Socrates is trying to figure out if virtue can be taught, Protagoras is a Sophist who claims he can teach virtue.

And the biggest irony is that ultimately the one who seeks only pleasure gets the least of it, while the virtuous man, who never seeks it, gets the most, and ultimately does in fact lead the most pleasant life.

In Plato's Euthyphro Socrates asks:

“Are morally good acts willed by God because they are morally good, or are they morally good because they are willed by God?”

Plato rejects Divine Command Theory, but this is exactly what the Bible, Christianity and eventually Deontology accepts...that there are rules given to us, ways to live the Good Life, and a virtuous life follows these rules.

The issue (in need of reconciliation I think) is between Virtue Ethics and Deontolgical Ethics. Kant held that man has to follow the Moral Law in order to be worthy of the Good, that virtue involves doing what one ought to do.


(We could go though Socrates' Hedonistic argument, but since you seem to be heading towards the Hellenic conception of virtue, I thought a conversation of how the Hellenic ideal compares to the Abrahamic ideal might be interesting)

Plato rejects Divine Command Theory, but this is exactly what the Bible, Christianity and eventually Deontology accepts...that there are rules given to us, ways to live the Good Life, and a virtuous life follows these rules.

The issue (in need of reconciliation I think) is between Virtue Ethics and Deontolgical Ethics. Kant held that man has to follow the Moral Law in order to be worthy of the Good, that virtue involves doing what one ought to do. — Cavacava

This is very strange because you know that virtue ethics existed before deontological ethics, and they are accepted as Christian ethics by many theologians, even St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Bible does not imply that rewards are given based on following commandments - but rather that following commandments leads to the virtues which are the reward itself. To witness one such instance that comes to mind right away:

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul. — Proverbs 6:32

The emphasis is again on the corrupting nature of vice itself. It's not wrong to commit adultery because God ordered you not to - rather God ordered you not to because it is wrong, ie. it will harm you. So I'm not sure that the Bible accepts divine command theory in the way it is usually understood :)

I have to work.. but consider that Abraham was commanded by God to kill Isaac and that it was Paul who introduced the idea of will divided against itself.

But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
— Proverbs 6:32

Why does he destroy his soul, is it due to his own internal conflict or because he does not follow God's Command. I think it is the latter.

Abraham was commanded by God to kill Isaac — Cavacava

The parable has a very specific meaning which is about the importance of faith. As outlined by Kierkegaard, Abraham trusted, even if he could not see how, that God's commandment was ultimately aimed at his (as well as Isaac's) goodness. Thus he humbled himself before God, and willingly bore all the pain that was going to come from the act. The purpose here, much like the purpose in Job, is to show the power of faith.

Paul who introduced the idea of will divided against itself — Cavacava

An idea later developed by theologians like St. Augustine through their explanation that, despite appearances, God is actually closer to your own jugular vein than you yourself are - that God is more you than you are. Thus, the will divided against itself is just your misunderstanding and misidentification of your own nature. It is an effect of pride and the original sin.

Why does he destroy his soul, is it due to his own internal conflict or because he does not follow God's Command. I think it is the latter. — Cavacava

He destroys his soul because he does violence to his own nature - he betrays his wife, he destroys the intimacy, love and exclusivity that existed between them, and other such permanent goods of the soul, in exchange for a moment of fleeting pleasure. So God doesn't do anything to destroy his soul - he does that himself by engaging in the vice. And notice that this is unchangeable - regardless what he does after, he will live with this and the consequences forever. The Gospel paints the picture of God in pursuit of man - and men running away. If he thus runs away out of his own will, and separates himself from God, how is it God's fault that he is in Hell? The gates of hell are locked from the inside...

Abraham may have acted from his faith in God, but he followed God's command. This is different than the Hellenic approach.

He destroys his soul because he does violence to his own nature - he betrays his wife, he destroys the intimacy, love and exclusivity that existed between them, and other such permanent goods of the soul,

No, I think he destroys his soul because he goes against the commandment not to commit adultery, I don't think the interpretation you are trying ascribing can be held in the Old Testament. It was not until Christianity adopted Hellenic ideas that such a reading became possible.

Abraham may have acted from his faith in God, but he followed God's command. This is different than the Hellenic approach. — Cavacava

Yes because he understood that God knew better than he did what was best for him and his son, so he had faith in God.

