Defining Virtue

[Wesley]

I searched the forum and didn't find a thread devoted to defining virtue, which I think may be a worthwhile venture for two reasons.

1. Love has been defined as an involuntary response to virtue. This definition seems to need at least a working definition of virtue in order to gain completeness as to how love is achieved.

2. UPB may be incomplete in defining morality, which I have heard Stef talk about (I think). Yes, initiating violence makes you evil and not initiating violence is necessary to be good, but it seems incomplete. It also seems slightly disingenuous to put classical virtues into the category of aesthetics. For instance, someone in a coma cannot be evil, but it seems odd to consider them as good when they are doing nothing. My instinct at least is that virtue would be required to achieve goodness in addition to the avoidance of evil.

Definitions of virtue seem to be silly, but here are some dictionary definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue):

vir·tue

[vur-choo] 

noun

1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.

2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.

3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.

4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue.

5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses.

Also here is a LIST OF VIRTUES. These in themselves seem silly and contradictory. For instance, caution and courage, definance and obedience, as well as beauty all appear on the list which seem to not fit my definition, or are seemingly self contradictory.

This then brings up the possibility that maybe evil can be objectively defined, but virtue could be relegated to the area of aethetics, thus making goodnessand love more subjective. This seems fair as not everyone loves the same virtuous people in practicec, but is a bit disconcerting in the attempt to objectively define morality.

Let me know what you think and maybe we can flesh out a definition of virtue. Maybe I also missed something obvious on this where it has already been discussed, so if you could point it out then that would be helpful as well.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

1. Love has been defined as an involuntary response to virtue. This definition seems to need at least a working definition of virtue in order to gain completeness as to how love is achieved.

 

I'm not so sure. Even if you cannot define every possible combination of things that qualify as virtue, you can postulate that love is a response to virtue. Otherwise you would be presenting the case that love can be a response to evil or love can come about as a response to nothing.

First example: I love my captor. (See: Stockholm Syndrome) In the cases where this does happen, it is because I have become convinced that there is some virtue in my captor overriding the fact that they have detained me. I percieve that they could hurt me more if they wanted, but they do not and so (under extreme duress) I mis-interpret this as virtue and respond with a facsimile of love.

Second example: I love lamp. (See: Castaway or Anchorman - a film of moderate comedic value) In this case, I am quite likely imbuing the inanimate object with some kind of virtue due to extreme fatigue or lack of social contact and a desire to find an outlet for my emotion. If not, I am simply misuing the word "love," for the purpose of humor.

So if we are comfortable saying that "love," is a response (full stop). Then it is a response to a virtue (no connotation) or characteristic of something, and the debate centers on whether or not we can response with love to something entirely negative. I would argue, as above, that this is never the case and that there is always a positive virtue (or the perception of it) being rewarded with love (even if the person is mistaken).

 

2. UPB may be incomplete in defining morality, which I have heard Stef talk about (I think). Yes, initiating violence makes you evil and not initiating violence is necessary to be good, but it seems incomplete. It also seems slightly disingenuous to put classical virtues into the category of aesthetics. For instance, someone in a coma cannot be evil, but it seems odd to consider them as good when they are doing nothing. My instinct at least is that virtue would be required to achieve goodness in addition to the avoidance of evil.

 

I don't accurately recall how Stef specifically qualified the corrollary between UPB and virtue, broadly speaking, but I tend to view it as a general litmus test. If you view it as incomplete, I would want to know under what circumstances you think the test fails or yeilds a false positive. My understanding of the man-in-a-coma scenrio is that he is neither evil nor good. He is not actively displaying anything one way or the other. In that sense it requires action to be good or evil.

 

Definitions of virtue seem to be silly, but here are some dictionary definitions (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/virtue):

vir·tue

[vur-choo] 

noun

1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.

 

I belive this is the definition you are working with.

Also here is a LIST OF VIRTUES. These in themselves seem silly and contradictory. For instance, caution and courage, definance and obedience, as well as beauty all appear on the list which seem to not fit my definition, or are seemingly self contradictory.

This then brings up the possibility that maybe evil can be objectively defined, but virtue could be relegated to the area of aethetics, thus making goodnessand love more subjective. This seems fair as not everyone loves the same virtuous people in practicec, but is a bit disconcerting in the attempt to objectively define morality.

Let me know what you think and maybe we can flesh out a definition of virtue. Maybe I also missed something obvious on this where it has already been discussed, so if you could point it out then that would be helpful as well.

 

From the point of view of a moral relativist, and that appears to be what you're loosely defining, everything is subjective. There are no good or bad actions, but simply subjective actions and outcomes that arise from them.

