David--Hardly seems possible, I know, but you are getting close. Congratulation for keeping your head up and your heart warm during this chapter...and that's all it is.
I took a look at that website you recommended. It is very polished and easy to navigate. I read through the FAQs, some of which I found very interesting. I wanted to ask you what the meaning of “survival” is. I noticed that term come up on the website, as well as in your NSOL coursework, where you say that “ethical actions are survival actions”. I take it that you do not mean just biological survival. It seems you primarily mean something like “spiritual survival”, as it were—the survival of one’s mental and spiritual well-being. Am I reading you correctly?
Alright, that’s all for now, William. I’ll talk to you later. I hope it starts warming up soon. I have some friends in Chicago who had a brutal time with the weather. As you may have heard, it got down to negative fifty degrees Fahrenheit there, when you factor in the wind chill. Ouch!
I think you are absolutely right that “we must survive trials and tribulations with a certain degree of integrity intact in order to grow into and enherit our birthright of sapience”. Your quoting Proverbs is spot-on. I myself will quote a famous passage from Romans, which I am sure you know. This passage is not explicitly about wisdom, but it is nonetheless apt for our discussion: “…we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope”. Virtue is a lifelong process that is never complete. Like you said, “we were all born TO BE sagacious”. I think that is what God planned for us, in my personal opinion.
I am so happy to hear about Destiny’s post and how it made you feel. I was trying to find her post, but I was unable to. I must have been looking at the wrong blog posts. Anyway, it is intriguing that she distinguishes knowledge from wisdom. Some philosophers make a distinction between knowledge and understanding, so a distinction between knowledge and wisdom makes perfect sense.
Discussing these questions with you has helped me better understand the concepts of righteousness, self-righteousness, and virtue. Your thoughts seem to line up with a certain aspect of natural law theory. According to natural law theorists, every human being, insofar as they are properly functioning, has a reasoning capacity that allows them to know general truths about right and wrong. A properly functioning human can know, by the very light of natural reason, that stealing from old ladies is wrong. Of course, pernicious habits or incorrect teachings can interfere with or degrade our natural reason. But insofar as it works, our natural reason allows us access to general ethical truths. I suppose natural law theorists would agree that intellectual virtues matter ethically, since a sharpened ability to reason can better lead us to general truths about right and wrong. Other thinkers disagree with natural law theorists. They think it is our emotions—not our natural reasoning abilities—that guide us to general ethical truths. Still others believe there are no general ethical truths; or if there are, human beings can have no knowledge of them.
You bring up a similar point in the next question: “The greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics is what determines good conduct vs. evil conduct.” Again, I think this is a very respectable and plausible position. And again, I would like to query your intuitions with a test case:
Compensation Case. Anne is now retired. She served fifty years as a just and distinguished policewoman. For her civic contribution, Anne received a generous pension fund from the local government. One day, some crooked schemers cheat Anne out of her retirement funds. Anne lost all her money, and through no fault of her own. The local government is deciding whether to pay her a new pension. They could use some rainy day funds to pay Anne or to build a recreation center for the community. Only one of the two options is financially possible, and the second option will undoubtedly generate more good than the first option. What should the local government do?
Some thinkers have the intuition that the local government should pay Anne, even though doing so would not create the greatest good for the greatest number. Anne deserves and has a strong right to retirement funds from the government, given her exemplary civic service. What do you think about this case? Can an act be good or right, even when it does not maximize benefits?
I find your distinction between ethics and morality fascinating. Sometimes people use the terms “ethics” and “morality” interchangeably, but you are using them to draw an insightful distinction between two concepts. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting article on defining morality. It notes that “morality” may have one of two different senses: (one) a descriptive sense, and (two) a normative sense. According to the descriptive sense, the term “morality” refers to a certain code of conduct put forward by a society or a group. This sounds more like your definition of morality. According to the normative sense, the term “morality” refers to a certain code that all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse. This sense mentions a connection with rationality, and it somewhat reminds me of your definition of ethics. However, your definition is unique in that it talks about “self-determined” rationality, as opposed to rationality simpliciter. Would you say there is a “group” rationality? Would that be what you call “suppressive reasonableness” and “double mindedness”? Could it turn out that all rationality is “self-determined”?