No, I think he destroys his soul because he goes against the commandment not to commit adultery — Cavacava

Where does the Old Testament state this? If you read Proverbs, or maybe you go to some books which aren't included in some versions of the Bible (like King James), such as Book of Ecclesiasticus, you will see that divine commandments are issued as guideposts for man to live the best life, not as capricious demands that man must fulfil to be rewarded by God. It is made clear, through for example the story of Job, that being virtuous does not guarantee earthly happiness, but it is nevertheless the best that can be done to guarantee it.

What you are referring to, the Books of Moses, where the 10 Commandments are given and so forth is a description of the history of the Jewish people and their relationship with God, not an explication of divine wisdom, which you have to look in other books for. Yes there are commandments - God does wish his people to live in a certain way. Why does He wish them to live so? Because that's what is good for them - not as you imply that God just wants them to live so because he wants them to live so. That is absurd.

Also Christians adopted Hellenic ideas from the very beginning, don't forget that St. Paul interacted with Hellenic peoples, argued and disputed with them, and preached the Gospel to them. The two were intimately linked. What happened after is that Christianity developed in tandem with Neoplatonism, and neglected many of the Aristotelian roots of Greek culture, which were later retrieved through the works of theologians like St. Thomas Aquinas.

My point is that virtue ethics, is traced back to Hellenic thought and Divine Command theory evolved out of Abrahamic thought which was rule based. Christianity mixes these two different attitudes toward morals, which became the normative ideal from which Deontolgy evolved. That is what I am suggesting.

I don't think there is a good basis for supporting an Old Testament version of Virtue Ethics.

You bring up the Book of Job. Where God and Satan bet on Job's caving into the misfortunes that God inveighs against Job. Job follows the rules. He does what he believes God has commanded, his moral crisis is why is God doing this to me, God's answer, who are you to ask, where were you when I created all of this. He sets the rules an man obeys. Job obey his rules.

My point is that virtue ethics, is traced back to Hellenic thought and Divine Command theory evolved out of Abrahamic thought which was rule based. — Cavacava

I think the rules are just the structure required to teach virtue. Socrates was long wondering about whether virtue can be taught or not :)

Christianity mixes these two different attitudes toward morals, which became the normative ideal from which Deontolgy evolved — Cavacava

I think in either case, Deontology as Kant understood it, is quite un-Christian. Its emphasis of duty to a moral law, regardless of the aims, is not a Christian idea.

You bring up the Book of Job. Where God and Satan bet on Job's caving into the misfortunes that God inveighs against Job. Job follows the rules. He does what he believes God has commanded, his moral crisis is why is God doing this to me, God's answer, who are you to ask, where were you when I created all of this. He sets the rules an man obeys. Job obey his rules. — Cavacava

Each book of the Bible is written with a purpose. To teach a moral lesson. So we must inquire what the lesson from Job is. I think the lesson is that despite being virtuous, the circumstances of the world may end up such that you are deprived, and it seems to you that you are worse off than those who haven't been virtuous. The point is that virtue (following God's commandments) is not enough for happiness. Aristotle made the same point. BUT - both Job and Aristotle go forth to say that no comfort, in the absence of virtue, is worth it. Thus one should always choose virtue, and in the case of Job faith and obedience in God.

Virtue consists in having strong moral intuitions and following them. Rule-based ethics do not account for the differences between individuals. So, following commandments is not the way of the free man, but the way of the self-ignorant slave.

Virtue consists in having strong moral intuitions and following them — John

>:O According to John. Not according to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the whole Greek lineage which defined virtue.

Rule-based ethics do not account for the differences between individuals. — John

Right - because me and you are different, you can cheat on your wife and I can't. I see. Makes a lot of sense, that must be exactly the core principle on which we build our society...

So, following commandments is not the way of the free man, but the way of the self-ignorant slave. — John

The free man does what is good John. If there happens to be a commandment which matches with what is good, then you would be a fool not to follow it.

According to John. Not according to Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the whole Greek lineage which defined virtue. — Agustino

What those thinkers thought about virtue may or may not be thought to be relevant today; and in any case it is matter of interpretation. Or perhaps you think you know 'what they really thought'?

