Virtuous People

[Atomic]

Depends, did she eat what she killed?

That's not a question of "virtue".

That's a question of "thrifty" vs. "wasteful".

Or also vampirism!

[GlytchMeister]

Depends, did she eat what she killed?

That's not a question of "virtue".

That's a question of "thrifty" vs. "wasteful".

Or also vampirism!

If she ate him when other food was available and she wasn’t starving... Do you want wendigos? Because this is how you get wendigos.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

And what if the third man, upon learning that the job involves counting the gold, goes to the master/employer/whatever and says "I will be so tempted to steal some of your gold that I am not confident of my ability to resist. Please assign another to this task, and perhaps give me their work instead, or some other work, or send me away to seek employment elsewhere."



As for the notion that it is the outcome that determines virtue. There is a serial rapist-murderer in the city. Jane develops a desire to know what it's like to murder somebody. So she goes in search of the serial murderer. Identifies him. To be absolutely certain of the identification, she waits until the guy is standing over the corpse of the next victim, and then puts a bullet through his head.

Jane stopped - definitively - a serial rapist-murder. While not the best possible outcome, it is certainly a good one.

But she also deliberately sought out a specific person for the purpose of murdering him. At the time Jane killed the guy, there was no immediate threat to Jane or anyone else.

A slightly better outcome - one less murder victim - would have been achieved if Jane had killed the guy a few minutes sooner, while the final victim was still alive and in good health. (And she possibly could legally justify the killing in terms of saving the victim.)

A similar outcome - stopping the serial rapist-murderer, timing uncertain - could have been achieved if Jane had taken her identification and supporting information to the police.

Is Jane virtuous for killing the guy?

Hell no.

First off, murder is, in and of itself, not virtuous. So right off the bat, she's nowhere close. This is, of course, separate from military actions (in which it is a 'kill or be killed' scenario), self defense (which is another 'kill or be killed' scenario), or lawful execution (when someone is just too dangerous to society to be left alive, as determined by due process and a court of peers).

And really, that's where it all goes sideways. It isn't that Jane wonders what it is like to kill something, which could have been sated by visiting a slaughterhouse or similar venue but to a) murder, and b) someONE. Right off the bat, we're talking about a really, really dark headspace to be in. Virtuous would have been continuing to live life without catering to this urge.

Choice of victim might be considered 'mitigating circumstances', but unfortunately you are missing a very clear point: murdering anyone, even someone who 'deserves to die', is STILL MURDER. Even if that person would have been executed lawfully by the court system, you are STILL in the wrong for taking the law into your own hands. Especially considering, in this scenario, the guy had already done his deed. Jane is not a law enforcement officer, is not attempting to bring him to justice... she just wants to get her kicks. Which, ultimately, makes her little better than her victim.

[Warrl]

No, Shneekey, I didn't miss anything. I drew out a point. It is NOT - or, at least, not JUST - the outcome that determines whether a person, or an action, is virtuous.

On the other side of the same point I could set up a situation where someone does what logically seems exactly the right thing under the known circumstances, entirely benevolently, and it turns out to cause many deaths due to random chance or unknown circumstances. A horrible outcome from virtuous actions. (Heck, there's no shortage of real-life instances of that. One that I can think of made the news in the last couple years: as I recall, four people drowned in unsuccessful attempts to save one kid from drowning.)

[Atomic]

It is NOT - or, at least, not JUST - the outcome that determines whether a person, or an action, is virtuous.

Well, it's looking like there's general agreement that virtue requires verb activity to be accomplished.

OK, then, let me warm up a fresh skunk to toss into the arena: Is Virtue an absolute?

In the old Edgar G. Robinson movie, The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938), a psychiatrist becomes obsessed with studying the criminal mind. His research moves beyond jailhouse examinations to becoming a rainmaker for a criminal gang, so that he might study them during the act. He chose well insured targets and counseled against murder. At the end of the movie, his trial devolves into a courtroom riot over Ends vs Means.

In the movie 300, the Spartan tale of birth examination is shown, where newborns are carefully chosen for their flawlessness, and the inadequate were tossed off a cliff to die. The needs of their culture were more important than a single life.

There's a Roman story of a army unit (not a full Legion, IIRC) that was sent off over the horizon to show the world of Rome's might. More likely somebody had it in for the unit leader and wanted rid of him. At any rate, they obeyed, marched off with banners flying, and never returned.

