Are people basically good?

[ding]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

Yes, everyone recommends acting with virtue —and then proceeds to define it their own way.

You need sharp contrasts to make your point because your point is overly simplistic. That does not mean that it is completely wrong, but that there is so much room for interpretation that anyone can rationalize just about anything as “virtuous.” Generalities that can’t translate to specifics are worthless. It’s like telling a child “learn math” wit providing the lessons or the homework.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

I don’t think virtuousness is easy, but I do think that we are inborn, as a social animal, with a desire to get along with our group, which is just about the foundation of every kind of virtue. And standards of virtue change with changing societies.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

 

[ding]

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.

Yes, everyone recommends acting with virtue —and then proceeds to define it their own way.

You need sharp contrasts to make your point because your point is overly simplistic. That does not mean that it is completely wrong, but that there is so much room for interpretation that anyone can rationalize just about anything as “virtuous.” Generalities that can’t translate to specifics are worthless. It’s like telling a child “learn math” wit providing the lessons or the homework.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

I don’t think virtuousness is easy, but I do think that we are inborn, as a social animal, with a desire to get along with our group, which is just about the foundation of every kind of virtue. And standards of virtue change with changing societies.

You are proving my point that virtues are absolute and not relative as man cannot define them such that black is white without suffering the predictable surprises. But for all the other slight degrees of differences they never amounted to anything that was materially different. My point here is that you are using failures of man and applying it as a failure of virtue. Virtue cannot be anything man desires it to be. Error cannot stand eventually it fails. Objective truth is discovered despite man’s perception of it or his subjectivity.

 

[ding]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

Sorry. Life is complex. Being virtuous is not easy.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

Yes, everyone recommends acting with virtue —and then proceeds to define it their own way.

You need sharp contrasts to make your point because your point is overly simplistic. That does not mean that it is completely wrong, but that there is so much room for interpretation that anyone can rationalize just about anything as “virtuous.” Generalities that can’t translate to specifics are worthless. It’s like telling a child “learn math” wit providing the lessons or the homework.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

I don’t think virtuousness is easy, but I do think that we are inborn, as a social animal, with a desire to get along with our group, which is just about the foundation of every kind of virtue. And standards of virtue change with changing societies.

You are proving my point that virtues are absolute and not relative as man cannot define them such that black is white without suffering the predictable surprises. But for all the other slight degrees of differences they never amounted to anything that was materially different. My point here is that you are using failures of man and applying it as a failure of virtue. Virtue cannot be anything man desires it to be. Error cannot stand eventually it fails. Objective truth is discovered despite man’s perception of it or his subjectivity.

Ok, if humans did not, and do not, define virtues (and don’t change them with changing times), then where does the concept of virtue come from?

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

Sorry. Life is complex. Being virtuous is not easy.

That’s my line. “Virtue” is about relationships between people.

 

[ding]

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.

Yes, everyone recommends acting with virtue —and then proceeds to define it their own way.

You need sharp contrasts to make your point because your point is overly simplistic. That does not mean that it is completely wrong, but that there is so much room for interpretation that anyone can rationalize just about anything as “virtuous.” Generalities that can’t translate to specifics are worthless. It’s like telling a child “learn math” wit providing the lessons or the homework.

I am happy to agree to disagree.

I don’t think virtuousness is easy, but I do think that we are inborn, as a social animal, with a desire to get along with our group, which is just about the foundation of every kind of virtue. And standards of virtue change with changing societies.

You are proving my point that virtues are absolute and not relative as man cannot define them such that black is white without suffering the predictable surprises. But for all the other slight degrees of differences they never amounted to anything that was materially different. My point here is that you are using failures of man and applying it as a failure of virtue. Virtue cannot be anything man desires it to be. Error cannot stand eventually it fails. Objective truth is discovered despite man’s perception of it or his subjectivity.

Ok, if humans did not, and do not, define virtues (and don’t change them with changing times), then where does the concept of virtue come from?

It is not a concept. It is a condition of intelligence.

Where does it come from? The laws of nature which are discovered.

And confirmed through experience (aka results and outcomes). Good fruit comes from good trees. If it is wrong it will not stand the test of time. We don’t always move in straight lines though, so it is a continual process. I call it the conflict and confusion process. Diversity is essential.