Right - because me and you are different, you can cheat on your wife and I can't. I see. Makes a lot of sense, that must be exactly the core principle on which we build our society... — Agustino

If a woman cheats on her husband, that is a matter for them to work out in their own ways, not for 'do good' proselytizers to pronounce upon.

The free man does what is good John. If there happens to be a commandment which matches with what is good, then you would be a fool not to follow it. — Agustino

If there happened to be a commandment which matched with what I understand to be good then I would act in accordance with it, but not because I was commanded by it. My following it would be merely coincidental. How are you to know what is good for you if not by means of your own strong moral intuition? Otherwise it will be merely an opinion or a dogma. If knowing what is good for you is difficult, how much more difficult is it to know what is good for others. Your moral intuitions belong only to you. If there is a general rule it is "To each their own". Do not presume...

What those thinkers thought about virtue may or may not be thought to be relevant today; and in any case it is matter of interpretation. Or perhaps you think you know 'what they really thought'? — John

We can ask them bruv. If you head over to the Nichomachean Ethics, you will find out that Aristotle defines virtue to be a state of character or habit which orients man towards his telos.

As for whether it is relevant today - what makes you think it isn't?

If a woman cheats on her husband — John

I'm not a woman, sorry to disappoint you.

If a woman cheats on her husband, that is a matter for them to work out in their own ways, not for 'do good' proselytizers to pronounce upon. — John

Yes - let me put it straight: impossible to work out. You should never get there in the first place, that's how you work it out. Only an idiot would plunge head-on to get a disease if that disease could be prevented by one's free choice to begin with - that should be intuitively obvious.

How are you to know what is good for you if not by means of your own strong moral intuition? — John

By understanding what a human being is, by understand what this world is, and by understanding the role a human being must play in this world. This gives the general framework I am governed by. Then I couple this with an understanding of the historical and social conditions I find myself in, and guided by the general framework (which gives me the virtues) I orient myself what particular things it is best to do in the world.

Either virtue can be taught or virtue cannot be taught.

If virtue can be taught then there must be rules, principles that can be pointed to, arguments that can be understood. If virtue cannot be taught then it must reside in us as innate knowledge, or part of our constitution as human beings,something which we must discover within, a property we all share to some extent.

I think this opposition is only apparent. We live in a society that is full of norms, laws, political, social divisions and we learn to act in accordance with these norms. We understand that we take a risk when we do not accept societal norms.The cause of our actions are based on the meanings we assign to the various norms around us. Norms are general and they are learnt, The meanings we assign to norms are particular to us and our history, and these meanings (not the norms) are the direct cause of our individual actions.

How about Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the playing of the Star Spangle Banner.
Kaepernick knelt to highlight racial oppression, this action was far from the norm and it caused an uproar. He took a risk because he believes in a racial equality, and he does not see it being equally applied in our society, and he is willing to weather the consequences of his choice.

His actions seem to coincide with the principal that all men are created equal. The meaning he takes from this principal enables him, and now others, to revolt against what they see as a transgression of equality in American society. His revolt is to kneel during the playing of the Star Spangle Banner, a national song. He made kneeling into a symbolic protest, a move that appears to be virtuous to me. It is based on a rule, but his actions deny that this rule is being obeyed. The virtue of his courage is his willingness to suffer the consequences of his actions.

Agustino's problem is he considers virtue to be of the nature of a person regardless of whether they are virtuous or not, so he can act like virtue is a necessary outcome of any person.

There is no conflict over whether virtue can be taught. It can be. We teach people to behave in certain ways all the time. They absorb understand from their environment and then choose how to act. We might even say virtue is impossible without some instance of teaching, for everyone learns from their environment before making choices.

Under Agustino's argument, there can be no teaching because virtue is already consider part of a person from the beginning. Rather than being something which manifests when a virtuous choice is made, it's consdered the state from which a person "falls"-- they had virtue all their life, until they acted otherwise to the virtuous standard. Virtue is considered an essential quality rather than something created from human action.

That's why his analysis of adultery is so poor. He has no room for the adulter to act without virtue (cheat on their partner) but then act with virtue (never do it again and have a wonderful relationship with the their partner). He treats virtue not as the ethical meaning of actions, but rather the world he is entitled to. He doesn't understand humans. His understanding is what he is desperate for humans to do.

