1) This leaves little room for self-interest other than pursuing more virtue. and
2.) What happens if one doesn't have any Eudaimonia or satisfaction from virtuousness? Doesn't some self-interest come into play? Doesn't some attachment to people and things come into play as well- even "healthy" things like attachment to exercise or competitive sports?
3.) If one were to say a virtuous person would do what he feels is best for him, then are we not making virtue a catchall for happiness in general, and thus conflating Eudaimonia with virtue itself? Virtue then becomes (helping others, being just, being temperate, etc. but also doing things that makes one happy above and beyond that for oneself).. That is giving virtue almost everything that "well-being" "flourishing" and Eudaimonia mean, thus subtly changing the definition from developing a good character to a sort of limited hedonism. — schopenhauer1

I don't have time to give a long response to everything this morning, but I want to reposed to this because misunderstands virtue.

Virtue is always a question of an embedded state in the world. Eudaimonia is formed not out of a transcendent notion of a "virtue (whatever that's supposed to mean)," but rather states of the world. It frequently involves attachment to people and things. It always involves self-interest, as the person pursuing their well-being wants to act in such a manner.

Thus, it is also a question of a particular person's certain feeling of happiness. Eudaimonia feels good. When one acts virtuously, with good character, they feel good. By definition, to seek Eudaimonia is to BOTH act for a certain states of existence ( e.g. helping others, being just, being temperate, etc. ) and to feel good (as that feeling is inseparable from acting virtuously). The question of "why act" or "what do I need to gain now by action" isn't present. Virtue is performed for itself, in which is embedded both the state of action and what it achieves.

Both 2. and 3. have always been part of virtue. It is misleading to describe it as "limited hedonism" because virtue is not merely a question of seeking what feels good. Feeling good may be sought all the time, but it is not merely the generation of that feeling which defines an act as good.

Assuming that what I'm going to do isn't influenced by what I think I should do. Which it is, for everyone but sociopaths. — Marchesk

I think this is not a realistic view of human psychology, but okay. The wider point is that you can't derive a 'do' from a 'should.' People do what they more or less have to, not what they abstractly feel they ought to.

Sure it is, otherwise, what's the point in having ethics? That we don't always live up to our ethical standards is a different matter. — Marchesk

To know what the good is, and to live well. If you can't imagine a way for that to happen that's not on the model of a command, then that's your failing.

But it can and it does, otherwise I'd just do whatever the hell I wanted all the time without consideration for what's right. But I don't do that., and neither do most people. — Marchesk

But you literally do. People do whatever they do, whether it's 'right' or 'wrong;' that's just a tautology. There is no other standard for what you do than, whatever you want, or more accurately whatever you do. That is not a moral injunction of some sort ('do whatever you want'), but just a plain fact.

Assuming that what I'm going to do isn't influenced by what I think I should do. Which it is, for everyone but sociopaths.
— Marchesk

I think this is not a realistic view of human psychology, but okay. The wider point is that you can't derive a 'do' from a 'should.' People do what they more or less have to, not what they abstractly feel they ought to. — The Great Whatever

Hmmmm, not a realistic view of human psychology, you say,

It seems that what we are going to do is influenced by what we were just told to do, think we should do, what we want to do, what we think other people expect us to do (whether we think we should, or want to do that) what we are in the habit of doing, what we know how to do, and what we are afraid of doing. On a bad day, these are all in play at once.

We experience conflict in deciding what to do because we have wishes and we have ethics. No wishes, no ethics, no conflicts. Even if we have no ethics (rare) we find that we can't satisfy all our wishes at once (common).

What we end up doing depends on ethics, wishes, and external factors. Cameras and lights are likely to reduce the opportunities for action. Supervisors on the floor strengthen our performance of doing what is expected of us. Low grade temptations are easy to resist. "I wouldn't think of stealing your disgusting lunch." Given the cover of darkness or solitude, lots of high quality temptations, and our ethics may not stand the test.

In general, we are a little more crooked than we will admit. (But... we're not psychopaths because we do feel guilty, quite often.)

