You’ve declared the condition of human beings to be one of ignorance, with respect to what is known vs what could be known. In the same vein I would ask you now to gauge the gap between the ideals of virtue and the conduct of human beings.
>>>”I believe you are narrowing the discussion down to certain enumerated virtues commonly agreed on through many cultures.“
Right.
>>>”I also believe you recognize that there is substantial disagreement throughout history and through disciplines such as philosophy and theology as to what qualities constitute a virtue…[snip]… And various philosophical and religious paradigms are in profound and substantial disagreement as to what one ought to consider as virtuous conduct. “
There is disagreement between individuals and between cultures with regards to circumstance and specific conduct. We are born into a condition of animus for one unto another, where any particular consensus comes with some degree of strain and compromise and usually for the sake of the mutual benefit it may bring to the participants. Usually we establish moral rules of order, then reason through a circumstance to come to some moral agreement on one circumstance or another. The rules are limited, as they can never apply with one hundred percent consistency across circumstance where every situation is exceptional. In addition the rules are established to catch and deal with people who are up to no good rather than people intending virtuous conduct. Such rules to be applied in all fairness, must be presumed by the practitioner to be universal in their application, or they must be presumed to be only general advice.
”If I am not mistaken, you are suggesting that in spite of the subjectivity involved in determining right thought and right action, and in spite of the observed fact that these social and individual markers of "virtue" are relative to time, culture, prevailing theologies, governments, current philosophical underpinnings, etc.--you still (it would seem) believe that behind (or perhaps floating in "ether") these myriad notions of right conduct there exists an "ideal form" (or "forms").
I would agree with most of that. I would edit out the words ‘right conduct’ and replace them with ‘virtuous intent’ which is founded upon principle more than specific conduct or circumstance.
>>>”Perhaps you can help me? What is an "ideal form"? Is it only limited to such virtues as justice or honesty or mercy or generosity or frugality? Is it choosing mercy over justice or justice over mercy? Almost all virtue theorists agree that mercy and justice are separate and distinct virtues, eh?? So does the "ideal form" of mercy trump justice? Does ideal justice submit to mercy? Does PRUDENCE trump BRAVERY? Or does ideal prudence find a place in the back seat?”
Practically speaking human beings don’t act ideally which is why I’ve separated what can be discussed as an ideal form from what could be discussed with regards to conduct. Personal actions may be impacted in complex ways. Even from the simplest perspective an act of mercy may temper justice just as an act of corruption will mitigate justice.
>>>” Are there "ideal forms" outside of virtues?”
yes
>>>” Perhaps "vices"?
Yes.
>>>”Outside of these two categories? “
Yes. |