We can ask them bruv. If you head over to the Nichomachean Ethics, you will find out that Aristotle defines virtue to be a state of character or habit which orients man towards his telos.

As for whether it is relevant today - what makes you think it isn't? — Agustino

We can't ask them, that's the difference between written text and oral teaching. I think it would be fair to say that, according to Aristotle, each person has a specific telos, which is in accord with the general telos of humanity, which is to maximize personal potential, and to flourish as a unique individual. According to my understanding virtue, for Aristotle, is not a passive habit, as in the following of rules but an active disposition or quality of character.

Aristotle emphasizes phronesis or 'practical wisdom' which is the ability to see the best course of action in any situation. All situations are unique, and the woman or man with phronesis will be able to adapt to any situation. This is just what I called earlier 'having a strong moral and ethical intuition'. Ethics and morality do not consist in following rules, least of all those imposed by authority, but in possessing strong ethical and moral instincts, imagination and intuition.

And I didn't say it is not relevant today; I said it may or may not be relevant today. Meaning that it may or may not be relevant to particular individuals, of course. Whether or not it is relevant to an individual is a matter for him or her.

I'm not a woman, sorry to disappoint you. — Agustino

I don't see what that has to do with it at all.

Yes - let me put it straight: impossible to work out. You should never get there in the first place, that's how you work it out. Only an idiot would plunge head-on to get a disease if that disease could be prevented by one's free choice to begin with - that should be intuitively obvious. — Agustino

There are all kinds of reason why people 'cheat' on their partners; and it's a fact that some do it without their partners ever knowing about it and others confess and the couple manages to work it out; and sometimes even to the benefit of the relationship and the strengthening of the bond between them. No one owns anyone else; and if some people need to stray from a relationship to work out their own issues, doubtless there are some, even many, companions who are big and smart enough to accept this and love none the less for it. But of course you want to impose your one and only model of how relationships should be on everyone. As I see it this is presumptuous and shows a lack of maturity and subtlety. But no doubt you don't care what I think, and nor should you!

By understanding what a human being is, by understand what this world is, and by understanding the role a human being must play in this world. This gives the general framework I am governed by. Then I couple this with an understanding of the historical and social conditions I find myself in, and guided by the general framework (which gives me the virtues) I orient myself what particular things it is best to do in the world. — Agustino

Tbh, I don't think you display much in the way of development of such "understandings", evidenced by the fact that you seem to think there is but one kind of role "the human being must play in this world", rather than applying the results of such deliberations just to yourself (and I think even to do just that would be to close yourself to other possibilities in the name of moral rectitude).

I think you overestimate your understanding of "historical and social conditions" and your opinion of the value of your own interpretation is inflated to the point that you have lost touch with a decent level of humility. But, then again, it's only my opinion, which shouldn't matter to you in the least, if you don't see any truth in it.

according to Aristotle, each person has a specific telos — John

No. According to Aristotle, a human being has the telos of a human being - just like a knife has the telos (or function) of a knife. This is true of all knives and all human beings.

which is to maximize personal potential, and to flourish as a unique individual. — John

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Aristotle had nothing to do with this Maslowian idea.

Aristotle emphasizes phronesis or 'practical wisdom' which is the ability to see the best course of action in any situation. — John

Phroensis - the ability to act according to virtue in any particular situation. Again, your understanding of Aristotle is very superficial on this point. For example, a virtue is chastity. A virtue is a general attitude. How you act chaste in a given circumstance though - for example when someone flirts with you in an unchaste way - that is different but nevertheless guided by the virtue. Aristotle's system is very much like my own. General level framework, helps determine, through practical wisdom (understanding your social and historical position), how to act in specific situations.

Ethics and morality do not consist in following rules — John

No, it consists in acting in accordance with the virtues. In-so-far as following rules is helpful to acting in accordance to virtue, then rules are useful.

Whether or not it is relevant to an individual is a matter for him or her. — John

Yes because everyone has the intelligence to decide what is best for them all alone... >:O

There are all kinds of reason why people 'cheat' on their partners — John

Right - all of them immoral (and selfish, and uncaring).

and it's a fact that some do it without their partners ever knowing about it — John

Even worse. This is an even bigger tragedy. Now they don't even have the dignity to assume responsibility for what they have done. What kind of people do you want to breed? Snitches and liars?

and others confess and the couple manages to work it out — John

Yes, just like some manage to overcome cancer.

