason why it is immoral is going to be the same reason why it is imprudent. That’s my suspicion. And the reason for why something is immoral isn’t just that other people think it is immoral—as if they had no other reason for thinking so, other than what other people think. I’m not sure why you think there’s any regress at all.

I’m not assuming anything, I’m offering the suggestion that it might be considered one way or another. The point implied being that many people find the respect towards others of not using them as means to an end generally outweighs the hedonic calculus.

If you want to separate prudence and morality, then come up with an example that does so. But after you make an example that I show to be a bad one, don’t immediately say, “well, I don’t really know if X was immoral, afterall”----because your example was supposed to be of something THAT IS MORAL but not prudent (or vice versa). —That’s how you’d separate them.

And btw, it should strike you as odd if what you are doing is trying to define one of the most famous moral theories (Consequentialism) as prudence. And as for Kantianism, which holds that you are fundamentally a rational being, there’s no doubt that acting according to the Categorical Imperative is what is prudentially good for a being whose fundamental nature is rational—since acting according to the CI just is how you exhibit your rationality.

In a nutshell: I’ve got no doubt that people tend to think there’s a difference between prudence and morality. What I doubt is that they have coherent conceptions of both that actually do differ, in any essential way.

I am a river to my people.

[phyllo]

@statiktech

That method assumes totally subjective criteria, whereas mine doesn’t. We’ve been over this.

I agree that this ain’t going anywhere.

[von_Rivers]

phyllo,

You keep asking the same questions, but never objecting to the good answers, only to re-ask the same question. It’s not cool.

If wise and virtuous people are wrong and dumb people are wrong then how can you know what is moral?

Wise people have reasons why they think what they happen to think. We can examine those, starting with consistency, coherency, and how they correspond to what the nature of creatures such as us actually is. Other wise people can bring reasons why they think those reasons are wrong. This is how we’ll proceed.

But excuse me for having no time for someone who objects to the idea that there are better and worse answers for no apparent reason other than loyalty to some relativistic dogma, which is the fashion here.

I am a river.

[statiktech]

@phyllo

@statiktech

That method assumes totally subjective criteria, whereas mine doesn’t. We’ve been over this.

I agree that this ain’t going anywhere.

I think of it like this. Wise and virtuous people tend to think what they do for reasons beyond mere subjective opinion. I can examine their reasoning to make sure it is sound and prudent. Even the wise and virtuous aren’t infallible. I mean, Confucius was wise and virtuous, but I don’t particularly want to live like Confucius. And if you’re willing to accept anything posited by people you consider to be wise and virtuous simply because you consider them to be so, you’re bound to repeat their mistakes. What makes someone wise and virtuous, in my opinion, is not just that they say neat things. It’s that what they say pertains to life in profound ways. In other words, they have wise and virtuous reasons to think what they do.

[Only_Humean]

@von Rivers

@Only_Humean

Let’s assume for a moment that “prudence” and “morality” are interchangeable terms, as you propose. The reason you give that it’s immoral to screw a sheep because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral… for the reason that it’s immoral… which is because if other people were to find out they’d think it immoral. So people think acts are immoral because other people would think they’re immoral because other people would think they’re immoral… That’s pretty circular. So why is it immoral?

There’s a reason why fucking a sheep is immoral, if it is immoral. That’s for you to come up with, not me: it’s your example, afterall. That reason why it is immoral is going to be the same reason why it is imprudent. That’s my suspicion. And the reason for why something is immoral isn’t just that other people think it is immoral—as if they had no other reason for thinking so, other than what other people think. I’m not sure why you think there’s any regress at all.

I have suggested why, in the post you’re replying to. I’ve also suggested why it’s imprudent, and that the two aren’t the same.

But after you make an example that I show to be a bad one

You haven’t shown anything to be bad, you presented a circular argument and, by your own admission, no other reason to think it immoral.

And btw, it should strike you as odd if what you are doing is trying to define one of the most famous moral theories (Consequentialism) as prudence. And as for Kantianism, which holds that you are fundamentally a rational being, there’s no doubt that acting according to the Categorical Imperative is what is prudentially good for a being whose fundamental nature is rational—since acting according to the CI just is how you exhibit your rationality.

So prudence is also equivalent to rationality?

[von_Rivers]

@Only_Humean

I have suggested why, in the post you’re replying to. I’ve also suggested why it’s imprudent, and that the two aren’t the same.

They were exactly the same.

You haven’t shown anything to be bad, you presented a circular argument and, by your own admission, no other reason to think it immoral.

I haven’t presented a circular argument, and if you are giving an example of something moral that is not prudent, then it is YOUR JOB to say why it is moral or immoral. Why is that not obvious to you?

So prudence is also equivalent to rationality?

For a Kantian, (again, this was YOUR example), acting according to the CI is the prudent thing to do----because it’s the halmark of a rational being, and you are a rational being.

[iambiguous]

This all sounds strangely familiar.

[Orbie]

Maybe because we’re supposedly “beyond” it? - good and evil that is.

[phyllo]

Wise and virtuous people tend to think what they do for reasons beyond mere subjective opinion. I can examine their reasoning to make sure it is sound and prudent.

I see this as a math student checking the proof given by a master mathematician. Sure the master could have made a mistake but the only way to be sure, that the student has found an error, is to show it to other master mathematicians who will pass judgement on. It is not sufficient for the student to say he has found an error and claim all others are wrong if they disagree with him.

It’s that what they say pertains to life in profound ways. In other words, they have wise and virtuous reasons to think what they do.

Sure. But you are also saying that you don’t trust their reasons since they may be wrong.

You basically need a way to test a wise and virtuous reason. But wisdom and virtue are human activities and the only ones who can judge are other humans.

Now at this point you can bring up consequences. The problem with consequences is that they are hard to predict. The consequences often don’t become obvious until after an action is taken.

Who could predict that someone would commit suicide after a prank call to a hospital?

What are the consequences of marrying someone for money or status?

I think this is one reason we set up moral codes of conduct - to guide people through the muck of uncertainty. We work on general principles. In a particular situation, you can use these principles and experience (prudence) to make a decision. The wisdom of Confucius is always hanging over you as the accepted standard of conduct.