 

[ding]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

Sorry. Life is complex. Being virtuous is not easy.

That’s my line. “Virtue” is about relationships between people.

100%. And applies to all communities of people. The same traits that make strong relationships between two people make strong relationships between nations and every other grouping in between.

 

[ricechickie]

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.

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

Sorry. Life is complex. Being virtuous is not easy.

That’s my line. “Virtue” is about relationships between people.

100%. And applies to all communities of people. The same traits that make strong relationships between two people make strong relationships between nations and every other grouping in between.

That would imply that all people are exactly the same and that the same specific behaviors would guarantee a successful relationship.

Nonsense.

 

[MaryL]

Define "good", then we can go on from there. Nazis were "good" people once upon a time, because, apparently, being popular and dominating a debate means "good". Well, now, it's liberals and black lives matter whatever, meet the NEW boss.

 

[ding]

I never said we did. No one is perfect. There is a distribution. Some are better at it than others. Standards exist for a reason. Just because we all don’t measure up to the standard all the time does not negate the standard or mean we shouldn’t strive to meet the standard. It is a process. It is a journey. It has been said that our purpose in life is to strive to leave this world being the best version of ourself that we can be. That does not mean perfection. Nor does it mean it will always be a straight line. It only means that we should be aware and honest about our flaws and strive to correct them.

So it isn’t the individual actions as much as it is the overall trend in the aggregate.

I tend to actually agree with almost all of this.

But without concrete examples, labels like “virtuous” are meaningless.

Sorry. Life is complex. Being virtuous is not easy.

That’s my line. “Virtue” is about relationships between people.

100%. And applies to all communities of people. The same traits that make strong relationships between two people make strong relationships between nations and every other grouping in between.

That would imply that all people are exactly the same and that the same specific behaviors would guarantee a successful relationship.

Nonsense.

No such implication was intended. So either I misunderstood what you wrote or you misunderstood what I wrote.

Virtue is about relationships. 100%. There are all kinds of relationships. Personal and civil. So when I say nations, I am talking about the relationship between the leaders. The same for organizations, communities, cities, states, etc.

 

[OldLady]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

 

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

 

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

Moral laws are not like physical or biological laws. There is not an immediate feedback. It is more probabilistic in nature. That is the nature of intelligence though. But make no mistake we are constantly receiving feedback. The only question is are we aware of the feedback and do we act upon it. Consciousness is evolving just like every other stage of the evolution of matter before it. It’s just not a straight line process.

 

[OldLady]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

And that intelligence is God?

 

[ding]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

And that intelligence is God?

You tell me. It is something.

 

[OldLady]

I've quoted this before on this board, so excuse me for repeating myself, but it is one my emotional favorites because there is nothing more human than hope.

In this broad Earth of ours,
Amid the measureless grossness and the slag, 5
Enclosed and safe within its central heart,
Nestles the seed Perfection.

By every life a share, or more or less,
None born but it is born—conceal’d or unconceal’d, the seed is waiting.

When it comes down to it, the flip side of grossness and slag is perfection, so I don't have to quibble with it, but I think Whitman meant something else, something closer to what Ding is saying. When I put my mind to it, I have to ask, what is perfection? Sez who?

The perfect splitting of the atom that led to Little Boy?

Ding says all humans are born recognizing the virtue of getting along. So does Ricechickie. Where that concept of virtue comes from seems to be the catch.

So ding , do you believe it is a universal truth beyond the human mind because it is universally recognized and worked toward? If it were a universal truth that it is born in us to follow, wouldn't we all be working toward it a little harder than we seem to do? If it were universal and immutable and inborn, it would be more like thirst or hunger, wouldn't it, something we automatically act on in our daily lives much more often?

I believe we are evolving towards it because it is the logical conclusion. Whether we get there as a people or an individual remains to be seen. But I do believe intelligence exists outside the material world and that is why we are drawn to it.

it is the logical conclusion.
It is the logical conclusion if the survival of the human race is what you're aiming for, but who said our survival is the desired outcome for any but us?

 

[OldLady]

 

[Taz]

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.

But the person with no virtue in your eyes could be successful and happy. Virtue is therefore subjective. In nature a lot of the time, the more vicious the animal, the more successful it is.