Mole Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I watched the video cost vs benifits and I understood how ideologies that tell people what to do rather than what not to do should not be introduced into. The government seems like the only thing that must exist for violence to exist at a constant, for political power is the capacity to initiate violence. In realm of virtue we should tell ourselves what to do, not only what not to do otherwise there is no virtue. I'm finding it tough to say force which is pointing guns at people is the axis of immorality. So we know how to be morally neutral. It begs the question, how do we be moral? Of course we can give ourselves principles in life to follow which follow reason, it would be nice to think the rest is love, but as defined by Stefan, love is the involuntary reaction to virtue so this is circular. The benefits are completely subjective. I guess religion, politics etc are semantic to subconsciousness and violence. I don't think objectivism can be used in any way with virtue and we have to go with costs vs benifits which are subjective. Philosophy in a free society would only needed to be used to have principles to follow in your own life to be as honest as you possibly can. What is the honest truth?
Pepin Posted February 9, 2015 Posted February 9, 2015 I understand that you want feedback on your ideas, but I am not really sure what you are saying. I think you'd far prefer that people understand your ideas and give good feedback, as opposed to thinking they understand your ideas and give you feedback on a misinterpretation. For instance: I'm finding it tough to say force which is pointing guns at people is the axis of immorality. So we know how to be morally neutral. It begs the question, how do we be moral? I'm not sure exactly what the first statement means and why you are finding it tough. Not exactly how or if the second statement is connected to anything else, or is a new thought or statement. And the third sentence doesn't help because I don't know what question is being begged. I think you might be saying that you aren't sure if unethical behavior is limited to the initiation of force, that we may know how to be ethical, but we don't know how to be virtuous, therefore we are stuck in the realm of moral neutrality, and if being virtuous is dependent upon self direction action and not initiating force is morally neutral as you aren't actually taking self directed action, then what does it mean to be virtuous...but I am not really sure. If it is anything close to that, then there is a bit too much going on in such a small space for someone to really process the argument. Someone might get it after a couple of reads, but on the internet, people are not likely to reread anything. I hope this was helpful.
Recommended Posts