Great job in explaining virtue ethics. I find it interesting how similar utilizing the golden mean to find balance is to Buddha's middle way. Thanks for the video!
thank for this video, I got new insight. I have a confused inquiry, the deontology of being brutal honest without regards to consequence breaks the concept of golden mean. Which makes me conclude that virtue ethics is the middle ground between teleology and deontology and it is very humanistic. This is just my random thoughts and I thought that maybe you can see the flaws in my thoughts or affirm it?
I get confused between intention, motivation and conscience. It seems someone could say that someone was virtuous when they killed 1 to save 5 because their motivation was the saving of lives, yet they intentionally killed an innocent person. I don't think anyone would genuinely recognise killing an innocent person as virtuous, so why does it suddenly become so just because it was done for a perceived greater good? Shouldn't virtue take stock of the intention with respect to the means rather than with respect to the ends? What seems weird to me: To kill an innocent person = Not virtuous To kill an innocent person to save others = Virtuous How is doing wrong in pursuit of the greater good, good? Feels more like a utilitarian calculation
Great question...I believe that a clear distinction with the trolley problem and what you describe is that one doesn't intend the killing of an innocent person. I may forsee what evil may come, I don't desire it. I would pull the lever to save five lives if there wasn't a person standing there. If I were to desire the death of the person on the track, then it clearly wouldn't be an ethical action on my part.
Where the desire comes from in your heart reveals a positive or negative virtue. All though the taking of a life is not ethical , to sit there and not do anything while all die would be less virtuous I believe presidentt Franklin Roosevelt said,” The worst thing you can do is nothing at all Law enforcement ,hostage negotiators and the Military face this dilemma and choose safety for the greater number of souls.
Aristotle has done some good work in virtue ethics. Given the arguments levied against the ideology, it shows that even Aristotle failed to fully justify what the very fabric of virtues is. Separating them from consequentialism is also silly as all tue virtue and vices are literally referring to the cause and effect (con - sequence) aspect of our speech, intention, deeds etc. So it also has that utility quality. No need to separate. Again they marry up in harmony. Also arguing that it is ONE theory for morality rather the THE content of the topic is a complete misapprehension. If we explore them directly, these are the ONLY choices we have or ever will have. It's not like they're just one of many options. We'll have WHOLE of the principle - PART - NONE Then it will be PROPORTIONATE to generating wholesome states or EXCESS/DEFICIT. (Abandoning too or adding to unwholesome states) again refering to each concepts innate information being factored in or not. Complete Like charity has WHOLE principles of giving and is PROPORTIONATE to achieving wholesome states (cognitively, emotionally and physically) Spendthrift has PARTS of the outputting resources but is EXCESS to achieving wholesome states Greed has NONE and is DEFICIT Then we have degrees in-between. The six operational conditions of Taoism actually show in detail the decay of virtues as they move further away from the natural laws. I could give to a charity but Im a tad GREEDY for time and effort. Therefore i no longer strive DIRECTLY to accord with natural law and generate wholesome states. So i give to this charity which may well be quite corrupt. Now behaviourally im giving away resources EXCESS to definitey achieving wholesome states. This is called operating at virtue where vices arises. All three modes are present or con-fused in one. The natural law is the foundation of the virtues. We can move away from it in four distinct steps between order/chaos. Accord/discord Virtues are not subject but modes of accord that factor in ALL the relevant innate information - WHOLEsome They have no over or under emphasis or internal disordering on any elements that make up a structured dynamics. This is the distortion known as perversion. So they have INTEGRITY They are thus congruent with ACCORD. The underpinning principle that Aristotle said does exist. And is fixed but NOT rigid. Also if we look at the cause of arising of motivating principles, the virtues are congruent where the vices are incongruent. This means they have self defeating irony and create logical impasses where one end must give. For example we see someone suffer and in pity (the excess to compassion) we generate sympathetic suffering. It arises due to not liking suffering and wanting to alleviate it BUT then generates it. That's not subjective and puts to bed any argument against virtues being Morality. Also deontology focusing on facile rules is definitely a problem Aristotle was right to refute. Theres no rules that aren't comprised of speech, intention deeds etc So focusing on facile rules and ignoring their foundation (the virtues) is showing a lack of understanding as ti why we have them. Now profound means...profoundation. the points of information on which a thing is founded and has its existence. So what deontology does is essentially reverses the order. Focuses on rules first. Blurs the virtue and vices together (con-fuse) and decentralizes the principles of the natural order on which the virtues have THEIR foundation This creates what's called mores. Social norms they blend from both polarities of virtue and vice. A false dichotomy. 