So then, back to virtue. Can you remove "virtue" from a cultural construct? In the eyes of the participants, all of the above were acts of virtue - scientific investigation, improving society, and obedience to authority. They are also all the acts of madmen, as WE would view them. Or... ?

[Warrl]

So then, back to virtue. Can you remove "virtue" from a cultural construct? In the eyes of the participants, all of the above were acts of virtue - scientific investigation, improving society, and obedience to authority. They are also all the acts of madmen, as WE would view them. Or... ?

Well, I've suggested in the past that if one fully understands the facts relevant to a situation and fully understands human rights it is simply not possible for two people's rights to come into conflict... but that such understanding is rare even in relatively simple cases of apparent conflict.

How far do we want to go in considering things "cultural constructs"? Is the idea that the long-term survival of the species is desirable, a cultural construct? How about prosperity, both species-level and individual?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It is NOT - or, at least, not JUST - the outcome that determines whether a person, or an action, is virtuous.

Well, it's looking like there's general agreement that virtue requires verb activity to be accomplished.

OK, then, let me warm up a fresh skunk to toss into the arena: Is Virtue an absolute?

In the old Edgar G. Robinson movie, The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse (1938), a psychiatrist becomes obsessed with studying the criminal mind. His research moves beyond jailhouse examinations to becoming a rainmaker for a criminal gang, so that he might study them during the act. He chose well insured targets and counseled against murder. At the end of the movie, his trial devolves into a courtroom riot over Ends vs Means.

In the movie 300, the Spartan tale of birth examination is shown, where newborns are carefully chosen for their flawlessness, and the inadequate were tossed off a cliff to die. The needs of their culture were more important than a single life.

There's a Roman story of a army unit (not a full Legion, IIRC) that was sent off over the horizon to show the world of Rome's might. More likely somebody had it in for the unit leader and wanted rid of him. At any rate, they obeyed, marched off with banners flying, and never returned.

So then, back to virtue. Can you remove "virtue" from a cultural construct? In the eyes of the participants, all of the above were acts of virtue - scientific investigation, improving society, and obedience to authority. They are also all the acts of madmen, as WE would view them. Or... ?

Mu.

For those who do not understand, allow me to explain:

Mu is neither yes nor no, it is basically an error message, question either irrelevant or erroneous.

Virtue is a very personal topic, it is impossible to try to apply it to governments. Each individual within the government body must act with virtue their own, but a government is not an individual, and thus the concept of virtue does not apply. For groups of people, you wander from Virtue to Ethics and Morals, which are still important, but distinctly different.

[Warrl]

I say government is inherently evil. It cannot function without violating people's rights. The best, most virtuous government that could ever govern humans would still be evil.

We put up with it because people are sometimes evil. We hope that government will be effective in restraining and undoing people's natural evil, while itself being less evil than people would be without the restraint of government - as well as more predictable and more even-handed in its evil-doing. For this to work, of course, we need the government to do the least that it can, outside of dealing with evil people, and still remain functional.

Tolerating the existence of government is a pragmatic necessity, not a moral necessity.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I say government is inherently evil. It cannot function without violating people's rights. The best, most virtuous government that could ever govern humans would still be evil.

We put up with it because people are sometimes evil. We hope that government will be effective in restraining and undoing people's natural evil, while itself being less evil than people would be without the restraint of government - as well as more predictable and more even-handed in its evil-doing. For this to work, of course, we need the government to do the least that it can, outside of dealing with evil people, and still remain functional.

Tolerating the existence of government is a pragmatic necessity, not a moral necessity.

I would respectfully disagree... sort of.

I won't say that government is inherently evil, nor that it cannot function without violating people's rights. Having said that, most governments have done so in the past, not so much a fact of government as a fact of power corruption of the people running it. In theory, on paper, a government can be run ethically and morally, it is simply vanishingly rare for it to actually happen.

The government is there primarily for three reasons:

1) To provide those services which are best leveraged on a macro scale. This would be mostly infrastructure things like transportation, emergency services, and the like. No single individual is able to afford, for example, to build roads. No single individual has a good reason to build them. So without a government system, they would be neither built nor maintained. However, a functioning road system is the lifeblood for many cities, for food and other necessary goods to come into the town instead of being produced locally. How far you want to take this responsibility can get into some political factors that are worthy of debate, but generally end up in knee-jerk reactions shouting at each other and calling each other names instead of compromise.