No one owns anyone else — John

The wrong (and selfish) attitude to go in a relationship with. It will never work out if you go with that attitude. Partners in a relationship own each other - and thus each has a duty to the other one. This is the only solid foundation for a relationship. People should go in a relationship with the attitude of freely giving themselves to the other person out of their choice - an eternal choice I may add. They no longer own themselves once in a relationship. This progressive propaganda of self-ownership is the breeding ground of much selfishness and corruption. You drum it into people's ears from the day they are born! In schools, they are only taught selfishness, and otherwise a superficial, socially pleasing altruism - which is merely a coverup for selfishness.

and if some people need to stray from a relationship to work out their own issues — John

Just like some need to murder to work out their own issues right? The victim's family, if they are big and smart will accept this and love them as a human being nonetheless >:O

But of course you want to impose your one and only model of how relationships should be on everyone. — John

No - other models of relationship may work, but they will work only accidentally - by chance - not by design.

As I see it this is presumptuous and shows a lack of maturity and subtlety. — John

Oh yes, and the murderous proposals that you make are certainly very mature and especially subtle - they certainly show a lot of concern for the victim :-*

you seem to think there is but one kind of role "the human being must play in this world" — John

As did Aristotle one might add. Or Plato for that matter. The general level framework is the same for everyone. Social and historical circumstances are different, and its the task of the person to adapt the general guidelines to their practical lives, using what Aristotle termed practical wisdom.

He has no room for the adulter to act without virtue (cheat on their partner) but then act with virtue (never do it again and have a wonderful relationship with the their partner) — TheWillowOfDarkness

False. I have room for that, only that once he commits adultery, the relationship is already ruined, whether he changes or not. If he changes, he may very well make a future relationship more sustainable, but the current one is pretty much compromised. My emphasis is that the sin is eternal - nothing can undo it while on Earth at least. Can anything remove from his mind the fact that he cheated, and the guilt associated with it? Can anything remove from his partners mind the hurt that he cheated, and the humiliation? No. Thus the sin is eternal. They could move on and keep their relationship - but they will be irrevocably hurt, just like a man who has lost a leg is irrevocably hurt, even if he may still achieve a degree of happiness, and a degree of mobility through a prosthetic.

Again progressives seem to be overcome by an attitude of indifference to sin and evil. As if evil was a banality of existence... a matter of indifference ... You seem to not realise that these things you cannot undo. That these things leave marks which last forever. You seem to be under the attitude "Yeah, he cheated, why's that even a big deal??". This is the wrong attitude - you're adopting exactly the same attitude about ISIS as well - "Oh yeah, they're only murdering and pillaging in a barbaric fashion an entire region, how about we leave them a few more years to do it until we solve the problem" - by the time you solve that problem with your attitude, evil may as well destroy you - it spreads like cancer, and it must be removed at once, with no delay!

Removal was never the point. Sin is, indeed, eternal (Christianity's major failing is it doesn't take sin seriously enough; we are told the falsehood Jesus' sacrifice can make up for it).

Moving on is the point. When the sin, guilt and suffering of the past no longer hold us in thrall. To the future they do not mean anything. In the given situation is not that anyone isn't hurt or does not feel guilty, but that either does not amount to the end. Life and meaning goes on. The relationship is forged anew with change and meaning despite the irrevocable hurt and guilt of the past. Neither are driven to the end by being irrevocably hurt. Happiness no more or less than anyone else, for they are not in the business of hating each other for being hurt.

we are told the falsehood Jesus' sacrifice can make up for it — TheWillowOfDarkness

Not in this life; that's a point about the afterlife for those who are virtuous and do the will of the Father on Earth. Indeed those who go to Heaven will have their tears wiped away and their sufferings forgotten - or so is the promise! Furthermore, those who follow the example of Jesus, will indeed live without sin in this life also.