I did have the pleasure of looking at some of your NSOL coursework. I enjoyed reading the questions and answers, which deal with an impressively diverse range of topics. I found Question #87 especially interesting: “How can a person determine if an act is good or bad?” You proceed to state a necessary condition on good acts: “To be good, something must contribute to the individual to his family, his children, his group, mankind or life. Acts are good which are more beneficial than destructive along these dynamics.” I find this a very respectable and plausible position, one that many philosophers have espoused in one form or another. I am interested in querying your intuitions about a famous test case in philosophy. This a case where an act may appear good, even though it does not generate more benefits than harms—indeed, it seems to create more harms than benefits. Here it is:
Promise Case. Your friend has asked you to hold his $50. Friday after work, he asks you for his money back. You know he will use the money for getting drunk, which is very unhealthy for him. Should you give your friend his money back?
Some thinkers have the intuition that you should give back the money, since your friend has a strong right to it. They believe that giving back the money is a good or right act, even though it generates more harms than benefits. The assumption is that respecting your friend’s rights does not, in itself, count as a benefit for him. What do you think about this case? Do you think that giving back the money is a good act? Should we count respecting rights as an intrinsic benefit, apart from any benefits it might lead to?
Dear Birthday Guy: Well how unthoughtful and entheta of me to send you a present without thinking how you would receive it. So sorry I messed up your 56th birthday. I can assure you it will not happen again. There is absolutely no way for me to know if others have sent you a quarterly package. I just wanted to send something for your birthday.
Targets and Goals has absolutely nothing to do with sending a gift for someone's birthday! Sorry it was not what you had hoped for or could enjoy. Good Grief. If I had the means I'd send you a bulging quarterly 4x a year. But I don't!!!
Why don't you post a Wish List so everyone knows what you need. That would help.
You said Texas, but not where specifically. Have you tried contacting DOORS Texas Reentry Network? They serve North Texas, Dallas and Tarrant specifically. I'll send you their contact info anyway. Maybe they can help you.
---
Dallas County Reentry Brokerage Center Unlocking DOORS™ Headquarters 12225 Greenville Ave., Ste 850 Dallas, Texas 75243
Hours: M-F 8:30am-5:30pm
Call or email for an appointment Rex Gerstner - Director of Reentry Brokerage Main Number - 214-296-9258 rgerstner@unlockingdoors.org or info@unlockingdoors.org
---
Tarrant County Reentry Brokerage Center
Cornerstone Assistance Network 3500 Noble Avenue Fort Worth, Texas 76111
Hours: M-F 8:30am-5:30pm
Call or email for an appointment Christi Bell - Reentry Broker, Tarrant County Direct Line - 817-632-6023 or 469-587-7860 Main Number - 817-632-6000 X163 cbell@unlockingdoors.org or info@unlockingdoors.org
RSS
Mark Thompson
Alright, that’s all for now, William. I’ll talk to you later. I hope it starts warming up soon. I have some friends in Chicago who had a brutal time with the weather. As you may have heard, it got down to negative fifty degrees Fahrenheit there, when you factor in the wind chill. Ouch!
Peace,
Calhoun25
I am so happy to hear about Destiny’s post and how it made you feel. I was trying to find her post, but I was unable to. I must have been looking at the wrong blog posts. Anyway, it is intriguing that she distinguishes knowledge from wisdom. Some philosophers make a distinction between knowledge and understanding, so a distinction between knowledge and wisdom makes perfect sense.
Discussing these questions with you has helped me better understand the concepts of righteousness, self-righteousness, and virtue. Your thoughts seem to line up with a certain aspect of natural law theory. According to natural law theorists, every human being, insofar as they are properly functioning, has a reasoning capacity that allows them to know general truths about right and wrong. A properly functioning human can know, by the very light of natural reason, that stealing from old ladies is wrong. Of course, pernicious habits or incorrect teachings can interfere with or degrade our natural reason. But insofar as it works, our natural reason allows us access to general ethical truths. I suppose natural law theorists would agree that intellectual virtues matter ethically, since a sharpened ability to reason can better lead us to general truths about right and wrong. Other thinkers disagree with natural law theorists. They think it is our emotions—not our natural reasoning abilities—that guide us to general ethical truths. Still others believe there are no general ethical truths; or if there are, human beings can have no knowledge of them.