This is actually anathema to the premise of virtue itself, as it quite clearly nullifies any meaning of the word except as a substitute for quality or charactaristic. Furthermore, if virtue is aesthetic and goodness subjective then there is equally no possibility that evil can be objectively defined as evil is the opposite of virtue and a spectrum with only one meaningful end has no measure of real value.

In practice, most people are not always or even usually virtuous in a non-relativistic sense. That isn't to say everyone pursues the inverse of virtue, but many are relativists who reject the notion of virtue or they adopt the supposedly absolute virtue of their culture/religion which can be easily spotted as containing evil if you apply the UBP litmus or even take passing interest in the Non-aggression Principle.

Example: When is rape virtuous? According to UPB, rape can never be virtuous. It is defined as something which is no consented to and thus, always detrimental to one party. If, on the other hand, you are a relativist, then you can only say that you do not like rape. You cannot say the rapist is evil or even that s/he is displaying evil qualities. They are simply acting in a manner that is subjectively displeasing to you. Similarly, if the religious dogmatist is asked about the morality of rape, they would say the rapist is immoral; however, they would have to qualify their statment with "unless god commanded it." Because (and this is how obedience enters in the dictonary list of virtues) abject and unquestioning obedience to authority (in this case god, in other cases: social heirarchy) is of paramount importance. So while they would in most cases condemn rape as being evil, they would not be able to do so in all cases.

Based on the above I find the UBP test for virtue to hold the fewest qualifiers in almost every case. I don't pretend to have tested every limit of UPB, but on the whole it defines non-virtuous or evil actions unequivocally where other means cannot. Sufficed to say, if one is willing to stand on NAP, the more classical definitions or tests for virtue do not work.

 

[Wesley]

I'm not so sure. Even if you cannot define every possible combination of things that qualify as virtue, you can postulate that love is a response to virtue. Otherwise you would be presenting the case that love can be a response to evil or love can come about as a response to nothing.

I was on using Stef's definition (I believe it is located in "On Truth") and it is not particularly relevant to the discussion except to prompt the question I am posting about.

I don't accurately recall how Stef specifically qualified the corrollary between UPB and virtue, broadly speaking, but I tend to view it as a general litmus test. If you view it as incomplete, I would want to know under what circumstances you think the test fails or yeilds a false positive. My understanding of the man-in-a-coma scenrio is that he is neither evil nor good. He is not actively displaying anything one way or the other. In that sense it requires action to be good or evil.

I am proposing that good is not defined as "not evil". Evil is defined, logical and objective, but being not evil doesn't mean you are doing good. Unless someone else wants to define goodness or virtue as "not evil" by which case I would ask for clarification on Stef's definition of love as it seems that anyone who has not comitted initiatory violence would be loved by all.

From the point of view of a moral relativist, and that appears to be what you're loosely defining, everything is subjective. There are no good or bad actions, but simply subjective actions and outcomes that arise from them.

No, I accept UPB and am trying to work toward objective morality. See my original post and earlier in this post for clarification as to my goal. If someone can define it objectively, then that would be fine, but I am asking the question.

Based on the above I find the UBP test for virtue to hold the fewest qualifiers in almost every case. I don't pretend to have tested every limit of UPB, but on the whole it defines non-virtuous or evil actions unequivocally where other means cannot. Sufficed to say, if one is willing to stand on NAP, the more classical definitions or tests for virtue do not work.

This I would like to see virtue defined and run through UPB. I do not think you can define honesty as UPB or kindness, or generosity, or prudence, or any other "classical virtue". UPB in general requires negative assertions rather than positive assertions. Thus, I feel it is great at defining evil, but I am asking as to how one could objectively define good or virtue. If the definition is "not evil", then UPB seems to work. If it is more than that, then I am asking the definition and how we could apply objective standards to it (or not).

[Wesley]

[]rhythm in chat added FDR1867 and FDR1868 and FDR1869 to the conversation as being Stef's series on an introduction to virtue.

He seems to also bring up some of the issues I had and claims that UPB is not sufficient for virtue. 

He claims that (good) philosophy attempts to make virtuous things mainstream by which being courageous for them no longer requires virtue. For instance, it is hardly courageous to stand up against a racist. It is very courageous to stand up against child abuse. Virtue is only present when a good act is abnormal, namely in an advancing way.

I need to go now and will add more when I get to listen to the rest of the podcasts. 

[PatrickC]

In terms of UPB, you need to examine the areas Stefan discusses on aesthetics. Aesthetically Preferable Actions (APA) is how he coins it. UPB is fairly straight forward for most people, but it's within APA that the challenges for enhanced virtue come. Excellent question by the way.

