Virtue & Prudence

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:31 pm

anon wrote:You can cut and paste one of them for me. Be generous - I must be dim. I just don't see any reference to bad consequences that come from making a distinction between morality and prudence.


You can find them, since this thread is 2 pages long, and you should be reading your own thread regardless.

My general thesis is that you don't have a coherent conception of either term, once you draw an essential distinction between prudence and morality. An indication of this is that you haven't bothered to define or explain either term. Nor have you given an example that separates them. Nor does your OP even seem to make sense, building as it does from that misguided quote from Wikipedia.

One bad consequence, (that you can start with), is your own confusion.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Orbie » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:07 pm

von Rivers wrote:
anon wrote:You can cut and paste one of them for me. Be generous - I must be dim. I just don't see any reference to bad consequences that come from making a distinction between morality and prudence.


You can find them, since this thread is 2 pages long, and you should be reading your own thread regardless.

My general thesis is that you don't have a coherent conception of either term, once you draw an essential distinction between prudence and morality. An indication of this is that you haven't bothered to define or explain either term. Nor have you given an example that separates them. Nor does your OP even seem to make sense, building as it does from that misguided quote from Wikipedia.

One bad consequence, (that you can start with), is your own confusion.




Distinctions make for clarity. Lack of distinctions confusion. I always thought, realistically, and by common usage, that prudence, simply meant "with caution.". Nowadays its really irrelevant what the intended usage was, language seems to evolve along with everything else. "Virtue", on the other hand simply implies an ideal set of qualities which admirable people seemingly possess.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby phyllo » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:18 pm

I always thought, realistically, and by common usage, that prudence, simply meant "with caution."
vR is using the Ancient Greek definition of prudence.
Aristotle defines phronesis in the following manner:
“ We may grasp the nature of prudence [phronesis] if we consider what sort of people we call prudent. Well, it is thought to be the mark of a prudent man to be able to deliberate rightly about what is good and advantageous . . . But nobody deliberates about things that are invariable . . . So . . . prudence cannot be science [episteme] or art [techne]; not science because what can be done is a variable (it may be done in different ways, or not done at all), and not art because action and production are generically different. For production aims at an end other than itself; but this is impossible in the case of action, because the end is merely doing well. What remains, then, is that it is a true state, reasoned, and capable of action with regard to things that are good or bad for man . . . We consider that this quality belongs to those who understand the management of households or states.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phronesis
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10879
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Orbie » Fri Jan 11, 2013 6:50 pm

Right' in the last paragraph, he refers to prudence as an action. This may hold the key. If it is an action towards doing things which are for the good, then where the distinction arises is where he approaches it from the point of definition as "doing" good, rather then being good, as an idea of what good is. Therefore the effective nature of good is brought out from the good, the virtue, which basically is a definitional problem. What good is it, if it's not acted upon. People may have needed clarification in his time, as to what virtue was, by way of an action to do it.something along those lines, perhaps.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby anon » Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:16 pm

von Rivers wrote:
anon wrote:You can cut and paste one of them for me. Be generous - I must be dim. I just don't see any reference to bad consequences that come from making a distinction between morality and prudence.


You can find them, since this thread is 2 pages long, and you should be reading your own thread regardless.

My general thesis is that you don't have a coherent conception of either term, once you draw an essential distinction between prudence and morality. An indication of this is that you haven't bothered to define or explain either term. Nor have you given an example that separates them. Nor does your OP even seem to make sense, building as it does from that misguided quote from Wikipedia.

One bad consequence, (that you can start with), is your own confusion.

I quoted from Wikipedia to define the term. You can also look it up in the dictionary. My OP clarified the connotations of prudence that are important to the distinction I’m making. Other versions of the distinction are perfectly possible. In my own version, which is pretty traditional, prudence plays a supporting role relative to morality. So prudence is distinguished from both morality and self-serving behavior. These are just conceptual tools – that’s all they are. I have no confusion about this at all, and my OP and the comments of others here are very straightforward. I haven’t studied their posts in order to know if they make the exact same distinction as I do – it doesn’t matter. We make useful distinctions of whatever sort (though none are idiosyncratic) – and you come along and claim these distinctions, necessarily, can have no use. This is extreme hubris and you have made a name for yourself here by infinitely repeating yourself and saying nothing in the process - all with a whole lot of swearing and swagger and jumping up and down thrown into the mix for effect.

