Character Traits

No, I just hold people to the standards they pretend to support.

If you claim X is an honest judgement, and I ask for you reasoning and you can give me none then I'm going to accuse you of intellectual fraud. If all you have to back your claims is "well thats my opinion" then this is just a waste of time. No one wants to hear prejudice repeated 1000 times over, it advances no cause but its own.

I considered that. You might be right, however it is probably possible to be virtuous without actually doing very much acting. Although I suppose force of will factors into the steadfastness of non-action or passive action.

I suppose I would consider it to be less important because it tends to manifest of its own accord from the first three, which you definitely have control / choice over.

In my opinion the least important vitures are the superficial ones: Charm, liberality, temperance, majesty. Someone who is not charming or generous with his time, who has a tendency to excess (say in his work) and does not care that his work is not of greatness to others (although I think it is important that his work be of greatness to himself) may still be an entirely virtuous person.

 

I added it as a bit of an after thought, referring to attention to detail / quality of work. Which I am not sure is covered under any other category.

For example you might undertake a great work: such as a grand building. And the building may be honest, as in build on solid foundations. And you may also have applied considerable integrity in its design. But aesthetically, is what you have created simply another building or is it an excellent building. Excellent in both its form and its function?

This was certainly Aristotle's argument for how virtues come about. But I would quickly point out that its the golden mean fallacy to suggest anything that sits between two extremes is a virtue. For example: halfway between benevolence and murder would be randomly poisoning people; and I don't think anyone would agree that this is a virtue.

This, I don't think so. If you refer to "respect for yourself and others" as a form of self-discipline, then this is not true respect, but mere compliance. Respect, like love, is an involuntary response to those traits you value when exhibited in yourself and others. If another person simply lacks virtue then there is no way to respect that person. The best you could do is counterfeit respect, which is much worse than none at all because it compromises your own honesty and integrity.

 

Right, but this is not a virtue, it is just a survival strategy. Unless you are really psychologically screwed up this type of respect is always counterfeit respect for the purpose of compliance.

And of course it's worth pointing out here that virtue is only possible where there is choice. As a second class citizen stuck in a state enforced "school" with "teachers" there is no choice for the student, so the situation is amoral, since morality only applies where it can be reasonably argued that there is free choice (that is: decisions made under duress are not subject to moral analysis since they are not free choices).

 

Well sure, most people fall into that category. Why are you asking me, just look at your own disposition toward people. At least when I look at people I assume everyone is neutral tending toward good unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Well this isn't free choice. There is still the capacity to choose under duress, but it is usually considered that morality doesn't apply. Ultimately you aren't calling the shots, someone else is.

So the typical example is that someone gives you a gun, points a larger gun at you, and says "kill this innocent person X, or I will kill you."

Philosophically and legally speaking we generally do not consider this act (murder under duress) to be the action of the person who pulls the trigger, but rather the action of the person holding the larger gun. I think it would be quite unjust of you to suggest that the one pulling the trigger should have given up his own life to save the life of the other. I certainly would not give up my life to save the life of the other. If you suggest that I should then try reversing the roles: The gunman takes the gun from me and gives it to innocent X, and then tells him to shoot me. Should he now be shot, whereas before he should not have been?

The answer is: it's a state of nature. Action under duress is a state of nature, morality does not apply. Morality can only apply where there is free choice.
Also: Since each human's life is necessarily worth more to him than the lives of those others around him, it is counter-natural to expect of him to sacrifice his life for others. It is each in our nature to go on surviving, and this is one of the core purposes of ethics. So again, it would be in contradiction with the reason for maintaining a code of ethics if ethics dictated that we must die; In that event I would rather have no ethics; Often summarized as "no one is asking you to starve for your ethics." Again: state of nature.

 

As I said earlier: respect is an involuntary response to certain types of virtue, not a virtue in itself.

 

Yeah, although both of those imply functional adequacy. Excellence is more about building it to a higher and moreover unique standard set by one's own ambitions.

 

The terms: self-centered, egoistic, arrogant, pride. Both of you please define before using.

In my experience these are no-meaning terms or 'anticoncepts' just projected onto people to express a prejudice (usually jealousy or envy).

 

Care to elaborate?

 

Majesty is a trait perceived by others (projected outward), whereas humility is a trait which is very personal (inward). I don't see that they are mutually exclusive, although by some common definitions perhaps they might be.

To be more precise, humility is dedication to the Socratic method, whereas majesty is simply having an awe inspiring reputation -- generally as a result of either being exceptionally well educated and well liked, or as a result of having done great things.

Well this would be a problem, if they are all virtues. So maybe you could come up with an example of a contradiction?