[lit-ideas] Re: virtue-practical example of being taught

  • From: Paul Stone <pas@xxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 00:22:13 -0500

At 04:41 PM 1/1/2006, you wrote: 

Paul Stone wrote:

Muslim extremists would agree with the boy scouts. Which goes to show that 'virtuous' actions are in the eye of the
beholder.

Are they? I mean, just like that?if I think an action is 'virtuous' (no prior account of virtue having been given), it's virtuous? What is there about the concept of virtuous action that makes it behave this way? 'They have a different concept of x,' is a dangerous starting place. Does, can, x just range over any conceivable state of affairs? 

NO... that's not what I'm saying.

'Their concept of a right triangle is entirely different from ours; for them a right triangle is a set of points on a plane equidistant from a single point.' 'For them, a widow is a man whose nephew just got married.' 'For them, fairness consists in giving all the available, potentially shareable stuff, to just one person, who doesn't need it.' Etc. 

The third one, possibly ;-)

I mean doesn't a case have to be made (1) that 'virtue' is such an elastic, loosey-goosey concept, and (2) that we're justified in thinking that we can identify it so that we can see that 'they' apply it differently?

Again, I'm talking about the word "virtuous". What is virtuous to a nazi -- stuff like, um, let see now, contributing to the 'final solution' is probably not so 'virtuous' in the eyes of the victims. But it [the word virtuous] can still mean the same thing -- something like possibly "conforming to a standard that is expected by like-minded individuals" or some such statement, I'm sure others can do much better.

As I said earlier, you can't define a quality by listing some things that are of that quality in some situations, because they don't necessarily define that quality in most other situations. I was noting that Marlena's listing of certain 'virtues' that portions of the US and possible a few other countries might consider to be 'good' -- and therefore in the common nomenclature, labelled "virtuous" was not going to really get us any closer to defining, for Bill Ball, what the hell virtue means.

Morality is not etiquette. I think Empedocles said that.

Etiquette is sometimes derived from social mores. But I agree that morality isn't etiquette. Of course, the question must be asked where does etiquette (being "polite" when you bump into someone) become morality (admitting it's assault if one pushes someone out of their personal space unapologetically)?

p





------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. lit-ideas
  3. Archive
  4. 01-2006