[Rob_Ilir]

Posh version of consistency/predictability/integrity. 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

I am proposing that good is not defined as "not evil". Evil is defined, logical and objective, but being not evil doesn't mean you are doing good. Unless someone else wants to define goodness or virtue as "not evil" by which case I would ask for clarification on Stef's definition of love as it seems that anyone who has not comitted initiatory violence would be loved by all.

 

I would say that a good as negation of evil doesn't make for a clear definition. I don't love strangers with whom I have no contact. Nor do I describe them as "good," unless I am aware of some action they have undertaken. I have to have some kind of neutral nondescript state to apply to something before it is apparent that they have or have not done anything to indicate their good or evil. If my car is sitting in the parking lot and I haven't turned it on in years, I have no idea whether or not it runs. Under those circumstances, I wouldn't be able to say it was a good car or a lemon to someone who wanted to buy it. We would first need to see if the action of turning the key in the ignition produced the desired outcome of the engine turning over.

 

No, I accept UPB and am trying to work toward objective morality. See my original post and earlier in this post for clarification as to my goal. If someone can define it objectively, then that would be fine, but I am asking the question.

 

I was merely charactarizing the definition you were putting forward there. I, of course, have no idea what you actually believe.

 

This I would like to see virtue defined and run through UPB. I do not think you can define honesty as UPB or kindness, or generosity, or prudence, or any other "classical virtue". UPB in general requires negative assertions rather than positive assertions. Thus, I feel it is great at defining evil, but I am asking as to how one could objectively define good or virtue. If the definition is "not evil", then UPB seems to work. If it is more than that, then I am asking the definition and how we could apply objective standards to it (or not).

 

I think the trouble you're having is that you are comparing diffirent parts of speech with a device that is indended for verbs. If you are generally kind to people, you are obviously not doing evil, and that is a virtue. Prudence is just showing that you were careful in thinking through whatever it is you did. That could be someting good or something evil. Generosity is a little subjective for my taste, but against you'd have to fit it into a thought containing some verb to see.

I would say in general virtue is an action that is not evil by UPB; however, it does not apply to naked descriptors with no context. Red is not good or evil. Neither is prudence. They're just ways of decribing actions or actors. So before you get too hung up on the literal meaning of things, take a moment to examine why you think that inert words and objects need to have inherent good or evil in the first place. I think you'll find that condition is unnecessary.

[DaisyAnarchist]

So if we are comfortable saying that "love," is a response (full stop). Then it is a response to a virtue (no connotation) or characteristic of something, and the debate centers on whether or not we can response with love to something entirely negative. I would argue, as above, that this is never the case and that there is always a positive virtue (or the perception of it) being rewarded with love (even if the person is mistaken).

Is there an objective basis though? It seems like you're saying one way to understand the terms love and virtue is that love is always a response to virtue, even if just subjectively. But I'm not sure I understand you. 

I guess it would make sense if you're saying most people are not objectively virtuous? But what is it to be objectively virtuous? 

[Wesley]

 

In terms of UPB, you need to examine the areas Stefan discusses on aesthetics. Aesthetically Preferable Actions (APA) is how he coins it. UPB is fairly straight forward for most people, but it's within APA that the challenges for enhanced virtue come. Excellent question by the way.

 

I do understand that that is where it currently resides. I also believe that Stef has expressed some dislike for this and that it seems dispariging to classic forms of goodness or virtue. This may be because it is impossible to define an objective "UPB good", or because it hasn't been thought of yet. 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

Is there an objective basis though? It seems like you're saying one way to understand the terms love and virtue is that love is always a response to virtue, even if just subjectively. But I'm not sure I understand you. 

I guess it would make sense if you're saying most people are not objectively virtuous? But what is it to be objectively virtuous? 

 

If you accept that UPB can resolve whether or not an action can be virtuous, then you have an objective means of determining wheter or not some (most?) actions are virtuous. When it comes to love, I think that the situation isn't so cut and dry since we can be coerced or simply mistaken in our interpretation of something as virtuous. I would say love indicates someone may be acting virtuously, or may have done something virtuous at some point, but it is no promise of someone who is always or even mostly acting virtuously.

A woman who is highly effective at work and a great mother to her children would probably be widely loved as a result of her virtue there, but she might also strangle hobos on weekends, unbeknownst to anyone around her, and that would not be virtuous. Many politicans are widely loved and fawned over for their "generous," approprations of national tax money to their local districts, but that does not make their theft a virtue. It just means their fans are unwilling or unable to see the lack of virtue in their procurement of the funding. So again, I would say that one has to examine every action in order to determine virtue at that point in time.