Feeling good may be sought all the time, but it is not merely the generation of that feeling which defines an act as good. — TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think you sufficiently answered my questions above and you make a few more perplexing claims. How is "virtue" good in itself other than self-reference to itself which is to say no explanation. Is it because it is helping others? Why is building a good character "good" other than it looks good to other people? If you say, because it just is, you mine as well reference religion. If you say because it feels good to oneself, then you are not addressing my question of what happens if someone does not feel good being completely virtuous? Notice, I left room for virtue but added to this is the idea that a life worth living also has to include the "preferred indifferents", not just virtue in and of itself.

Asking why virtue is good in itself and not allowing self-reference is incoherent. That virtue is good in itself is a brute fact, thus is requires no explanation because it has no explanation. Virtue is good by definition. In this case, that's what it means to be brute - a principle has no further explanation.

Virtue is good by definition. In this case, that's what it means to be brute - a principle has no further explanation. — WhiskeyWhiskers

Prove it is a brute fact.

You're asking why it is a brute fact. It has no explanation because it's brute. It is good by definition.

You're asking why it is a brute fact. It has no explanation because it's brute. It is good by definition. — WhiskeyWhiskers

What is good then? That doesn't make sense. Good is virtue is not like saying ice cream is ice cream. The latter is a fact, the former is an opinion.

Also, this is a circularity because there is no "why it is good". Something is good because it is pleasurable, because people are emotionally happier, people have pleasant feelings, people feel a sense of community, there is a sense of wholeness, suffering is being reduced, etc. There is a sense that virtue needs to lead to something where, let's say something like ice cream does not.

Also, this is a circularity because there is no "why it is good". Something is good because it is pleasurable, because people are emotionally happier, people have pleasant feelings, people feel a sense of community, there is a sense of wholeness, suffering is being reduced, etc. There is a sense that virtue needs to lead to something where, let's say something like ice cream does not. — schopenhauer1

It is more than that. Something is good because it is a state of existence which is the moment of pleasure, pleasant feeling, sense of community, sense wholeness, the absence of suffering, etc., etc. Good cannot be given without the action or state of existence which constitutes the moment of good. The point of virtue is it leads nowhere. One doesn't have to go anywhere because they are present in a good state in the moment. That's is well-being. I can't have the pleasant feelings of sense of wholeness from making this past without making this post. I can't have the pleasure of eating a raspberry without the moment of eating a raspberry. It is not merely about what I get, but about what I do and what I am too.

The idea of "why it is good" is exactly what virtue is trying to get past. Virtue is, indeed, about being in one-place (well-being) rather than another, but it is not about "trying to get somewhere." One doesn't need to go anywhere, for they are already there, in the moment where, they are virtuous.

Notions that one must "get to" a good state though action are poisonous. That's Will. One's never content because however they exist, they are obsessed about obtaining the next moment, about getting to the "why it is good" which not the state of existence of an action. The sense virtue needs to lead somewhere is entirely your sense of what human life and action needs to be about. It's not how virtue ethics work.

If you say because it feels good to oneself, then you are not addressing my question of what happens if someone does not feel good being completely virtuous? — schopenhauer1

That's incoherent because the presence of virtue is not defined sans one's feelings. Virtue cannot be present in such a state because the individual feels terrible. Well-being is not present. I did not address it directly because, I thought, I covered that point by pointing out virtue isn't defined irrespective of our feelings, as it makes "acting virtuously" while "feeling no good" impossible.

You're asking why it is a brute fact. It has no explanation because it's brute. It is good by definition. — WhiskeyWhiskers

And what distinguishes that line of argument from mere existence by definition? We can apply bruteness to anything we like and then when challenged, just say that it's true by definition.

I would like to suggest that people do what they do because they are habituated in certain ways and have certain predispositions they don't understand. If anything, the 'shoulds' are epiphenomena that retroactively justify these predispositions and inclinations.

In addition, the 'shoulds' are philosophically uninteresting, because in principle they can't lead anywhere. Trying to argue that people actually do use them to lead somewhere isn't so relevant for a philosophical defense of a certain kind of ethics.