0:03 Morality on the other hand, understands the natural order on which the virtues are founded and that they create accord with manifest existence. Three modes of: 1. Align with 2. Preserve 3. Reestablish wholesome states when lost. The they make rules out of the presence of virtue and absence of vice. The actual dichotomy. All religions and philosophies are pretty much just mores. That's partly because nobody actually knows what the process of Discernment is. Its best definition is "to make that which is obscure clear AND discriminate one thing apart from another" It comes from discernere meaning SEPARATE. That's removes con-fusion. We only have to integrate information and avoid conflating (confusion) or disintegrating (ignorance) the seven types of information literally EVERYTHING is made of. This will answer many of the arguments against "virtue ethics" (which is akin to saying food pizza) And clean up his own errors Those types are 1. Concrete (physical) 2. Abstract (conceptual) Nothing we try to comprehend will not contain these. 3. Categorical (macro) 4. Qualitative (micro or details within the macro) 5. Quantitative (includes all mathematical laws etc but also the quantity of each thing's innate information being factored in) Integrate those we have concise and precise - clear 6. Similarities 7. Distinguishing differences The last two separate and remove confusion (AND discriminate one thing apart from another)
How would the golden mean ratio work with medicine? The two opposite extremes are saving a life and killing someone. Keeping them sick is not moral not ethical.
Bro, I think the two extremes in medical care are the inability to cure patients and excessive medical care. Treating patients correctly is the golden mean.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Great job in explaining virtue ethics. I find it interesting how similar utilizing the golden mean to find balance is to Buddha's middle way. Thanks for the video!
Thank you. Keeping it simple. We prefer to FAITH IT UNTIL WE MAKE IT.
you have saved my year 12 philosophy exam. thank you so much.
Such a Great explaining about virtue ethics i learn a lot from this video ✨
I'm still not there yet.
Perfect Explanation!
Excellent explanation
you're a life saver, thank you
Great explanation, thanks.
We learn lots from the past. the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, and much more... It's something worth learning. (Plus, the intro song is nice :P
01:19 "We will become the best versions of ourselves" thank to Aristotle
These people learned from ancient indian civilization.
thank for this video, I got new insight. I have a confused inquiry, the deontology of being brutal honest without regards to consequence breaks the concept of golden mean. Which makes me conclude that virtue ethics is the middle ground between teleology and deontology and it is very humanistic. This is just my random thoughts and I thought that maybe you can see the flaws in my thoughts or affirm it?
I get confused between intention, motivation and conscience. It seems someone could say that someone was virtuous when they killed 1 to save 5 because their motivation was the saving of lives, yet they intentionally killed an innocent person. I don't think anyone would genuinely recognise killing an innocent person as virtuous, so why does it suddenly become so just because it was done for a perceived greater good? Shouldn't virtue take stock of the intention with respect to the means rather than with respect to the ends?
What seems weird to me:
To kill an innocent person = Not virtuous
To kill an innocent person to save others = Virtuous
How is doing wrong in pursuit of the greater good, good?
Feels more like a utilitarian calculation
Great question...I believe that a clear distinction with the trolley problem and what you describe is that one doesn't intend the killing of an innocent person. I may forsee what evil may come, I don't desire it. I would pull the lever to save five lives if there wasn't a person standing there. If I were to desire the death of the person on the track, then it clearly wouldn't be an ethical action on my part.
Where the desire comes from in your heart reveals a positive or negative virtue.
All though the taking of a life is not ethical ,
to sit there and not do
anything while all die
would be less virtuous
I believe presidentt Franklin Roosevelt said,” The worst thing
you can do is nothing
at all
Law enforcement ,hostage negotiators and the Military face this dilemma and choose safety for the greater number of souls.
Great advise, Aristotle! ;)
Aristotle has done some good work in virtue ethics.
Given the arguments levied against the ideology, it shows that even Aristotle failed to fully justify what the very fabric of virtues is.
Separating them from consequentialism is also silly as all tue virtue and vices are literally referring to the cause and effect (con - sequence) aspect of our speech, intention, deeds etc. So it also has that utility quality. No need to separate. Again they marry up in harmony.
Also arguing that it is ONE theory for morality rather the THE content of the topic is a complete misapprehension.
If we explore them directly, these are the ONLY choices we have or ever will have. It's not like they're just one of many options.