2) Court of Arbitration. When two citizens disagree on a topic, the government gets to be the mediator. This is also where the 'police force' comes into play, to enforce these judgments, because some people are jerks.

3) Defense. Because if you don't have a military, you WILL be invaded and taken over. It's a simple fact. So you need a military capable of being difficult enough to defeat that it isn't worth your neighbor's time and effort and expense to invade you for your natural resources.

However, all of these things cost money. LOTS of money. So, those who are able to take advantage of these services the government offers pays taxes to cover these expenses. Again, this can get into a very politically charged topic, which I'd really prefer to avoid. Suffice to say, America almost died before it began because the central government was incapable of collecting taxes. The Articles of Confederation, as they were written (NOT as they were originally proposed, mind), were dead on arrival for this reason. Of course, with the ability to levy and collect taxes comes the temptation to develop sticky fingers, which is where you can see corruption begin to occur in the government system.

The only way you can do without a government is to run a True Democratic Commune, in a tribal setting. Which breaks down after your population gets to around 250. And even then, you still have a government, you just have a government of 'everybody', in effect.

[Warrl]

I won't say that government is inherently evil, nor that it cannot function without violating people's rights. Having said that, most governments have done so in the past,

We generally regard it as evil to demand, under threat of force, that someone hand you money for no stronger reason than because you want it or think you need it. It's called "robbery" or "extortion".

It's also called "taxes".

A government that collects taxes is evil.

Unfortunately, being human, we cannot eliminate all evil.

There are pragmatic - not moral - reasons why it's necessary to tolerate a certain amount of that evil, and of other evils that governments must necessarily do from time to time in order to perform their few legitimate functions. The achievable ideal and hope is that government will do less evil than it prevents others from doing.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I won't say that government is inherently evil, nor that it cannot function without violating people's rights. Having said that, most governments have done so in the past,

We generally regard it as evil to demand, under threat of force, that someone hand you money for no stronger reason than because you want it or think you need it. It's called "robbery" or "extortion".

It's also called "taxes".

A government that collects taxes is evil.

Unfortunately, being human, we cannot eliminate all evil.

There are pragmatic - not moral - reasons why it's necessary to tolerate a certain amount of that evil, and of other evils that governments must necessarily do from time to time in order to perform their few legitimate functions. The achievable ideal and hope is that government will do less evil than it prevents others from doing.

Did you bother reading what I just wrote? Without taxes, we end up subsistence-level tribal people, incapable of supporting the population density seen in most countries.

Do you drive on roads? Can you do so and survive the attempt? Are you capable of purchasing groceries at your local store without the vendor arguing about the value of your currency? Are you worried about our neighbors invading and enslaving or executing us?

Congratulations, you're benefiting from a service. Which you should pay for. In the form of taxes.

I will grant that this is an area that can attract the corrupt, but if our hypothetically virtuous people mentioned in the first post of this thread were to be running the government, then that government would simply not be corrupt. Granted, it's a nigh impossibility, as the only individuals who have incentive to run for office are those who plan on exploiting the advantages that office holds, which is why we need to start working on our social and political sciences as hard as we have our physical sciences in the past century, but that doesn't mean the government is corrupt or that taxes are a form of extortion.

Your implication that taxes are collected because a hypothetical 'someone' "thinks they want or need it". There is no think about it. To continue to offer you services, they need money to pay for that service to be performed. It isn't extortion, it is paying for services rendered.

Without taxes, a government cannot exist. Without a government, modern civilization cannot exist. It's really that simple.

The evil lies not with the institution, but those who abuse it for personal gain.

[Dave]

I cite a round-table discussion between Prof, Manny, and Wyoh in Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress", on the question of

"When is it moral and ethical, for a government or group to do things which are not moral and ethical for the individuals in that group to do?"

Prof described this as the question about government. In particular, your answer to it tends to set the boundaries of where you feel it is fair and proper for a government (or society) to use some form of compulsion on its members to enforce the rules of the society.

