- Jun 3, 2022
- Reaction score
A few questions:
My personal view is also that comprehensive moral systems are foolish, though I look at it that there are 'nodes' of virtue, or 'archetypes' of it. These different points don't necessarily agree - a Prince and Pauper may have their virtues but overlap they do not and this will produce conflict eventually and there can't be any logical discourse to reconcile these views since to both they are doing what is right, really and truly and not merely seemingly.
- What is it that they are free to become? They aren't free to become essentially 'antisocial elements' which is understandable enough, but what is the social body supposed to become?
- The worst evils are indeed done by those who are able to morally justify their actions, but can't the reverse also be said? Can't it be said that acts of benevolence and humanity are also justified upon moral grounds?
- i don't know, obviously. ultimately it's up to god or nature, however you want to think of it. the *imposition* of an abstract moral vision by people of limited understanding will not end well. whatever comes must come naturally. trying to control people, beyond the personal confines of your own behavior and relationships, is hubris. the antidote to hubris is humility: moral reasoning based on speculation and abstractions gives you no right to decide for other people, or to constrain their ability to decide for themselves. they are their own birthright.
- absolutist moral ideas are not necessary for common benevolence. on the other hand, it seems to me they are necessary for enormities like the inquisition or the holocaust: without the distortion that comes from having ideas you're not allowed to reflect on, no one would be able to convince themselves that such destructive actions were justified; their natural moral faculty would simply rebel. is it possible that insane morality based on rules and abstractions could produce "higher highs" than the sane kind, as well as lower lows? i guess that's conceivable, but it can't be expected to do so reliably, and intuitively i would expect actions undertaken on rotten foundations to come out bad in the end.
but hearing and heeding the voice of your heart takes constant effort and attention, and a perpetual willingness to weigh your preconceptions against the reality in front of you. it's much easier to say: "this book or that book has the answers; conviction, or the performance of conviction, is the essence of right; compromise and growth are nihilistic degeneracy!" that lessens the burden on the individual, and then also other people, who are also confused and overwhelmed by the responsibility of constantly having to seek goodness, find that confidence attractive, and will praise you and agree with you, and suddenly you have a religion or comprehensive ideology that thinks its abstractions are more important than life, and starts beheading infidels or setting up labor camps for dissidents.
that's edifying. i like the list from galatians: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.Seven deadly sins
Seven cardinal virtues
What do you guys think of these? A lot of people know the sins these days but do not know the virtues.
on that note @Outer Heaven i'm sorry for trolling you because of your religion. i'd like to understand why you think having "convictions" as you call them is intrinsically better than not.
Virtual Cafe Awards