We'll have WHOLE of the principle - PART - NONE
Then it will be PROPORTIONATE to generating wholesome states or EXCESS/DEFICIT.
(Abandoning too or adding to unwholesome states) again refering to each concepts innate information being factored in or not. Complete
Like charity has WHOLE principles of giving and is PROPORTIONATE to achieving wholesome states (cognitively, emotionally and physically)
Spendthrift has PARTS of the outputting resources but is EXCESS to achieving wholesome states
Greed has NONE and is DEFICIT
Then we have degrees in-between.
The six operational conditions of Taoism actually show in detail the decay of virtues as they move further away from the natural laws.
I could give to a charity but Im a tad GREEDY for time and effort.
Therefore i no longer strive DIRECTLY to accord with natural law and generate wholesome states.
So i give to this charity which may well be quite corrupt. Now behaviourally im giving away resources EXCESS to definitey achieving wholesome states.
This is called operating at virtue where vices arises. All three modes are present or con-fused in one.
The natural law is the foundation of the virtues. We can move away from it in four distinct steps between order/chaos. Accord/discord
Virtues are not subject but modes of accord that factor in ALL the relevant innate information - WHOLEsome
They have no over or under emphasis or internal disordering on any elements that make up a structured dynamics. This is the distortion known as perversion. So they have INTEGRITY
They are thus congruent with ACCORD.
The underpinning principle that Aristotle said does exist. And is fixed but NOT rigid.
Also if we look at the cause of arising of motivating principles, the virtues are congruent where the vices are incongruent.
This means they have self defeating irony and create logical impasses where one end must give.
For example we see someone suffer and in pity (the excess to compassion) we generate sympathetic suffering.
It arises due to not liking suffering and wanting to alleviate it BUT then generates it.
That's not subjective and puts to bed any argument against virtues being Morality.
Also deontology focusing on facile rules is definitely a problem Aristotle was right to refute.
Theres no rules that aren't comprised of speech, intention deeds etc
So focusing on facile rules and ignoring their foundation (the virtues) is showing a lack of understanding as ti why we have them.
Now profound means...profoundation. the points of information on which a thing is founded and has its existence.
So what deontology does is essentially reverses the order.
Focuses on rules first. Blurs the virtue and vices together (con-fuse) and decentralizes the principles of the natural order on which the virtues have THEIR foundation
This creates what's called mores. Social norms they blend from both polarities of virtue and vice. A false dichotomy. 0:03
Morality on the other hand, understands the natural order on which the virtues are founded and that they create accord with manifest existence.
Three modes of:
1. Align with
2. Preserve
3. Reestablish wholesome states when lost.
The they make rules out of the presence of virtue and absence of vice. The actual dichotomy.
All religions and philosophies are pretty much just mores.
That's partly because nobody actually knows what the process of Discernment is. Its best definition is "to make that which is obscure clear AND discriminate one thing apart from another"
It comes from discernere meaning SEPARATE. That's removes con-fusion.
We only have to integrate information and avoid conflating (confusion) or disintegrating (ignorance) the seven types of information literally EVERYTHING is made of.
This will answer many of the arguments against "virtue ethics" (which is akin to saying food pizza)
And clean up his own errors
Those types are
1. Concrete (physical)
2. Abstract (conceptual)
Nothing we try to comprehend will not contain these.
3. Categorical (macro)
4. Qualitative (micro or details within the macro)
5. Quantitative (includes all mathematical laws etc but also the quantity of each thing's innate information being factored in)
Integrate those we have concise and precise - clear
6. Similarities
7. Distinguishing differences
The last two separate and remove confusion (AND discriminate one thing apart from another)
How do we determine what are virtues and vices without Deontology or Consequentialism? Or is it supposed to be up for personal interpretation?
Aristotle already set a pillar of morals where the mean is right, the deficiency and excess being bad
The Holy Bible
Just wao
Oh my goodness.
sounds like it's possible to forgo the faking it until you make it.
How would the golden mean ratio work with medicine? The two opposite extremes are saving a life and killing someone. Keeping them sick is not moral not ethical.
Bro, I think the two extremes in medical care are the inability to cure patients and excessive medical care. Treating patients correctly is the golden mean.
DT
Option 1 is not tactless, you just gotta tell the whole truth and talk. The other guy needs to learn to get over it. Otherwise, you deserve failure.
Fake it till you make SAINTHOOD
#BeASaint
etica360evitamales
TACTLESSNESS IS A VICE?