Another way people have looked at this question, is an evolutionary one, along the following lines:

• Individuals of a type (or species) often interact. They group together.
• The benefit of such groups, is the "we're stronger together than we are apart" principle. By grouping together, individuals increase their chances for survival (and reproduction, which is what natural selection is all about).
• In such groupings, there is almost always some sort of "give and take" relationship between the individuals. Each contributes something, and receives benefits from the group in return. This can be as simple as bacteria which each spit out a bit of mucus (which, collectively, creates a bio-film that resists antibiotics and defends the group against predators) or as complex as human society.
• In any such give-and-take grouping, the problem of "cheaters" is inevitable - individuals which accept the benefits, but don't contribute to the group in return.
• Cheaters have a survival advantage - they conserve their energy and resources (by not contributing) but still get the benefits created by the "cooperators".
• So, without some mechanism to deter cheating, cheaters will tend to out-reproduce cooperators, and eventually take dominate the system... to the point where the group benefits cease to exist. By winning, they lose... and the whole group can go extinct when the mutual-benefit system collapses.
• Hence, in the long run, there is a survival benefit for groups in which cooperators can identify cheaters, and stop them from cheating the system - either by forcing them to cooperate, or by eliminating them from the group so they don't draw on its resources.

In human terms - societies survive better if they have rules (laws) about behavior, and enforce them effectively against cheaters. Inadequate or weakly-enforced rules may not deter cheating. Arbitrary enforcement of the rule penalties (e.g. "vigilante behavior") can be just as disruptive, as vigilantes may attack cooperators as well as cheaters - and this is just another form of cheating (and can lead to anarchy).

One can argue - and some have - that human morality boils down to just this sort of equation-balancing. A sense of "morality" reflects evolution: societies which develop a balanced sense of morality ("There's right, and there's wrong, and societies are allowed some enforcement and coercion powers that individuals are not") tend to survive better than those with either no sense of morality (dog-eats-dog individualism) or too-rigid a moral system (may I call this a "god-eats-dog" theocracy?)

In that sense, "virtue" can be defined as "That aspect of behavior which history has shown tends to promote the overall survival of the group over a long period of time."

There's some evidence that our primate cousins, and many "simpler" mammals as well, do have a sense of "fairness" and hence of at least one form of virtue. It's not just a human characteristic.

[Warrl]

Did you bother reading what I just wrote? Without taxes, we end up subsistence-level tribal people, incapable of supporting the population density seen in most countries.

Perhaps you need to read what I wrote. I never said that we shouldn't have government. In fact I explained why - in spite of government being inherently evil - we should. And government can't function without taxes.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Did you bother reading what I just wrote? Without taxes, we end up subsistence-level tribal people, incapable of supporting the population density seen in most countries.

Perhaps you need to read what I wrote. I never said that we shouldn't have government. In fact I explained why - in spite of government being inherently evil - we should. And government can't function without taxes.

It isn't the institution of the government which is inherently evil, it is abusing the system by those in charge that is evil. The institution or concept of governance is no more evil than a firearm. Both can be used for good or for ill, depending on how it is used, and is blindly indifferent to how it is used. And in attempting to label the government itself as evil, you are giving a de facto blanket pardon to those in office by blaming the institution and not the individual.

A government is no more or less evil than a knife is. It is a tool used to further human society.

Evil implies malignancy, and an artificial construct is incapable of such malignancy. It is the deeds of those running it that are good or evil, not the tool.

A government is nothing more than a social contract. A work of artifice. A fiction that everyone makes real through belief, if you will. It is not an entity that is capable of independent thought or action.

[Warrl]

It isn't the institution of the government which is inherently evil, it is abusing the system by those in charge that is evil.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. As long as governments use force to extract wealth from innocent people, or compel innocent people into actions not of their choosing, or otherwise violate people's rights, I have to regard them as evil. There is no government, and I doubt there could be a government, over more than a few dozen people that refrains from such things.

Please note that no corruption is required in that. Government has some legitimate functions. However, that does not make evil means of financing or carrying out those functions non-evil.

Government is (if properly restrained) the lesser evil, as compared to what humans unconstrained by government would do. And that's the pragmatic justification for having it. But the lesser evil is still evil.

[Atomic]

Boy, am I glad I invested in that skunk farm! There's no end to the delights they lead to....

[Dave]

Rabble-rouser!

