Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

I know you believe that. I don’t.

Still, whether I agree with it or not, I would not intend to cause you pain. Or anyone on here. And I’ve said it before, but if I do cause someone pain with my words, I want someone to let ms know, and I would apologize and not do it anymore.

Just because I don’t believe in a universal standard of decency, doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have feelings.....which seems like what you’re telling me.

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

Because people are social animals, and we generally strive to have better relationships with each other.

Group cohesion is something that kept humans alive.

I am not saying that anyone should apologize. As a human who has empathy, I would apologize for my hurtful words or behavior, because that’s what I would like from someone else.

 

[ricechickie]

I wouldn’t have expected you to rationalize it any other way, bro.

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

My world doesn’t revolve around you. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Choose wisely.

Your choices led you to obsessing over GT posts on the internet, making cringey posts youve had to delete and a literal begging for an argument with someone whose given you the no thanks now dozens of times. Seems reasonable.

I want to know about the cringey post!

 

[G.T.]

Your expectations are as dingerred as your ciggy breath. I saw that cringe post you deleted, too obsessed much?

It sounds like you are the one obsessing. I’m sorry you don’t have logical arguments you can use to refute mine.

No problem, you will keep trying by going back to posts youve long since passed and obsessing to argue like usual...and my offer stands that anyone else can take up for your claims and I'll handle it. You, though? No, I just have no respect for you Dingdong.

My world doesn’t revolve around you. At any point in your life you are the sum of your choices. Choose wisely.

Your choices led you to obsessing over GT posts on the internet, making cringey posts youve had to delete and a literal begging for an argument with someone whose given you the no thanks now dozens of times. Seems reasonable.

I want to know about the cringey post!

it was something about how i rationalize being rude to mindful because i think shes a bad person or some short sighted crappola

naw, i started flaming her once she started flaming me, initially, and not a moment b4 like i always do.

 

[ricechickie]

So who reported Ropey? Or did some mod just take a stroll here and preemptively remove his post?

 

[G.T.]

So who reported Ropey? Or did some mod just take a stroll here and preemptively remove his post?

i didnt see anything with ropey..i dunno, lol

 

[Votto]

No offense and I do not wish to cause you pain but I think you pay lip service to what you just wrote.

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.

So being good means not offending people? Then Jesus was not that good since he seemed to upset pretty much everyone.

Really, there is no way not to offend someone, especially if they are wrong.

And no, saying your sorry when the other person is wrong is not good. It is akin to fueling their self deception.

That is why the teachings of Christ were so offensive. He shed light into the darkness of our souls. As Mark Twain once said, I'm not so much concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible, it's what I do understand that concerns me.

Once the truth is revealed, we have the option of rejecting or accepting it. Either way, the truth hurts but it's better than being self deluded.

 

[ricechickie]

So who reported Ropey? Or did some mod just take a stroll here and preemptively remove his post?

i didnt see anything with ropey..i dunno, lol

I was rereading this thread because I get a bit compulsive like that, and I liked a few of the arguments used.

One of his posts is missing. Maybe more.

 

[G.T.]

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.

So being good means not offending people? Then Jesus was not that good since he seemed to upset pretty much everyone.

Really, there is no way not to offend someone, especially if they are wrong.

And no, saying your sorry when the other person is wrong is not good. It is akin to fueling their self deception.

That is why the teachings of Christ were so offensive. He shed light into the darkness of our souls. As Mark Twain once said, I'm not so much concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible, it's what I do understand that concerns me.

Once the truth is revealed, we have the option of rejecting or accepting it. Either way, the truth hurts but it's better than being self deluded.

No, this is a strawman post and I dont even hold Rice's position, either.

 

[ricechickie]

Tell me an example.

I have a few standards that I try to uphold, even when I’m angry. Anything else, someone would need ro tell me that it’s crossing their line. And I’d listen.

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.

So being good means not offending people? Then Jesus was not that good since he seemed to upset pretty much everyone.

Really, there is no way not to offend someone, especially if they are wrong.