Compensation Case. Anne is now retired. She served fifty years as a just and distinguished policewoman. For her civic contribution, Anne received a generous pension fund from the local government. One day, some crooked schemers cheat Anne out of her retirement funds. Anne lost all her money, and through no fault of her own. The local government is deciding whether to pay her a new pension. They could use some rainy day funds to pay Anne or to build a recreation center for the community. Only one of the two options is financially possible, and the second option will undoubtedly generate more good than the first option. What should the local government do?
Some thinkers have the intuition that the local government should pay Anne, even though doing so would not create the greatest good for the greatest number. Anne deserves and has a strong right to retirement funds from the government, given her exemplary civic service. What do you think about this case? Can an act be good or right, even when it does not maximize benefits?
I find your distinction between ethics and morality fascinating. Sometimes people use the terms “ethics” and “morality” interchangeably, but you are using them to draw an insightful distinction between two concepts. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an interesting article on defining morality. It notes that “morality” may have one of two different senses: (one) a descriptive sense, and (two) a normative sense. According to the descriptive sense, the term “morality” refers to a certain code of conduct put forward by a society or a group. This sounds more like your definition of morality. According to the normative sense, the term “morality” refers to a certain code that all rational persons, under certain specified conditions, would endorse. This sense mentions a connection with rationality, and it somewhat reminds me of your definition of ethics. However, your definition is unique in that it talks about “self-determined” rationality, as opposed to rationality simpliciter. Would you say there is a “group” rationality? Would that be what you call “suppressive reasonableness” and “double mindedness”? Could it turn out that all rationality is “self-determined”?
As always, I am glad to hear back from you!
I did have the pleasure of looking at some of your NSOL coursework. I enjoyed reading the questions and answers, which deal with an impressively diverse range of topics. I found Question #87 especially interesting: “How can a person determine if an act is good or bad?” You proceed to state a necessary condition on good acts: “To be good, something must contribute to the individual to his family, his children, his group, mankind or life. Acts are good which are more beneficial than destructive along these dynamics.” I find this a very respectable and plausible position, one that many philosophers have espoused in one form or another. I am interested in querying your intuitions about a famous test case in philosophy. This a case where an act may appear good, even though it does not generate more benefits than harms—indeed, it seems to create more harms than benefits. Here it is:
Promise Case. Your friend has asked you to hold his $50. Friday after work, he asks you for his money back. You know he will use the money for getting drunk, which is very unhealthy for him. Should you give your friend his money back?
Some thinkers have the intuition that you should give back the money, since your friend has a strong right to it. They believe that giving back the money is a good or right act, even though it generates more harms than benefits. The assumption is that respecting your friend’s rights does not, in itself, count as a benefit for him. What do you think about this case? Do you think that giving back the money is a good act? Should we count respecting rights as an intrinsic benefit, apart from any benefits it might lead to?
Well how unthoughtful
and entheta of me
to send you a present without thinking how you would receive it. So sorry I messed up your 56th birthday.
I can assure you it will not happen again. There is absolutely no way for me to know if others have sent you a quarterly package. I just wanted to send something for your birthday.
Targets and Goals
has absolutely nothing to do with sending a gift for someone's birthday!
Sorry it was not what you had hoped for or could enjoy.
Good Grief.
If I had the means I'd send you a bulging quarterly 4x a year. But I don't!!!
Why don't you post a Wish List so everyone knows what you need. That would help.
Best wishes,
Erne xo
You said Texas, but not where specifically. Have you tried contacting DOORS Texas Reentry Network? They serve North Texas, Dallas and Tarrant specifically. I'll send you their contact info anyway. Maybe they can help you.
---
Dallas County Reentry Brokerage Center
Unlocking DOORS™ Headquarters
12225 Greenville Ave., Ste 850
Dallas, Texas 75243
Hours: M-F 8:30am-5:30pm
Call or email for an appointment
Rex Gerstner - Director of Reentry Brokerage
Main Number - 214-296-9258
rgerstner@unlockingdoors.org or info@unlockingdoors.org
---
Tarrant County Reentry Brokerage Center
Cornerstone Assistance Network
3500 Noble Avenue
Fort Worth, Texas 76111
Hours: M-F 8:30am-5:30pm
Call or email for an appointment
Christi Bell - Reentry Broker, Tarrant County
Direct Line - 817-632-6023 or 469-587-7860
Main Number - 817-632-6000 X163
cbell@unlockingdoors.org or info@unlockingdoors.org