Foundation of Virtue

“Prudence [practical wisdom] is the knowledge of things which are good, or bad, or neither good nor bad. … Justice is a habit of the mind which attributes its proper dignity to everything, preserving a due regard to the general welfare. … Fortitude [courage] is a deliberate encountering of danger and enduring of labour. … Temperance is the form and well-regulated dominion of reason over lust and other improper affections of the mind.” (On Invention II.54)

Well what am I on about today?

I have been reading ethics for a bit now, and all I can say is that everybody has an opinion, and these opinions seem to say that it is right to do good, wrong to do evil, and there is no clear definition of either. Ethics are always subjective often adaptive, that is change over time and conditions of life, traditions, cultures and ethnic groups. As soon as one accepts one ethic precept, a bunch of more statements can be made by logical extension, defining what should and should not be done. So how can one say existentialism is better than virtue ethics?

Prudence, that is the ability to judge which is better, is a foundation virtue, yet is the result of what we believe, which is the foundation for prudence. The whole fudging thing is circular logic, so it should be based on what? Iteration, testing, and picking the most likely to be true statements. So the best argument for no god becomes bone cancer, and the best argument for a god becomes the comfort and consolation one can obtain from a group delusion. So what is the point?

I write because I have something to say without interruption, and criticism, well until it is published anyway. In the end it does not matter, no one with the power to do anything is listening to the Co2 danger, the political danger, climate change, religion bullfeathers, or anything else much. In the end I will just die anyway, and nobody will care too much. Some will be relieved. I cannot blame them; I do not care for their religion; they do not care to be told that they are wrong, and so it goes.

So the existentialist thinks that we should not do anything that has the potential of shorting our lives. So this implies no drinking, drugs, gambling, proper diet and exercise, stay out of heavy traffic, late night driving, pay attention to rules of the road, avoid unhealthy situations and areas, chemicals, and the like. The virtue ethic suggest that we need to do good things only, and avoid evil things. So what is the difference? How we come to the same conclusion. But existentialism is much clearer, more direct of reasoning. Protect the asset type prudence. Yet there are all those who do not; are they wrong, or do they just value pleasure more than those who think sober life has value?

So what about when a practical situation does is not adequately addressed by theory? Somethings cannot be taught because we do not understand the problem. So what is virtue really?

Behavior showing high moral standards, but what are high moral standards? That depends on you culture, time, on your beliefs, and that just depends on, well where and when you were dropped on this planet. Oh really?