And no, saying your sorry when the other person is wrong is not good. It is akin to fueling their self deception.

That is why the teachings of Christ were so offensive. He shed light into the darkness of our souls. As Mark Twain once said, I'm not so much concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible, it's what I do understand that concerns me.

Once the truth is revealed, we have the option of rejecting or accepting it. Either way, the truth hurts but it's better than being self deluded.

He didn’t upset people just to be a troll. He upset people with the truth (well, he thought it was the truth).

If there’s a truth that’s important enough that causing someone pain is worthwhile, and will improve quality of life for someone or several someones, then it’s generally considered defensible to cause that pain.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jesus didn’t get a thrill out of making people angry, did He?

 

[Votto]

I’d like to come back to your standards. If standards are not universal then how can you blame someone for violating your standards?

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.

So being good means not offending people? Then Jesus was not that good since he seemed to upset pretty much everyone.

Really, there is no way not to offend someone, especially if they are wrong.

And no, saying your sorry when the other person is wrong is not good. It is akin to fueling their self deception.

That is why the teachings of Christ were so offensive. He shed light into the darkness of our souls. As Mark Twain once said, I'm not so much concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible, it's what I do understand that concerns me.

Once the truth is revealed, we have the option of rejecting or accepting it. Either way, the truth hurts but it's better than being self deluded.

He didn’t upset people just to be a troll. He upset people with the truth (well, he thought it was the truth).

If there’s a truth that’s important enough that causing someone pain is worthwhile, and will improve quality of life for someone or several someones, then it’s generally considered defensible to cause that pain.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jesus didn’t get a thrill out of making people angry, did He?

Jesus taught that through him one may come to God, and only through him. How much more offensive could you be?

It was either the truth or a lie, that is for you to decide.

But no, his aim was not to piss people off. His ministry was healing and restoring and preaching the good news in a world of death and oppression around him.

He showed mercy on the outcast, the condemned, the unwanted, the poor, and he stood up for them. Of course, that pissed people off as well.

 

[ricechickie]

Speaking of Jesus and the truth, did he tell Mary Magdelene that she was a whore and would go to hell? No.

Did he tell the lepers that it was their own fault that they got sick? No.

Did he tell his disciples, your feet are disgusting, and I won’t have a meal with you until they’re washed? No.

 

[ricechickie]

I don’t. I blame them for not acknowledging (apologizing) when they’ve hurt someone. Maybe they didn’t know the pain they caused.

We all violate someone’s standards at some time, I believe usually out of ignorance. But once you’re made aware of it, if a sincere attempt to make amends isn’t made, then chances are you’re a callous person.

It’s called empathy.

Interesting theory, but here's a question. If there's no universal standard of good behavior that everyone knows, and only individual standards of what people desire from others, WHY should I apologize to someone if I violate their personal standard and offend them? Why should I want to empathize at all?

The obvious, rational response from Rice's starting point would be that youd apologize if your personal morality was to not be offending people, and to be empathizing with them if you had.

So being good means not offending people? Then Jesus was not that good since he seemed to upset pretty much everyone.

Really, there is no way not to offend someone, especially if they are wrong.

And no, saying your sorry when the other person is wrong is not good. It is akin to fueling their self deception.

That is why the teachings of Christ were so offensive. He shed light into the darkness of our souls. As Mark Twain once said, I'm not so much concerned about what I don't understand in the Bible, it's what I do understand that concerns me.

Once the truth is revealed, we have the option of rejecting or accepting it. Either way, the truth hurts but it's better than being self deluded.

He didn’t upset people just to be a troll. He upset people with the truth (well, he thought it was the truth).

If there’s a truth that’s important enough that causing someone pain is worthwhile, and will improve quality of life for someone or several someones, then it’s generally considered defensible to cause that pain.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but Jesus didn’t get a thrill out of making people angry, did He?

Jesus taught that through him one may come to God, and only through him. How much more offensive could you be?

It was either the truth or a lie, that is for you to decide.

But no, his aim was not to piss people off. His ministry was healing and restoring and preaching the good news in a world of death and oppression around him.