What it is to always be objectively virtuous? I suppose that would entail acting in a way that was consistent with virtue in every action you undertook. How you could do that in present society is beyond me. Most of the time your decision to act in a perfectly virtuous way is going to be thwarted by the state, some social dogma, or the threat of one/both.

[PatrickC]

 

 

In terms of UPB, you need to examine the areas Stefan discusses on aesthetics. Aesthetically Preferable Actions (APA) is how he coins it. UPB is fairly straight forward for most people, but it's within APA that the challenges for enhanced virtue come. Excellent question by the way.

 

I do understand that that is where it currently resides. I also believe that Stef has expressed some dislike for this and that it seems dispariging to classic forms of goodness or virtue. This may be because it is impossible to define an objective "UPB good", or because it hasn't been thought of yet. 

 

Hey Snipes, I was wondering if you might be able to point me towards Stefs critcisms of APA. I am personally unfamiliar, unless I overlooked something.

[Wesley]

 

Hey Snipes, I was wondering if you might be able to point me towards Stefs critcisms of APA. I am personally unfamiliar, unless I overlooked something.

 

I remember it as an off-hand comment at some point. There is almost no way I would be able to find it, so I will rescind the claim and instead proposition it myself. I still need to review APA and make sure I know what is going on, but my understanding is that it is entirely subjective. Thus goodness (as long as everyone follows UPB) is subjective. This means that (according to the virtue list) someone who is generous and someone who is selfish could both be good by different people's standards. Someone who is obedient and someone who is defiant could both be good by different people's standards. Unless some of these are not able to be defined as virtues, it seems that goodness is highly subjective. This is a little bit of a wrinkle in the effort to logically set up morality.

However, objective virtues would not make sense in the face of the definition of love that is used. Then, a handful of people would be loved by everyone and all else would not be loved. 

Thus, I am asking for clarification and definition and trying to see if there is a way to define virtue. If only so that I cannot say that being a rollover is not a virtue or being a snob is not a virtue. Maybe virtuousness cannot be made objective, but can be made more refined in scope such that it is not entirely arbitrary.

Finally, there is always the nod to old philosophy (which easily could be entirely wrong as they have been with, say, the state). In which it would seem that we shouldnt be able to overturn the old ideas of goodness and virtue without at least having a solid case to do so. My understanding was that they were in the goodness being subjective, but generally resides in this list of 10 arbitrary virtues or so. This is pretty poor, and I am hoping something better can be done, but maybe that is the best we can some up with now.

[PatrickC]

 

I remember it as an off-hand comment at some point. There is almost no way I would be able to find it, so I will rescind the claim and instead proposition it myself. I still need to review APA and make sure I know what is going on, but my understanding is that it is entirely subjective. Thus goodness (as long as everyone follows UPB) is subjective. This means that (according to the virtue list) someone who is generous and someone who is selfish could both be good by different people's standards. Someone who is obedient and someone who is defiant could both be good by different people's standards. Unless some of these are not able to be defined as virtues, it seems that goodness is highly subjective. This is a little bit of a wrinkle in the effort to logically set up morality.

However, objective virtues would not make sense in the face of the definition of love that is used. Then, a handful of people would be loved by everyone and all else would not be loved. 

Thus, I am asking for clarification and definition and trying to see if there is a way to define virtue. If only so that I cannot say that being a rollover is not a virtue or being a snob is not a virtue. Maybe virtuousness cannot be made objective, but can be made more refined in scope such that it is not entirely arbitrary.

Finally, there is always the nod to old philosophy (which easily could be entirely wrong as they have been with, say, the state). In which it would seem that we shouldn't be able to overturn the old ideas of goodness and virtue without at least having a solid case to do so. My understanding was that they were in the goodness being subjective, but generally resides in this list of 10 arbitrary virtues or so. This is pretty poor, and I am hoping something better can be done, but maybe that is the best we can some up with now.

Yes, I was under the impression that APA was more an explanation of where virtue came from, but that it does indeed become highly subjective and often dependent on mitigating factors. This makes it hopelessly unscientific of course, which I think Stefan may have alluded too in a podcast (way back 2010 if I recall right). Which might seem to echo some of your thoughts on it perhaps.

An interesting conundrum I faced whilst trying to better understand UPB in terms of APA was a situation in which a person came across an accident victim of a hit and run incidence. I imagined it (wrongly) to be a UPB violation for this person to ignore this victim and carry on with their business, when actually it was just an opportunity to show virtue, an APA action. People would be rightly suspicious, even outraged (if the victim died) of such a person, even though they had not violated UPB.

