the greatest good/pleasure/happiness for the greatest number, i.e. the flourishing of the human race ?
The way the distinction is drawn is that morals apply to interpersonal relations, whereas ethics (the word derives from ethos, strongly character related term; TBH the words are interchangeable, but I am going by the typical definitions) pertains to one’s character. Interpersonal ethics (i.e. morals) are conducive to self-improvement (live as a free, self-respecting individual vs life as a parasite), and that’s how they relate.
No. Of individuals.
No, it isn’t collectivist. And again, it has nothing to do with “pleasure”.
so to be virtuous like to be kind, is to promote happiness in oneself, and not in the person who receives the kindness? (this seems like wish thinking)
Thanks for clarifying. What religion are you a part of that coerces others? I know the Christian, Buddhists, Hindu, and others have less warlike inclinations and understand that a person can’t save somebody that doesn’t want to be saved. It’s always a choice on their behalf no matter how hard somebody tries. That person has to accept and believe on their own. No human can do it for them. You can private message me your religion if you want to.
Thanks!
I don’t think anything you said here I would disagree with. You’re basically saying what I’m saying.
It’s not wrong. I have no idea what this has to do with scare goods, and I have no idea where you are coming from. I know what I’m talking about has to do with natural property so it fits in with scare goods somehow I’m sure. Your statement seems all over the place…
Uh, no. Aristotle has an extended discussion of this in the Nichomachean Ethics, concerning the mutually reinforcing, reciprocal nature of character friendships (i.e. those between individuals who’ve achieved flourishing, as well as a section on generosity/benevolence, which is for one’s own benefit - the Greeks did not have the distasteful “altruistic” notion of philanthropy we do these days.) It is not utilitarianism in that it’s not a maximising ideology, nor does it even purport to be.Happiness is for the individual to achieve by way of integrating the various goods they have under their control. Society only enters in given that man is social and requires others to achieve his ends. But it’s ultimately an egoistic moral system.
so being friendly is moral and being unfriendly immoral. etc. etc.(isnt this bigotry?)
being kind has the potential to be reinforcing; but thats not the same as saying that it is reinforcing, seems like you dodged my question?
if more flourishing is advocated over less flourihsing, how is it not a maximising ideology?
how about happiness being irrelevant to morality, but merely a more likely consequnece of being moral in a community of moral people, where morality is a system for avoiding conflict over scare goods, a la Kinsella’s motivation for morality…?
No. Did you even read my post properly…?
No, in fact I would say you did not even understand my answer given the nature of this response…
Who is advocating “more flourishing”? What is a “maximising” ideology? Do you know? Have you even read the Nichomachean Ethics or are you like many individuals who presume to have an opinion over something besides not having read even the basics on the subject? Don’t waste my time with amateurish musings on the subject.
Avoiding conflict for…? The sake of avoiding conflict? Right.
I apologise for being an amateur. I will wait until someone pays me to teach them moral philosophy, and only then will I dare to bother you with further dialogue on the topic.
Or, read the Nichomachean Ethics and form your own opinion on what actually is virtue ethics rather than relying on others to tutor you.
well, thats me out of this thread then. fo sho.
I will recommend it regardless to anyone contemplating the subject as it’s concise, accessible, well written and relevant to the distinction between morality and ethics.
Rothbard, Plauche, and Rasmussen also…
I also suggest books on the Metaphysics of Quality too. These all fit together and help clarify each other.
I haven’t read Nichomachean Ethics yet, but I’ve read a lot of supportive material. I wouldn’t doubt I’ll get to Aristotle’s book some day.
It’s the easiest of the lot and it helps to make sense of the more advanced material. I also read them in that order, only to regret it afterwards.
It’s one of the next on my reading list as well as his The Politics. After I get done with Garrison’s wonderful book.
I agree with your post except this, it’s an ethical problem, not a metaethical one.
Pirsig’s books are very good laymen books and eye-openers for scholars/professionals, too, on discussing various philosophers back to Greece that brought up excellence, quality, moral, and value. It’s one of those books that as I’m re-reading Zen of the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance book right now I’m digging deeper than the last time I read it into what this old greek word happiness (similar to excellence/quality) means. I also spent time on the MOQ forum on-line for off and on for some years, too. His perspective is falling right in line with these other readings that I mentioned. I never, though, put the natural property connection together with the MOQ until I listened to William Roberts on “Restore the Republic” radio read sections of Hutcheson’s book An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue and I would chat with him about the pursuit of happiness. He taught me what property rights meant and then it was all downhill from there.
Actually I am not familiar with the book you linked. Maybe something to read when I have spare time in the Summer.