He showed mercy on the outcast, the condemned, the unwanted, the poor, and he stood up for them. Of course, that pissed people off as well.

So his truth was more important than the offense he caused.

So, morality is more than simply not pissing people off.

 

[Votto]

Speaking of Jesus and the truth, did he tell Mary Magdelene that she was a whore and would go to hell? No.

Did he tell the lepers that it was their own fault that they got sick? No.

Did he tell his disciples, your feet are disgusting, and I won’t have a meal with you until they’re washed? No.

He told them all that he was the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.

You sound like you are getting a little irritated by that.

 

[ricechickie]

Speaking of Jesus and the truth, did he tell Mary Magdelene that she was a whore and would go to hell? No.

Did he tell the lepers that it was their own fault that they got sick? No.

Did he tell his disciples, your feet are disgusting, and I won’t have a meal with you until they’re washed? No.

He told them all that he was the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me.

You sound like you are getting a little irritated by that.

I’m not.

I might not believe what he believed, but I do think Jesus was a real person with a lot of great lessons to teach.

 

[ding]

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

What I have been trying to explain is that standards exist independent of man. In other words, man cannot pick just any standard and get the same results. Ergo standards exist independent of what man wants them to be.

I took a Philosophy 101 course in college, a core requirement, but it was fun. Then I took my required Humanities courses from a prof in the philosophy department, too, and he and I butted heads from day one because I didn't buy your theory. He told me I was basically a Nazi (even back in 1990) because of my beliefs.
Well,I have always been interested in exploring this a little more, since I KNOW I'm not a Nazi and never would be, but I had other courses to pursue and never did have time to get back to philosophy.
So, Ding, if you would, can you explain to me what leads you to believe that Good somehow exists outside the realm of human definition. I'm interested in that, not in how many times G.T. insulted you or whatever.

First of all I don’t think you are a nazi and I don’t hold a grudge against GT. I treat every encounter as a clean slate. I believe growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. I believe that honest men and women can have honest differences of opinion without acting like jerks or being afraid to express their beliefs. I believe that objective truth can be discovered but to do so one must die to self and have no preference for an outcome.

I have to leave in a few minutes but I would really like to have that discussion with you. Would you mind if we did it in a private discussion?

If so I will PM my response to your question to you when I get back later this afternoon.

If you feel it needs to be under wraps, that's okay, but a little unusual. I will look forward to it. In the meantime, if anyone else wants to remind me of why "Good" exists outside the realm of human perception, I'd appreciate it.

Have it your way.

Good isn’t a human concept per se. It is a part of the human condition. It isn’t like we have a choice in the matter. It is what separates us from animals.

Animals operate on instinct and impulse. Humans operate on those too but the human condition has the ability to override instinct and impulse for the good of ourselves and others.

The concept of fairness is universal. It is so ingrained in us that we cannot get rid of it. So that when we violate it rather than abandoning the concept we rationalize that we did not violate it.

It appears to me that it is a requirement of intelligence. Why? Because it is universal and hardwired into us and because it is unique to us. Furthermore, it is logical. Because not all behaviors produce equal results. There really are behaviors which produce peace and harmony in a society and there really are behaviors which produce disorder and chaos in a society. They are not limited to society as their effects can be seen at any level of human relationships or interactions.

But to answer your question directly, I believe they exist outside of the realm of human perception because they are moral laws which govern the evolution of consciousness. These moral laws - like physical and biological laws - existed before the creation of space and time. Everything which has unfolded before the creation of space and time existed as potential before space and time. Such that eventually beings that know and create could ponder this very question.

 

[ding]

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

 

[ricechickie]

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

 

[ding]

It isn't a tautology. Reason and experience tells us that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. You can't just behave any old which way you want and get the same outcomes. Certain behaviors produce better results and certain behaviors produce worse results. We teach our kids to behave certain ways for good reason and we teach our kids not to behave a certain way for good reason. Why? Because not all behaviors produce equal results. Some behaviors produce better results and some behaviors produce worse results.