I guess virtue comes down to having a deep empathy and using that skill for a strong sense of efficacy with oneself and the people we meet and integrate with. I know that doesn't necessarily answer your question about objectivity. It's just been my own experience as I've become more empathic myself.

[DoubtingThomas]

This means that (according to the virtue list) someone who is generous and someone who is selfish could both be good by different people's standards.

I don't think their standards necessarily matter. What matters is the perception of goodness. If you percieve something a completely derranged person has done to be a good thing for yourself, you could interpret that as virtue, but it would not be objectively good and you would be mistaken just as in the case of the captive who sees their tormentor as good because they are not actively being punished in the worst possible way they can think of.

However, objective virtues would not make sense in the face of the definition of love that is used. Then, a handful of people would be loved by everyone and all else would not be loved.

Objective virtue only makes sense if you confine it to actions validated by UPB. In that sense almost nobody is acting virtuously all the time and scarcely anyone can be objectively worthy of love by a lot of people. That seems to match reality as far as I can tell.

Thus, I am asking for clarification and definition and trying to see if there is a way to define virtue. If only so that I cannot say that being a rollover is not a virtue or being a snob is not a virtue. Maybe virtuousness cannot be made objective, but can be made more refined in scope such that it is not entirely arbitrary.

Virtue as an adjective doesn't make sense because it can only be judged through actions, but I don't agree that calls objectivity into question because we have UPB to test those actions.

Finally, there is always the nod to old philosophy (which easily could be entirely wrong as they have been with, say, the state). In which it would seem that we shouldnt be able to overturn the old ideas of goodness and virtue without at least having a solid case to do so. My understanding was that they were in the goodness being subjective, but generally resides in this list of 10 arbitrary virtues or so. This is pretty poor, and I am hoping something better can be done, but maybe that is the best we can some up with now.

I think there is plenty of evidence on which to overturn classical philosphy in this case. Firstly, a long and troublesome history of violence and obvious ignobility on the part of socieities that adhered to those virtues. Secondly, the complete lack of empiricism within the old supposed calculus of virtue. To say that some supposed human charactar trait like "obedience," for-example, is a virtue, seems completley nonsenseical. When following an order would certainly lead to an evil act like murder, rape, or theft, then the quality of obedience is immediately negative. Conversely, obedience to NAP would be a situation when it is positive. So again, all turns on the axis of action, specifically human action. I don't think any discussion of morality will ever make sense if you try to divorce it from that platform.

[PatrickC]

To say that some supposed human charactar trait like "obedience," for-example, is a virtue, seems completley nonsenseical.

Just to be an annoying devils advocate DT. Being obedient to a well established authority that gave great insight and empirical evidence that improved a persons life, say like nutrition. Then you could argue that obedience was a virtue, or at least led to a virtuous act. However, perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of the definition of the term here somewhat. []

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

To say that some supposed human charactar trait like "obedience," for-example, is a virtue, seems completley nonsenseical.

Just to be an annoying devils advocate DT. Being obedient to a well established authority that gave great insight and empirical evidence that improved a persons life, say like nutrition. Then you could argue that obedience was a virtue, or at least led to a virtuous act. However, perhaps I'm pushing the boundaries of the definition of the term here somewhat. /emoticons/emotion-2.gif

 

 

Yes, but again, that is obedience in part of an action. That is, you used your better judgement of who constituted an authority on nutrition. You were acting in the best interests of your own health. That we can put through UPB and see to be a virtuous action.

Conversely, if you are simply describing yourself as an "obedient," person, then you have no actions in the sentence that are testable by UPB. It is only with the inclusion of the action that you have a testable hypothesis that something is UPB.

[PatrickC]

Conversely, if you are simply describing yourself as an "obedient," person, then you have no actions in the sentence that are testable by UPB. It is only with the inclusion of the action that you have a testable hypothesis that something is UPB.

Yes, I certainly agree with you here. I was probably being facitious with my earlier point.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

 

Yes, I certainly agree with you here. I was probably being facitious with my earlier point.

 

I think you pressed on a salient point that a lot here are still hung up on, so I appreciate the provocation.

[Wesley]

What if someone is dying in a burning car. One man runs away for fear that they will be killed themselves. Another man tries to save the dying person. 

Both of these people could be determined as virtuous by people with different standards.

I could say the runner was safe, cautious, and he went home to his family. This self interest bought his children years without a dead father and this makes him a virtuous man because he was safe for what was really important.

The saver I could say was courageous and kind. When there was a burning car he ran towards it to try and save someone's life regardless of his own safety, and this is an example of virtue.

These both seem to be actions that could be judged. They also seem to be opposites of sorts. Can they both be virtue? 

