Hi,this is from Allan from the free world. I have completed my halfway house time in Kentucky and now back in Memphis, TN. Thanks for all who read my blog and left comments. You can reach me at lummusallan@gmail.com. Peace.
I have been reading these blogs for a few weeks now and I seem to keep coming back to your writing. In all seriousness, you are a great writer! I'm not sure why you are unsure of that, because it is so clear to me that you have talent. You seem to be very reflective and insightful... and thoughtful of your word choices. I feel the pain and hurt and longing in your writing. Not everyone is good at conveying how they really feel with words on a page left to someone else's interpretation. Don't give up. You never know where life could take you!
Thank you very much for your post, and I hope my transcription is OK. I found your writing very interesting! I hope your "bad feeling" re. your friend was unfounded.
You note the connection between being pharisaical and being self-righteous. As it seems, being pharisaical is incompatible with being perfectly virtuous or ethical, since it involves the vice of self-righteousness. Here is a question for you, William: What is the precise relationship between righteousness and self-righteousness? Is self-righteousness a form of righteousness? Or is self-righteousness incompatible with righteousness? On the one hand, the name “self-righteous” suggests righteousness. On the other hand, self-righteousness is a blameworthy defect, whereas righteousness is often considered a perfectly praiseworthy state.
I liked your side-by-side definitions of “demagogue” and “Pharisee”. Defining these concepts side-by-side helped me better understand their connections and potential differences. Have you ever met anybody whom you considered both a demagogue and a Pharisee? Whom in history do you consider an example of both a demagogue and Pharisee? Whom do you consider a demagogue but not a Pharisee? A Pharisee but not a demagogue? Or would you argue that all demagogues are Pharisees, or vice versa?
Alright, that’s all for now, William. As always, it’s a pleasure to discuss these stimulating and vital issues with you. Take care, and good luck on your further intellectual and spiritual endeavors.
Thank you for your kind and meaningful compliment: “Nice reprise with the MORAL EMANCIPATION challenge.” I think you raise deep questions that most humans underthink.
I appreciate your examination and derivation of concepts like “moral”, “Pharisee”, and “religion”. I think I better understand what you’re getting at. I want to comment a little bit on your response, as well as raise a few questions that I find interesting.
First, I like your distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Unless I have a misunderstanding, you seem to be making the following distinction: Morals deal with conformity to socially accepted or institutionally established standards, whereas ethics deal with rightness, fairness, or equity. What do you think is the precise relationship between morals and ethics? You suggest that there is at least a difference in difficulty: “ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions…” Is there also a difference in kind? To what extent do ethics and morals deal with the same subject matter, if at all?
Second, I think you’re right about the connection between virtue and morality. Being virtuous is possessing a set of human excellences. The philosopher Aristotle would wholeheartedly agree. You specifically mention that being virtuous involves “moral excellences in character”. I have for you a question that I find interesting: Do you think that being virtuous involves not just moral excellences in character, but also intellectual excellences? Is being able to do calculus, for example, a virtuous excellence? I’m not so sure what the answer is. Perhaps intellectual excellences are just a certain kind of moral excellences in character. Here is another question that I find interesting: How do ethical excellences differ from moral excellences, if at all? The answer seems to depend on what difference, if any, there holds between ethics and morals.
I also agree that righteousness suggests the sanctimonious. The concept of righteousness often shows up in religious and theological thought, for example. I often wonder about the connections between righteousness and virtue. It seems that being righteous is enough for being minimally virtuous. If a person substantially lacks virtue, then she is somehow guilty or blameworthy, and hence unrighteous. But is being righteous enough for possessing all or most of the virtues? Can someone be righteous but nevertheless lack many crucial virtues? Your comments on Pharisees may shed light on the matter.
RSS
Thank you very much for your post, and I hope my transcription is OK. I found your writing very interesting! I hope your "bad feeling" re. your friend was unfounded.
You note the connection between being pharisaical and being self-righteous. As it seems, being pharisaical is incompatible with being perfectly virtuous or ethical, since it involves the vice of self-righteousness. Here is a question for you, William: What is the precise relationship between righteousness and self-righteousness? Is self-righteousness a form of righteousness? Or is self-righteousness incompatible with righteousness? On the one hand, the name “self-righteous” suggests righteousness. On the other hand, self-righteousness is a blameworthy defect, whereas righteousness is often considered a perfectly praiseworthy state.
I liked your side-by-side definitions of “demagogue” and “Pharisee”. Defining these concepts side-by-side helped me better understand their connections and potential differences. Have you ever met anybody whom you considered both a demagogue and a Pharisee? Whom in history do you consider an example of both a demagogue and Pharisee? Whom do you consider a demagogue but not a Pharisee? A Pharisee but not a demagogue? Or would you argue that all demagogues are Pharisees, or vice versa?
Alright, that’s all for now, William. As always, it’s a pleasure to discuss these stimulating and vital issues with you. Take care, and good luck on your further intellectual and spiritual endeavors.
Peace,
Calhoun25
Hey William,
Thank you for your kind and meaningful compliment: “Nice reprise with the MORAL EMANCIPATION challenge.” I think you raise deep questions that most humans underthink.
I appreciate your examination and derivation of concepts like “moral”, “Pharisee”, and “religion”. I think I better understand what you’re getting at. I want to comment a little bit on your response, as well as raise a few questions that I find interesting.
First, I like your distinction between “moral” and “ethical”. Unless I have a misunderstanding, you seem to be making the following distinction: Morals deal with conformity to socially accepted or institutionally established standards, whereas ethics deal with rightness, fairness, or equity. What do you think is the precise relationship between morals and ethics? You suggest that there is at least a difference in difficulty: “ETHICAL may suggest the involvement of more difficult or subtle questions…” Is there also a difference in kind? To what extent do ethics and morals deal with the same subject matter, if at all?
Second, I think you’re right about the connection between virtue and morality. Being virtuous is possessing a set of human excellences. The philosopher Aristotle would wholeheartedly agree. You specifically mention that being virtuous involves “moral excellences in character”. I have for you a question that I find interesting: Do you think that being virtuous involves not just moral excellences in character, but also intellectual excellences? Is being able to do calculus, for example, a virtuous excellence? I’m not so sure what the answer is. Perhaps intellectual excellences are just a certain kind of moral excellences in character. Here is another question that I find interesting: How do ethical excellences differ from moral excellences, if at all? The answer seems to depend on what difference, if any, there holds between ethics and morals.
I also agree that righteousness suggests the sanctimonious. The concept of righteousness often shows up in religious and theological thought, for example. I often wonder about the connections between righteousness and virtue. It seems that being righteous is enough for being minimally virtuous. If a person substantially lacks virtue, then she is somehow guilty or blameworthy, and hence unrighteous. But is being righteous enough for possessing all or most of the virtues? Can someone be righteous but nevertheless lack many crucial virtues? Your comments on Pharisees may shed light on the matter.