So the standards we teach are based upon observations and logic. They exist independent of man because man cannot choose what he desires the standard to be. The standard exists in and of itself.

So there is nothing vacuous or unsupported. If anything it is your claim that is vacuous and unsupported. You have offered no proof or logic for your claim. In fact, you really have not even made a claim other than ding is wrong.

But you did use a couple of big words to make people think you know what you are talking about when in reality you don't.

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounter they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous towards each other as opposed to devoid of virtue.

 

[ricechickie]

Doing bad things often can result in positive outcomes. Just look at the Donald, he became POTUS.

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounters they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous as opposed to devoid of virtue.

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

 

[ding]

It is probabilistic in nature, but exceptions do not define the rule.

Too many exceptions render the rule invalid.

I understand what you are saying, but you dismiss the literally thousands of variables that go into life.

For example, you used a marriage as an example. You used traits such as honesty, loyalty, thoughtfulness, etc. You said people with those traits will lead to a happy relationship.

You would think that two “good people” sharing the traits of honesty, loyalty, and thoughtfulness should have a great marriage. But sometimes couples that both share those traits have miserable marriages, because they just aren’t compatible in many other spheres. There are a bunch of variables that go into a relationship, and even if both partners are “good” doesn’t mean they are good for each other.

Just about everything in life is like that. Thousands of little variables. People who measure the importance of each value differently. And perhaps most galling, no one is perfect.

The consequence of violating moral laws is not immediate. It isn’t like violating a physical law. It is probalistic in nature. But given enough time, predictable consequences will occur such that relationships that are built on virtuous behaviors will always be better than relationships that are devoid of virtue.

I would argue that in any failed marriage it involved behaviors that were less than virtuous. The biggest one being selfishness.

I have a real problem if you can point to one behavior and call it an instigator of failure, especially when you just admitted that consequences of “bad” behavior can take time.

You take out of the equation all other behaviors, how others handle the behaviors, how others behave toward you, if the behaviors are generally acceptable or not to our society......

Maybe I don’t know what you are getting at because I am not pointing to one behavior. I am discussing two diametrically opposed groups of behaviors; virtue and the absence of virtue.

It is self evident to me that virtue is an organizing principle. That no matter what other challenges a relationship or a society encounters they will always stand the best chance of weathering the storm if their behaviors are virtuous as opposed to devoid of virtue.

But we don’t exist as static behaviors. I don’t know anyone who is all virtue or devoid of all virtue.

Therefore, you have to point to individual actions. And you claim that individual actions lead to success or failure. But you also can’t (because no one can) trace how each individual decision leads to an outcome because we don’t exist in a vacuum.

You want to speak about “sharp contrasts,” but most people are simply not that “sharply” virtuous or unvirtuous.

Making your entire argument collapse like a house of cards, because humanity is much more nuanced than you want to present.

First of all it’s not really my argument. The importance of behaving with virtue is as old as man and is the basis for every religion -major, minor and primal - and is the oldest moral theory in Western philosophy. The Greek term for virtue is arete, which means “excellence.” Throughout the history of literature and cinema the morality of our heroes and villains has been on display in terms of their respective virtues and vices and their successes and failures hinged on their virtuous or vicious character traits. We teach our children to be virtuous and we teach them to not be vicious. Reason and experience tells us that actions and behaviors have consequences. These actions and consequences are the logical reasons for what we teach our kids to do and not do.

I speak of sharp contrasts to illuminate my point and because those sharp contrasts are the basis of the importance of being virtuous instead of vicious.

Of course there are degrees in our behaviors but people and societies do not go from being virtuous to vicious overnight. That is an incremental process. Which is all the more reason to be vigilant and guard against it.

If you want to believe that what I am saying is a house of cards then so be it. I am more than happy to agree to disagree, but I would like to add two more things. While the concept I have presented to you may be difficult for you to agree with, I am certain that when you have an exchange with someone who is devoid of virtue you will not want to associate with that person anymore and it will be because of their behaviors. Lastly my discussion in no way implies that doing the right thing or even figuring out what the right thing is is easy to accomplish. Being virtuous is not easy.