 

[DoubtingThomas]

 

What if someone is dying in a burning car. One man runs away for fear that they will be killed themselves. Another man tries to save the dying person. 

Both of these people could be determined as virtuous by people with different standards.

I could say the runner was safe, cautious, and he went home to his family. This self interest bought his children years without a dead father and this makes him a virtuous man because he was safe for what was really important.

The saver I could say was courageous and kind. When there was a burning car he ran towards it to try and save someone's life regardless of his own safety, and this is an example of virtue.

These both seem to be actions that could be judged. They also seem to be opposites of sorts. Can they both be virtue? 

 

 

I would say they were both acting virtuously because neither of them could be judged as evil for not risking their own life to save someone else. You could say that the runner wasn't "heroic," for example, but I don't think you could say that anyone who isn't readily laying down their own life for anyone else is doing something wrong unless they had contractually obligated themselves to protect that other person with their own life.

Now from the point of view of the relative of the burning car victim, the runner could be viewed as not being virtuous, but that would simply be their own emotional reaction and not a rational judgement of virtue. I look at that case in the same way I view the captive with stockholme syndrome. They are seeing, in this case, evil where there is none because they are so emotionally invested in the victim that they didn't bother to consider the risk of death to the man who fled.

So yes, I would say that from the UPB point of view these are both virtuous actions.

[PatrickC]

What if someone is dying in a burning car. One man runs away for fear that they will be killed themselves. Another man tries to save the dying person. 

Both of these people could be determined as virtuous by people with different standards.

I could say the runner was safe, cautious, and he went home to his family. This self interest bought his children years without a dead father and this makes him a virtuous man because he was safe for what was really important.

The saver I could say was courageous and kind. When there was a burning car he ran towards it to try and save someone's life regardless of his own safety, and this is an example of virtue.

These both seem to be actions that could be judged. They also seem to be opposites of sorts. Can they both be virtue?

Well you have embellished on my original thought experiment by adding a burning car. However, I think you've highlighted rather well the mitigating circumstances that can change the outcome considerably. An act of bravery like the one you describe, if poorly judged, could very well become an act of stupidity. People are not going to think any less of you, if you judged that situation as too dangerous and called for emergency services instead. At least rational people won't.

EDIT - Virtue isn't solely dependent on how we just treat others, it's also how we treat ourselves I think.

[Wesley]

Well I think Stef (and maybe others on this site) has said that virtue would require things like honesty and courage. However, in the light of examples like these it would be his own personal preference and I could make up weird situations that portray the opposites as virtue through the eyes of another person. Thus, virtue is completely subjective and if anyone makes a claim to virtue, it is irrelevant as virtue could be achieved by any action and its opposite (as long as it doesn't violate UPB).

Thus, my love would be a subjective response to the arbitrary virtues that I hold dear, while someone else could love someone with the opposite virtues being displayed. 

[PatrickC]

Well I think Stef (and maybe others on this site) has said that virtue would require things like honesty and courage. However, in the light of examples like these it would be his own personal preference and I could make up weird situations that portray the opposites as virtue through the eyes of another person. Thus, virtue is completely subjective and if anyone makes a claim to virtue, it is irrelevant as virtue could be achieved by any action and its opposite (as long as it doesn't violate UPB).

Thus, my love would be a subjective response to the arbitrary virtues that I hold dear, while someone else could love someone with the opposite virtues being displayed.

I broadly agree that virtue can and often is subjective. Honesty and courage being a bedrock of course. But as I said earlier, I think that developing our skills with empathy can help inform us better. Whether that means we all experience virtue differently, well I'm not entirely convinced. But since it can't be scientifically explained, I guess I remain agnostic on that point for now.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Well I think Stef (and maybe others on this site) has said that virtue would require things like honesty and courage. However, in the light of examples like these it would be his own personal preference and I could make up weird situations that portray the opposites as virtue through the eyes of another person. Thus, virtue is completely subjective and if anyone makes a claim to virtue, it is irrelevant as virtue could be achieved by any action and its opposite (as long as it doesn't violate UPB).

 

Except the fact that both actions can be virtuous does not make it subjective. I was careful to explain why the mother mouning the loss of her son in the car fire would NOT be correct in saying the runner's inaction was evil or not virtuous because a rational UPB examination of his actions objectively shows that he was virtuous to consider his own life. Similarly the family of the man who was concerned about his rescue attempt of a stranger in a car crash is going to have a hard time with a rational UPB asessment of their own situation since they will likely not account for the life of the man in the car. Still, that does not make the would-be hero's action non-virtuous.

