vR is using the Ancient Greek definition of prudence.
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.
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.
Seriously?
An example that is moral, but has nothing to do with prudence, is an example showing there’s a distinction between the two.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Since you don’t think taking advantage of people is immoral, I can see why you would have to ask.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The term is from the ancient Greek word, ‘phronesis’. That’s the important term—from the history of philosophy.
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?
Good distinctions make for clarity. Bad distinctions cause confusion.
“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…
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 ______________________.
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.
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.
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.
I never admitted to not reading posts in this thread. Another lie, from a post full of lies.
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.
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.
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.
Thread locked for 24 hours.
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.