Yes, this thread is two (three, now) pages long. I haven’t spotted a single bad consequence stated, that would likely follow from making a distinction between morality and prudence. Please, point out one instance of such a statement. My OP points out a number of bad consequences from not making the distinction that I make. Obviously, the distinction can be made using any words you want – the distinction stands either way. You can call my “prudence”, an aspect of “morality” if you want. It doesn’t matter. If you understand the distinction, if you are referring to something that can be distinguished, then they are not “the same thing”. Your argument is ridiculous.

If you’ve got some unstated reason to abhor the distinction (and you must abhor it, you’re obviously obsessed with it), then you should make that known. Like maybe you think aliens will land and take over if we maintain that such a distinction is an obvious and useful one to make.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Only_Humean » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:44 pm

von Rivers wrote:
Only_Humean wrote:This example doesn't have anything to do with prudent, you're right. The reason it's a good example is because it does have to do with what is moral.

An example that separates prudence from morality, would be an example of something that is one but not the other.


Seriously?

An example that is moral, but has nothing to do with prudence, is an example showing there's a distinction between the two.

1. You need an example, apparently, of something that has bad consequences (i.e., not prudent) but is moral anyways. Or, something that has good consequences, but is immoral)----AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN AN EXAMPLE OF EITHER. Wake up, please. You've been talking about fucking sheep, fucking children, and marrying for money. And if you don't recognize what I've done with your examples, then I can't help you, and you can continue to say, "pfft, he must not have read my post after he hammered my example and made me look silly".


You've not hammered anything, or even addressed my point. Having sex with a sheep makes you feel good and assuming the sheep doesn't undergo serious pain, there are no bad consequences if no-one finds out. I call having sex with sheep immoral. I've said why.

I've done this in three posts and you still haven't understood this or addressed the argument. All you've done is brag and provoke.

2. It is disingenuous of you to argue that you think there is a difference between prudence and morality because some people are Kantians... unless you are a Kantian who is going to defend Kant. As I've already said, I have no doubt that many people think there is a difference between prudence and morality.... what I doubt is that they have coherent conceptions of both terms that really are different.


a) No it's not; if prudence is the same as morality, it's the same. Practically, almost no-one is a pure act consequentialist; similarly, almost no-one (besides maybe Kant) believes that consequences have no bearing on morality.
b) I've repeatedly explained the difference in conceptions (as I see it), and you've repeatedly failed to address it. I won't bother responding to any further posts until you read, understand and address, as I'm not convinced you're reading any further than you need to to type a brag in reply.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Only_Humean » Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:53 pm

statiktech wrote:
Only_Humean wrote: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.


I think informed consent and respect is very prudent. I certainly don't think taking advantage of a little kid for sex is prudent.


Why not? If you have the foresight to see no-one gets hurt, what's wrong with taking advantage of people, using them for your own pleasure? Nothing?

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.


That's not the only criteria that makes things immoral, but I think it's a good reason why having sex with a sheep might be. Why else do you think it is?


I just said, right up there, in the post you're replying to. There.

So for you, "have sex with as many sheep as you like, as long as you don't get caught" is sound moral advice?

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.


Then why not? If we are both happy, what's the problem?


Since you don't think taking advantage of people is immoral, I can see why you would have to ask.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby statiktech » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:34 pm

Only_Humean wrote:Why not? If you have the foresight to see no-one gets hurt, what's wrong with taking advantage of people, using them for your own pleasure? Nothing?


It's terrible practice. Me behaving in that way conveys a message that I think the behavior is acceptable. That might lead to me or my family being taken advantage of. Plus, foresight isn't perfect and I think it prudent to consider a child's lack of foresight. I have no idea what an experience like that would do to a child's development.

So for you, "have sex with as many children as you like, so long as you get your rocks off" is sound moral advice?

I just said, right up there, in the post you're replying to. There.

So for you, "have sex with as many sheep as you like, as long as you don't get caught" is sound moral advice?