Neither are driven to the end by being irrevocably hurt. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Yes again - neither is the man who loses a leg driven to the end by being irrevocably hurt. But one shouldn't lose a leg - that's not the sort of attitude we should teach or encourage. Losing a leg can happen by accident - cheating doesn't happen by accident (because rape wouldn't be cheating). Therefore we do something about it - we teach people about its dangers, we don't trivialise it like you do "oh yeah, they will move on, and continue being happy hurr hurr". The point is to educate and teach people to love one another and not to hurt each other. These are imperative moral standards for social order, which are lacking in many parts of the Western world today.

Moving on is the point — TheWillowOfDarkness

You shouldn't get there in the first place. It's like me saying "Oh yeah, if you've lost your arms and legs you need to move on" - obviously! But that is very congruent with the moral warning: "do everything you can not to lose your arms and legs - losing your arms and legs is a great tragedy, be careful and do not injure yourself! The loss of your arms and legs is irredeemable and permanent! It's not something to joke about and think that you can deal with regardless"

Not in any life. The hurt delivered in this world is irreversible. An afterlife doesn't take it away. That's a fantasy which denies the world and our responsibility. It's to pretend we can resolve the hurt of the past when it cannot.

The point is not that one should lose a leg, it is life may by just as good afterwards-- the leg may be regrown, with perfect function-- a relationship which works as well as before the hurt, guilt and sins. The lost leg nothing more than one moment in a rich tapestry.

The lesson Christianity failed to teach: there can be no payment for sin. Nothing will bring back what is lost. Sacrifice and retribution are a lie.

Not in any life. The hurt delivered in this world is irreversible. An afterlife doesn't take it away. That's a fantasy which denies the world and our responsibility. It's to pretend we can resolve the hurt of the past when it cannot. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's according to you, and you seem to be very certain about it. It's a possibility, but not the only one :)

The point is not that one should lose a leg, it is life may by just as good afterwards-- the leg may be regrown, with perfect function. It's loss nothing more than one moment in a rich tapestry. — TheWillowOfDarkness

No it won't be just as good. One will still manage to be happy, sure, and achieve a degree of eudaimonia, but this will be lower than what would have been possible had they not lost the leg. You deny the impossibilities that exist in this world. Not everything can be redeemed in this life.

the leg may be regrown, with perfect function — TheWillowOfDarkness

It's never with perfect function - you are living in a dream world afraid to accept the reality which is governed by a time which flows in one direction only.

A strawman.

I never said anything could be redeemed. Indeed, my point was just the opposite. Nothing can be redeemed because sin is eternal. No matter how many people are tortured, condemned to hell or treated with distain, it will not undo the damage of sin. That it is paid for is a fiction we tell ourselves to feel better about ourselves. We are unwilling to take seriously the evil we have done. We offer the excuse that someone takes it away, rather admit our failing.

We misunderstand "redemption" as undoing what cannot be undone, rather than realising all we can do is act virtuously in the future.

The leg may indeed be regrown with perfect function because the future is not dependent on the loss of the past. What happened in the past simply doesn't dull or make life worse in such instances. The world has moved on. Hurt may be etched forever, but it only haunts those who think it must be removed.

The leg may indeed be regrown with perfect function because the future is not dependent on the loss of the past. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Naïve. The future is dependent on the past my friend - the past cannot be escaped from. That's a direct result of the physical structure of our world. If you think a leg can be regrown with perfect function - goodluck with that. The second law of thermodynamics explains that processes cannot be reversed. Furthermore, once a certain activation energy is achieved - in this case whatever energy leads to the loss of the leg - the process becomes irreversible. You cannot rebuild a perfectly functioning leg. Any man who has had a surgery, or who has had a broken foot knows that once healed, the foot or the spot of the surgery is never the same, and the functionality is never as good as it was.

But I will recognise this. People like me are useful to prevent tragedies. People like you are useful to improve the life of those who have already been affected by tragedy. Both of us are needed. But I think the emphasis should be on prevention, where prevention is possible. For example, in losing your leg, prevention may not be possible. You have a car accident, and they have to cut your leg off. Nothing you can do to prevent that. But in the case of cheating, it is eminently preventable.

I said the future does not depend on the loss or hurt of the past, not that causality doesn't function.

The point being that our inability to undo hurt in our past does not mean we are any less happy, fulfilled or virtuous in the future. That's always a question of our present.