So you have two actions, both of which are objectively virtuous. That does not make virtue itself subjective. Rather it reenforces the point that actions are what render objective virtue. When two truths are not mutually exclusive, there is nothing untrue about the statement that both are objective facts. In this case, UPB clearly states that these two actions are both virtuous and not mutually exclusive.

 

Thus, my love would be a subjective response to the arbitrary virtues that I hold dear, while someone else could love someone with the opposite virtues being displayed. 

 

While your love is a subjective response, it is not toward arbitrary values because love is a response to objective virtues. You can be mistaken about a virtuous action because of incomplete information, duress, or bias, but you aren't ever going to be in a situation where you are loving someone for the opposite of an objective virtue.

[TheRobin]

Something that I have trouble understanding is: why is courage considered a virtue?The way I understand courage, it means that one does something despite the fear or anxiety that is provoked and felt by doing it.If that is an accurate enough definition then, the reason I have trouble understanding why it's a vritue could probably best be explained by the following example.Assume a person A and person B. Both do some identical action that helps someone. Person A feels quite some anxiety doing it and for him it takes some courage to actually do the action. While Person B does it without any anxiety and as such would need no courage. So, if the outcome and the behaviour is the same, how can one say the one person has acted more couragously (and more virtously) because he was more anxious?

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Something that I have trouble understanding is: why is courage considered a virtue?

The way I understand courage, it means that one does something despite the fear or anxiety that is provoked and felt by doing it.

 

I would say it was a "classical virtue," because those dictating what
was vitrue at that point in time where the ruling class who wanted to
see obedience and courage among the followers to save state interests.

If that is an accurate enough definition then, the reason I have trouble understanding why it's a vritue could probably best be explained by the following example.

Assume a person A and person B. Both do some identical action that helps someone. Person A feels quite some anxiety doing it and for him it takes some courage to actually do the action. While Person B does it without any anxiety and as such would need no courage.

So, if the outcome and the behaviour is the same, how can one say the one person has acted more couragously (and more virtously) because he was more anxious?

 

I don't see any reason to suppose it an evil or a non-virtue to act without regard to one's anxieties for another person. It's a risk asessment like any other, it just has higher stakes. If you were to suppose the actor as being aware of the outcome with certainty then you could say tha they were being suicidal, but nobody has that knoweldge. Again, in terms of classical virtues, I think they're all nonsense since none of them are testable/actionable verb/adverb. In terms of UPB; however, I think it is possible to say that one who acts with "courage," can be virtuous just as well as someone who does not act in such a manner can be virtuous.

Summarily I would say that "courage," is optional. It's like trying to say that risky investments are good or bad. Risky investments are high risk, high reward. If someone wants to risk their life savings on a gamble, good for them. I wouldn't think that to be prudent, but I recognize self-ownership and their right to make that bet. They're aware of the consequences either way. To insist that any unnecessary risk is a moral hazard would be to undermine investment without a degree of certainty that none of us can obtain.

[PatrickC]

Something that I have trouble understanding is: why is courage considered a virtue?

The way I understand courage, it means that one does something despite the fear or anxiety that is provoked and felt by doing it.

This is a good point Robin, which perhaps points to some of the subjectivity around the topic. Courage in a situation in which you faced retribution in the past, but now are able to carefully assess the situation rationally, is I think an act of personal virtue. Courage diving into a burning car might well be an act of recklessness.

EDIT - This is why I consider empathy a key skill in attaining virtue.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Something that I have trouble understanding is: why is courage considered a virtue?

The way I understand courage, it means that one does something despite the fear or anxiety that is provoked and felt by doing it.

This is a good point Robin, which perhaps points to some of the subjectivity around the topic. Courage in a situation in which you faced retribution in the past, but now are able to carefully assess the situation rationally, is I think an act of personal virtue. Courage diving into a burning car might well be an act of stupidity.

 

I don't think so. Consider the situation of the venture capitalist. They're asessing a situation with far too many variables to accurately calculate their risks. Of course they do try to make a best-guess at it, but they know it's a gamble. If we define "courage," as overcoming anxiety related to uncertainty then the venture capitalist is "courageous," in his investment with a no-name firm. We don't say that they're stupid for putting half a million dollars into a random start-up so why would we say that a person who could potentially reap the gratitude of a person who's life was saved from certain-death is similarly making a malinvestment of his person?

Not that I think it's always an act of virtue to go marching into burning buildings in the hopes of rescuing a greatful victim, but if we can't percieve that extreme risks can create positive outcomes we're essentially framing all investment as a folly.