I said why else—as in aside from the reason we've already discussed. But, no, I wouldn't think that is good advice, and I already told you why.

Since you don't think taking advantage of people is immoral, I can see why you would have to ask.


I'm not exactly taking advantage of her if she is perfectly happy too. Plus, who's to say I'd necessarily be dishonest about my feelings? And, of course, the aggregate benefit needs to outweigh the cost—not just benefit to me.
"Man is the animal that laughs at himself."
—Robert A Heinlein
User avatar
statiktech
SonOfABitchBastard
 
Posts: 5413
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 8:53 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Fri Jan 11, 2013 11:42 pm

Only_Humean wrote:An example that is moral, but has nothing to do with prudence, is an example showing there's a distinction between the two.


Ohh, you are arguing that having sex with a (i cant say it), or a sheep, is prudent????! I had no idea...

Well, obviously it's not. And if you need me to explain to you why engaging in any number of behaviors that you ought not have, even if you won't get caught, is imprudent, then make your case for why it's prudent first. Frankly, I hope you won't even try. You are claiming something that is patently ridiculous, and you should have to build the case for it---since it's your claim. Your examples are of something both immoral, and imprudent. Wake up, and stop intentionally missing the point.

Having sex with a sheep makes you feel good and assuming the sheep doesn't undergo serious pain, there are no bad consequences if no-one finds out. I call having sex with sheep immoral. I've said why.

I don't know if having sex with a sheep makes you feel good... I'll take your word for it. But I doubt it, especially because sheep can bite and back-kick. It strikes me that having sex with a sheep would be incredibly dangerous and imprudent. Do you have anything more to say about it? Side note about your moral case: you never need consent (for a Kantian) from a being non-rational and incapable of giving consent, or the guardian of one. So there goes your moral case. You'd think building such a case would have been simpler, for you.

I won't bother responding to any further posts until you read, understand and address, as I'm not convinced you're reading any further than you need to to type a brag in reply.

You've given two examples, fucking sheep and fucking... They are both bad examples, and I've explained why. I've also explained why the example of marrying for money is a bad one. You've let that one go to cling to the former two. Fine. To accuse me of not reading your posts just is what is insulting. It's not me, it's you.
Last edited by von Rivers on Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:08 am

anon wrote:I quoted from Wikipedia to define the term. You can also look it up in the dictionary.

The term is from the ancient Greek word, 'phronesis'. That's the important term---from the history of philosophy.

I haven’t spotted a single bad consequence stated, that would likely follow from making a distinction between morality and prudence.

One bad consequence is that you are deeply confused, and careless enough to be ignorant of your confusion. For once, just try answering the question: "Why be moral?". Honestly, how many times do I have to ask?

obe wrote:Distinctions make for clarity. Lack of distinctions confusion.

Good distinctions make for clarity. Bad distinctions cause confusion.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby anon » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:20 am

"One bad consequence is that you are deeply confused"

You still can't answer the question. And, umm, I did talk about "why be moral". You're trolling. There ought to be consequences...
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:07 am

anon wrote:You still can't answer the question. And, umm, I did talk about "why be moral". You're trolling. There ought to be consequences...


The bad consequence is that you cannot answer basic questions, like: "Why should I be moral?", and you do not have a coherent conception of morality, or prudence. And you have not defined each term mutually exclusively. And your confusion leads you to quote Wikipedia, and then ignore the history of philosophy (since, we're doing philosophy, and thus talking about phronesis).

Answer the question: "Why should I be moral?". You have not answered the question, and you have admitted to not reading replies in your own thread. And calling me a 'troll' just is what is trolling.

It should be fucking easy, just fill in the fucking blanks:

Morality is ____________________.
I should be moral because ______________________.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Only_Humean » Sat Jan 12, 2013 8:49 am

vR - since you can't or won't address my distinction and insist on adding snide asides, the conversation is over.

Please take a more civil tone in addressing anon (or others), or a warning will follow. That applies to any public replies to this post.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby anon » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:10 pm

von Rivers wrote:
anon wrote:You still can't answer the question. And, umm, I did talk about "why be moral". You're trolling. There ought to be consequences...


