Rational Ethics: Introduction, Part 3

[Esoparagon]

Honesty to yourself or honesty to others? Isn't it sometimes tactically beneficial to ones self interest to lie to others? In what way does one deny reality if they know they are telling a lie to someone else just to deceive them.

[M3GreatRiffs]

What you said about the strictly rule-based system isn't a complete thought, and incorrect. Saying that repression and other negative things will inevitably follow is only going to occur when a person's sense of purpose is usurped by chronic self-focus. Basically, systematic morality makes a great slave but a terrible master. Great videos, though.

[Swampymcswamp]

I liked this series you have made.

[geoporcupine]

I'm really enjoying this series. I've been working on and refining a very similar ethical framework.

[TheRightDecision]

brilliant!

Honestly, I think you should dedicate to write books about these topics :-D

[GStolyarovII]

Excellent series! I agree that virtue ethics is more effective, and ultimately more motivating, than ethics based simply on following rules. Rule-based ethics also inevitably stumbles when faced with situations that are simply too complex to be neatly interpreted by any set of rules concise enough for a human mind to simultaneously grasp.

[Mastikator]

It seems like what you define as ethics can be summed up as "optimal general method of achieving long term happiness".

Which is a lot less confusing term than "ethics" since it doesn't have deontological and theological baggage.

I don't see what value there is in keeping the word "ethics".

Though the content has value. So I give you 5 stars.

[Sepero1]

In fairness, it does not appear that what you have laid forth can be properly critiqued. It is simply incomplete. I downloaded the txt to be sure.

You did not define what a Meta-Virtue is.

You did not establish why "logic and honesty" are valid virtues.

How do you establish a valid virtue?

Since eudaimonia is a "state that requires constant maintenance", should I assume that the more often a person experiences eudaimonia (happiness), then the more moral or virtuous that person is?

[ks100001]

I feel I've been watching intellectual greatness at work!

Your essay is one of the best I've read, EVER.

[zeth321]

If you could not figure that out from the videos, then you can download the article from the link in the information box. In there you will see that the author of the article is XOmniverse (his real name is Shawn).

[zeth321]

XOmniverse wrote the article himself, so he knows what he's reading.

Usually, from his video's that I've watched, he talks off the top of his head. But in this video he is trying to be systematic about explanation, because he's trying to put forth his pet theory against his critics.

Also, there's no need for name calling. Keep it friendly.

[Moragauth]

It usually does. If you've a problem with him reading it the solution is simple, close the window and go do something else.

[Moragauth]

What's the use of disconnected rambling?

[TimerTwin]

Your series is a presentation of the study of happiness. That itself is compatible with moral nihilism, because studying happiness is matter of facts.

But, the second you say "you ought to be happy" you've made an unfounded claim... unless you redefine what the word "ought" means (which you have).

I think that's what FatGermanBastard is trying to critique about your series.

[XOmniverse]

I didn't say you ought to be happy. I said you do, as a matter of fact, act towards happiness with all of your actions.

[TimerTwin]

Does that count as ethics then? If all you're doing is studying how people can become happy, then you're still using an "is", and not an "ought".

[XOmniverse]

TimerTwin: Any successful bridging of the is-ought gap effectively makes all ought statements a type of is statement. The basic premise behind moral realism is that moral claims are factual claims about reality.

If we, by nature, DO pursue and want happiness (as a matter of fact), then it follows that we ought to do certain things if they will achieve that goal better than the other options.

[AFrightfulDream]

I'd like to see you follow up with a video going deeper into the connection between moral action & happiness. For example, while it seems as true as saying 'A is A' that a person who has formed his character to enjoy acting morally will be happy acting morally, the question can still be raised was he wise to make them coincide, is it possible to be happy & immoral, if happiness is realized in an individual's life, is risking one's life for another risking happiness; & how does one fact death?

[AFrightfulDream]

Correction: face death.

In short, how much does happiness depend on the gifts of fortune? Is moral action the highest satisfaction? Socrates for example said he spent his life examining virtue "& other things you hear me discussing" as opposed to acting morally: he excused himself from taking part in politics because he said he'd just end up getting killed (sooner) & achieving little. If he acted decently, it seems not to have been an end in itself but a means to having philosophic discussions

[peanarchist]

great series!

[fede2]

aristotle kick's plato's ass!

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

Fucking right!

[MaikUniversum]

now wait for moral nihilists to see your videos :D RAAAAGE :D

[XOmniverse]

FatGermanBastard is already going on a tirade where he accuses me of redefining words to avoid genuine philosophical problems.

I don't believe I have done this at all, nor do I believe I used non-standard or unusual definitions for anything.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

To me you didn't seem to redefine words. Perhaps his fat German ass needs to brush up on his English.

[Robinsonero]

Interesting.