[PatrickC]

I don't think so. Consider the situation of the venture capitalist. They're asessing a situation with far too many variables to accurately calculate their risks. Of course they do try to make a best-guess at it, but they know it's a gamble. If we define "courage," as overcoming anxiety related to uncertainty then the venture capitalist is "courageous," in his investment with a no-name firm. We don't say that they're stupid for putting half a million dollars into a random start-up so why would we say that a person who could potentially reap the gratitude of a person who's life was saved from certain-death is similarly making a malinvestment of his person?

Not that I think it's always an act of virtue to go marching into burning buildings in the hopes of rescuing a greatful victim, but if we can't percieve that extreme risks can create positive outcomes we're essentially framing all investment as a folly.

This is an interesting point, except a venture capatalist will always have hedged his or her bets. They will only assign a portion, say 10% of their total capital to such a risk. But their experience will tell them (at least a succesful venture capaitalist), that they have laid bets that will mean that some of those bets will pay off. Venture capitalism is a well calculated risk. Angel investing is perhaps more riskier even, but the same rules apply I think. Again, if I have no experience of venture capitalism and losing my investment (100%), then why I am in the business? It would seem for those that are and in this poistion of arbitrary loss, lack empathy for themselves I think.

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Venture capitalism is a well calculated risk. Angel investing is perhaps more riskier even, but the same rules apply I think. Again, if I have no experience of venture capitalism and losing my investment (100%), then why I am in the business? It would seem for those that are and in this poistion of arbitrary loss, lack empathy for themselves I think.

 

I anticipated that response, but I didn't go into enough detail to allay the concern, so point well taken.

I'll have to think about this over lunch.

[TDB]

 

UPB is fairly straight forward for most people

 

I have struggled with the UPB book. You are one of three people I know of who claim to understand it. Can you please give me the elevator pitch version? If it does not belong in this thread, please start a new thread or email me or comment on my feeble UPB FAQ attempt at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html.

[PatrickC]

Just to point out of course, that I may have no experience of diving into a fire. However, if I had been trained as a fireman, I may be able to calculate the risk better. Much like an experienced venture capitalist, who may well lose 50% of his investment, but his experience allowed him to earn a 1000% profit overall on the other 50%. Of course one has to put into perpective, that the loss of life (father or husband), is a far worse calamity than losing 10% of ones overall capital.

[PatrickC]

 

 

UPB is fairly straight forward for most people

 

I have struggled with the UPB book. You are one of three people I know of who claim to understand it. Can you please give me the elevator pitch version? If it does not belong in this thread, please start a new thread or email me or comment on my feeble UPB FAQ attempt at http://brimpossible.blogspot.com/2013/01/upb-faq.html.

Here is a great blog that attempts to break down UPB rather well, that frankly explains UPB better than Stef even.. No offense intended Stef []

Economics Junkie is a member on the boards as well.

http://www.economicsjunkie.com/universally-preferable-behaviour-a-rational-proof-of-secular-ethics/

[DoubtingThomas]

 

Just to point out of course, that I may have no experience of diving into a fire. However, if I had been trained as a fireman, I may be able to calculate the risk better. Much like an experienced venture capitalist, who may well lose 50% of his investment, but his experience allowed him to earn a 1000% profit overall on the other 50%. Of course one has to put into perpective, that the loss of life (father or husband), is a far worse calamity than losing 10% of ones overall capital.

 

I'm inclined to think that's a valid analogy, but I don't think that we have to presume a profesisonal level of risk asessment in order to have someone make a UPB action either way. To the best of my knowledge a young and inexperienced investor may see their only shot at getting into the business being a very risky investment. Similarly, for the would-be hero, there's the chance they think the loss of this person's life is a more significant impact on their family than their own, odd as that might sound. There are calculations of risk that cannot be quantified too. Perhaps they genuinely feel empathy for a stranger and it warps their risk calculation?

I think we should be careful assigning so much value to what few variables we can present as well known to the actor as opposed to that which are likely being considered at the spur of the moment, when the decision to help is made. Perhaps we need a bit more detail in our scenario to flesh this out?

[PatrickC]

I'm inclined to think that's a valid analogy, but I don't think that we have to presume a profesisonal level of risk asessment in order to have someone make a UPB action either way. To the best of my knowledge a young and inexperienced investor may see their only shot at getting into the business being a very risky investment. Similarly, for the would-be hero, there's the chance they think the loss of this person's life is a more significant impact on their family than their own, odd as that might sound. There are calculations of risk that cannot be quantified too. Perhaps they genuinely feel empathy for a stranger and it warps their risk calculation?

I think we should be careful assigning so much value to what few variables we can present as well known to the actor as opposed to that which are likely being considered at the spur of the moment, when the decision to help is made. Perhaps we need a bit more detail in our scenario to flesh this out?

Just to be clear, none of what I said has anything to do with UPB. They only relate to APA.