The bad consequence is that you cannot answer basic questions, like: "Why should I be moral?"

Read the OP. That you keep repeating this without any explanation proves that you are trolling, as does the rest of this latest lie-filled post.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:28 pm

anon wrote:Read the OP. That you keep repeating this without any explanation proves that you are trolling, as does the rest of this latest lie-filled post.

Read my first reply---one of the ones that you admitted to not reading. I have read your OP, and you have not answered the question in it. I do not need to give you an explanation of how you have not written something----it's simply not there. Your answer is simply not there. It's not my job to explain how or why something doesn't exist. If you were a serious person, you would simply fill in the blanks.

Only_Humean wrote:vR - since you can't or won't address my distinction and insist on adding snide asides, the conversation is over.
I addressed your claim that fucking sheep is prudent when I told you that they bite and back-kick. It's dangerous and imprudent. I don't feel the need to say anything about your claim about children. You do not have an example of something that is moral but not prudent (or vice versa). That is clear.

You don't have a distinction that generates you a simple counterexample. You just associate Consequentialism with prudence, and Kantianism with morality. But you never justify the comment that there is something you ought (morally) to do independent of consequences. You don't justify that comment, and you're not even a Kantian... so that entire approach is disingenuous on your part. Of course, the moment you try to argue that something is (im)moral independently of the consequences, I'll argue that it isn't... but not before you actually justify and argue for what it is you say.







I am a river.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby anon » Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:40 pm

I never admitted to not reading posts in this thread. Another lie, from a post full of lies.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:10 pm

anon wrote:I never admitted to not reading posts in this thread. Another lie, from a post full of lies.

anon wrote:I haven’t studied their posts in order to know if they make the exact same distinction as I do – it doesn’t matter.


Hence why I'm tired of explaining to you what's wrong with you. You don't read with much care. But if you want, just simply fill in the blanks above.

Fill in the blanks above. It's easy.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby anon » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:13 pm

I read and post with much care - I try to not put words in others' mouths.

You lie, on the other hand - which you just proved for anyone who can read.
"Distraction is the only thing that consoles us for our miseries, and yet it is itself the greatest of our miseries." - Blaise Pascal

"The bombs we plant in each other are ticking away." - Edward Yang

"To a fly that likes the smell of putrid / Meat the fragrance of sandalwood is foul. / Beings who discard Nirvana / Covet coarse Samsara's realm." - Saraha
User avatar
anon
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 8274
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 7:59 pm
Location: In the meantime.

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby von Rivers » Sat Jan 12, 2013 3:16 pm

anon wrote:I read and post with much care - I try to not put words in others' mouths.


I just quoted you as saying you don't read with care. That's clear to anyone who can read.





It's really a simple question... just fill in the blanks.
User avatar
von Rivers
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5792
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 4:24 am

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Only_Humean » Sat Jan 12, 2013 11:04 pm

Thread locked for 24 hours.
Image

The biology of purpose keeps my nose above the surface.
- Brian Eno
User avatar
Only_Humean
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 6194
Joined: Mon Jun 22, 2009 10:53 am
Location: Right here

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby Fixed Cross » Fri Jan 18, 2013 3:49 pm

A morality determines what is right and wrong in general. "Prudence" refers to the measure in which one observes a certain type of morality.
So the concept prudence presupposes morality, the exixstence of moral values.

The wiki-quoted origin of the term prudence in the OP suggests a context of a singular dominant morality. So does the word in general. It is therefore fitting that Mo would equate it with morality, if this is what he does.
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7841
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

Re: Virtue & Prudence

Postby James S Saint » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:06 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:A morality determines what is right and wrong in general. "Prudence" refers to the measure in which one observes a certain type of morality.
So the concept prudence presupposes morality, the exixstence of moral values.

The wiki-quoted origin of the term prudence in the OP suggests a context of a singular dominant morality. So does the word in general. It is therefore fitting that Mo would equate it with morality, if this is what he does.

I think in the States, the word is more of a general term rather than a presumed morality as it has been in Europe.
In the USA, it is more of a "being more careful" or "playing it safe" sort of idea.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Previous

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users