If we are overwhelmed by past loss, that is the fault of our present, not that we are hurt in the past. Solutions to this problem are made in the present, whether it be having a relationship which was just as good as before or taking revenge to soothe our anger. In any case, the hurt of the past is never undone or paid for. Action we take is about a present we are comfortable with. We don't resolve or undo sin, we just do something such that it doesn't haunt us any more.

We don't resolve or undo sin, we just do something such that it doesn't haunt us any more. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's impossible. It always haunts you. You cannot change or escape the past. The only choice is to accept it - to live without a leg for example, and to accept the existence of the pain coming from this. But to accept it doesn't mean to delude yourself that you can achieve an equal degree of eudaimonia without a leg as with a leg. You can't, but you have to do your best with what you have.

No. According to Aristotle, a human being has the telos of a human being - just like a knife has the telos (or function) of a knife. This is true of all knives and all human beings. — Agustino

So, there is not a great variety of different kinds of knives made for different purposes?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. Aristotle had nothing to do with this Maslowian idea. — Agustino

I am well aware that Aristotle did not explicitly speak about unique individuals, but the logic of uniqueness is implicit in his notion of excellence and flourishing. So you need to develop your ability to be more than merely a literal or tendentious reader, if you want to achieve any degree of subtlety of understanding.The end of virtue is happiness or flourishing. How a person will be happy or will flourish will obviously variously depend on the kind of person they are. "One man's meat is another man's poison ".

I won't respond to the rest, because it's mostly just the same kind of mistake of over-generalizing, repeated again and again.

I won't respond to the rest, because it's mostly just the same kind of mistake of over-generalizing, repeated again and again. — John

>:O

So, there is not a great variety of different kinds of knives made for different purposes? — John

Yes there are different kinds of knives, but they all have the purpose of cutting.

I am well aware that Aristotle did not explicitly speak about unique individuals, but the logic of uniqueness is implicit in his notion of excellence and flourishing. — John

Nope. That's your modern Maslowian wash-over the Aristotelian project. Excellence, meaning eudaimonia, never referred to what you're trying to make it refer to.

How a person will be happy or will flourish will obviously variously depend on the kind of person they are — John

You don't understand it seems. This isn't the point. The virtues/vices create a general framework for what is good and what is bad. I will repeat it again, because it seems that you haven't read it carefully. Take the example of chastity, and the corresponding vice lust. (now just to clarify, chastity is always good, and lust is always bad!) The vice tells one what they should avoid. The virtue tells them what they should move towards. Now the vice/virtue pair doesn't give specifics. It doesn't say you'll be chaste by not allowing John to put his hand up your skirt on your first date. You have to figure that specific information, which applies in that particular situation, through your own practical wisdom. Similarly the vice/virtue pair doesn't tell you what profession you should choose. To do that, you have to take into account specifics, such as: what are your skills? What are you good at? What service can you best render the world? Not everyone has the same skills. What, given your social conditions and situation is it possible for you to get into? etc. As you can see the framework of virtues/vices informs the entire process of decision you go through in particular situations. For example, I have a very beautiful body. So do I become a porn star? Well no - the framework of virtue/vice informs me not to do that. I am a very good writer as well. The framework of virtue/vice informs me that I could do that, so long as I focus on helping my fellow human beings develop and become better people - into teaching. Etc.

It's the same when you learn a sport. You learn principles in basketball for example. Keep these elements constant in your throw, everything else try to adapt to the specific situation, and so forth. The virtue/vice pair is the principle that will guide your practical wisdom in moral matters. The Biblical rules and commandments are helpful towards avoiding vices and encouraging virtues. It's up to you afterwards to learn how to apply those principles in particular situations.

But what is not up to question is that lust is bad, and chastity is good - regardless of the differences that exist between people. Regardless.

The fantasy of those who cannot accept what they have done. They are haunted because they are seeking what they can never have: the world without sin, without suffering, without guilt.

For those who recognise what they have done, guilt becomes a badge of honour. Part of their eduaimonia is to feel guilty. Rather than a blemish on their lives, their guilt is part of their virtuous life, no less fulfilling than the life of someone who didn't commit their sin-- they have a new leg which functions no worse than it did before. Sometimes it might even function better. Some people come out the other side of a sin with greater eduaimonia than in their previous life.