"I would ask you now to gauge the gap between the ideals of virtue and the conduct of human beings."
Yes. That has been done exhaustively throughout history. The meaning of "ideals" can be properly fleshed out as standards of excellence. In all of the so called "virtues" there are standards of excellence proposed in various cultures by various proponents of various philosophies.
What standards one strives for or settles for is relative to cultural and individual philosophy/values. For some, doing the practical thing is a moral ideal. For others it is the greatest good. Some consider the ends as paramount, some the means, and some as neither. As the eminent Christian, C.S. Lewis made clear, human conduct always falls short of what we could wish for in ourselves or others. This, of course, is obvious to all humans at a very early age.
"We are born into a condition of animus for one unto another"
I don't think that is true. I don't think we are born with any dislike, hatred, or animosity. These are feelings that arise after time when one becomes capable of forming judgments. I know in my own life I have seldom carried any real animus against anyone relative to the population I interacted with.
"Usually we establish moral rules of order, then reason through a circumstance to come to some moral agreement on one circumstance or another"
Yes. That is correct. Generally speaking the "rules of order" have evolved over centuries of existence and owe much of their substance to a combination of Church and State influence. Communities, groups, families, and individuals then adapt these principles and modify them to their more parochial values and beliefs. The reason that principles of conduct have been codified throughout time and place is of course quite obvious.
"Such rules to be applied in all fairness, must be presumed by the practitioner to be universal in their application"
These "moral rules of order" that you are referring to are assumed to be universal if they are applied from a religious perspective which happens to believe in and honor a monotheistic God whom they believe has communicated (in some fashion) those "moral rules of order"--otherwise they are implemented and enforced toward a particular, group, state, country, etc.
"I would edit out the words ‘right conduct’ and replace them with ‘virtuous intent’"
Actually, I did not say that quote in the quote you quoted and responded to. I said: "right thought and right action so, in fact, it would seem that your "virtuous intent" is covered. What you did not challenge and what your response seems to approve of is my statement: "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 am disappointed that you were unable or unwilling to clarify for me what those ideal forms were and where they were located, rather behind or in the "ether".
"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"
So? Discuss ideal forms. Please do. This is the very thing (see second paragraph above this) that I have been gently coaxing you to share with the thread. Tell us what they are. Describe their substance or lack of substance. Tell us where they are and how they are known"--by the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the ears, intuition?
"Even from the simplest perspective an act of mercy may temper justice just as an act of corruption will mitigate justice."
That wasn't what I was referring to. It is thought by many thinkers that opposite virtues which mitigate one another is one more evidence that the virtues were NOT absolute and "ideal" (as claimed by some religious movements and even some philosophers)--but rather malleable and personal.
">>>” Are there "ideal forms" outside of virtues?”
yes
>>>” Perhaps "vices"?
Yes.
>>>”Outside of these two categories? “
Yes."
I really feel like I am pulling teeth. One is not inspired to believe that you really know a heck of a lot about these "ideal forms" you are referring to judging by your inability or unwillingness to substantiate them through reason!
You have said there are "ideal forms" apart from virtues and vices. Again, in order to satisfy my curiosity, I must pull at some more of your teeth: Does (ideal forms existing) "outside these two categories" express an opinion held by you that EVERYTHING has an "ideal form", or simply that you have discovered some other such ideal forms that are neither virtues nor vices?? |