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It isn't the institution of the government which is inherently evil, it is abusing the system by those in charge that is evil.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. As long as governments use force to extract wealth from innocent people, or compel innocent people into actions not of their choosing, or otherwise violate people's rights, I have to regard them as evil. There is no government, and I doubt there could be a government, over more than a few dozen people that refrains from such things.

Please note that no corruption is required in that. Government has some legitimate functions. However, that does not make evil means of financing or carrying out those functions non-evil.

Government is (if properly restrained) the lesser evil, as compared to what humans unconstrained by government would do. And that's the pragmatic justification for having it. But the lesser evil is still evil.

Then I suppose we shall simply have to agree to disagree. To say a thing is evil is to say it is actively malignant and malicious, which means it needs to have the ability to think and reason and choose the course of evil. And a construct of artifice is incapable of such. A government is neither sapient nor sentient, and is incapable of making decisions for itself.

I'm really not understanding why you consider taxes so evil. It is payment for services rendered. It is no different than paying your utilities bill, which is also backed by force ultimately. Or paying for your groceries instead of walking out without paying them. That is also backed by force.

I'm afraid we have a fundamental disagreement about the concept of economics, I suppose. In my opinion, there's no such thing as a free lunch, you have to pay for what you get. Taxes are payment for services rendered, nothing more.

[Warrl]

I'm really not understanding why you consider taxes so evil. It is payment for services rendered.

With the recipient of that payment being the sole judge of what services you have received and what the amount due is.

It is no different than paying your utilities bill, which is also backed by force ultimately. Or paying for your groceries instead of walking out without paying them. That is also backed by force.

You pay your utility bills for services actually delivered to you. You pay for groceries you actually get. If you get more, you pay more; if you get less, you pay less; both in direct proportion.

Taxes are levied to pay for services the government declares that it is providing, without regard to whether you use them, need them, or even want the government providing them. You are taxed to pay for the government doing things you fervently desire that the government not do. The amount of the tax is not based on what the government provides for you. Depending on what government you're talking about, it may not even be based on an equitable share of the cost of what the government provides (in its own judgment) to everyone. (The income tax, for example, is to a large extent a tax on how much you do for other people - as represented by their paying you to do it.)

That's quite a difference.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

You pay your utility bills for services actually delivered to you. You pay for groceries you actually get. If you get more, you pay more; if you get less, you pay less; both in direct proportion.

Taxes are levied to pay for services the government declares that it is providing, without regard to whether you use them, need them, or even want the government providing them. You are taxed to pay for the government doing things you fervently desire that the government not do. The amount of the tax is not based on what the government provides for you. Depending on what government you're talking about, it may not even be based on an equitable share of the cost of what the government provides (in its own judgment) to everyone. (The income tax, for example, is to a large extent a tax on how much you do for other people - as represented by their paying you to do it.)

That's quite a difference.

I think we have a fundamental difference of the value of what the government provides, if that is your opinion.

Many of the things that the government provides are things almost no one in America ever thinks about. I didn't think about it either until I did some outreach outside of America.

Can you pay for items with your currency and have it be accepted without question? Do you have transport infrastructure that you can use safely and freely to obtain basic necessities? Do you not fear some petty tyrant or dictator isn't going to swoop in, burn everything you own, and enslave you? Can you criticize your government without fear of vanishing in the night?

Congratulations, you're one step ahead of over half the world. Thanks to the government system we have.

Mind you, it isn't perfect, not by any means. It can definitely stand improvement, and taxation and resource allocation are definitely areas that can stand improvement. But that doesn't make it somehow inherently 'evil', just because it can be improved.

Say you are surfing, and a Great White Shark takes a big ol' bite out of you. The shark isn't evil, it isn't capable of comprehending good or evil, it is simply hungry, and wonders if you would make a good meal. You're probably either going to be killed or permanently maimed by the attack, which is definitely a hell of a lot worse than being taxed, but it isn't an evil creature.

Wickedness, evil, whatever you want to call it, requires both sapience and sentience, the knowing improvement of yourself, as a person, over your fellow man. A government is a social construct, it is not capable of being evil, or good.

You can disagree with the concept of government all you like, you can consider it to be a morally and ethically reprehensible practice, compare it to a con game if you want. But that doesn't make it evil, because evil is something only people can do. Perhaps you could make the claim that those who run the government are evil, and probably make a pretty darn good case for it, but a government can be no more evil than a deck of cards that is being used for three-card monty.