So...noncognitivism?

Do you think that something that is "meaningful" trumps what is good? Why or why not? — schopenhauer1

I think the question is wrong. Something that is "good" in my eyes, must necessarily include the "meaningful".

I don't think it's necessary. These are my own Cyrenaic biases showing, but I think a good praxis can be one that doesn't make any use of abstract goals. Rather, acting toward the future is itself a kind of moment-by-moment mastery. In any case, it's not the job of an ethical doctrine to tell what to do: as I've argued, I don't think this demand even makes sense. Nothing can tell you what to do, only doing something can make you do something. — The Great Whatever

I disagree. That is why we have principles, in arts as diverse as love-making, seduction, or making war. We use them to guide our actions. A principle itself can be formless, and thus allow for the infinity of techniques available to be included under it. However, keeping a principle in mind, allows the mind to be focused on what is necessary for achieving one's goal.

In fact, I would go forth and employ @180 Proof's concept of metaphysics being a determination of elements of the "empty set" to say that the role a principle plays is simply to determine and focus the mind on the possible and useful and away from the impossible and useless :) Without principle, the mind is confused, and not efficient.

In both cases, meaning was occurring in people's lives. One through developing a strong relationship with an intimate partner, the other through the struggle to overcome the fact that one will not always get what one wants (even something as basic and desirable as romantic intimacy). Now, a cynic might say "hey, meaning was obtained in both cases, it's all equal". But is it really? I mean, yeah the second scenario did provide for a meaningful life but, was it something they would have preferred? — schopenhauer1

So what's the point? A man cannot drink all the vodka in the world. One has the opportunity to enjoy a great sensual relationship because he has forfeited the opportunity to become a great philosopher, or a world-conqueror, opportunities that simply aren't available to him precisely because he's busy enjoying that relationship instead of preparing to do anything else. Who is to say which is preferable? One cannot know if becoming a great philosopher is better than having a great sensual relationship, or the other way around, unless they can do both. But nobody can do everything there is to do. Therefore no one can know which activity is better than any other. However, we are each constrained by circumstances... the circumstances of one demand that he be in a sensual relationship, the circumstances of another that he discover the secrets of nature, the circumstances of yet another that he become a leader of men. Each shall go forth and do his duty, which is preferable to wondering about which is the better path - the latter option will ensure that no path is taken, and hence even the possibility of the good forfeited.

Life is certainly non-ideal. — schopenhauer1

This cannot be determined for the reasons I have illustrated before. But if you require yet another argument, here it goes. A man cannot experience all of life, and cannot exhaust all its possibilities. Hence, to say that life is non-ideal means by implication that one has determined with certainty that life's possibilities hold nothing good. But how can one make such a determination outside the bounds of experience? And even if one could, how can one go forth and attempt to fight for this "negatively defined" ideal, which is, in truth, incoherent and unimaginable to begin with - how can he judge the world in front of this standard, which is completely impossible? I will respond about world-weariness in the other thread :)

http://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/171/on-weltschmerz#Item_3

You are not representing the scenario correctly though. It wasn't that the romantic relationship scenario was equal to the non-romantic relationship scenario but rather the second scenario guy would have preferred the romantic relationship scenario over the one he received and it didn't happen that way. A lesser preference was satisfied. Perhaps it was meaningful in some way, but the preferred pleasure was frustrated. You can say that this does not matter, but I think you would missing something that is deeply human, which is to satisfy preferences for certain pleasures (whether they be simple or complicated pleasures). Thus I stated that life's suffering is not distributed equally. You may shoot back that it is the meaning involved in the struggle itself, but I think that this meaning is at the behest of lost preferable pleasures.

As I stated in the other thread:
Even if pleasure is the only inherent good:
It can certainly be stated that:
-pleasures can change with circumstance.
-preferred pleasures can often be frustrated or not achieved
-some pleasures lead to pain
-preferred pleasures are not distributed evenly in human lives.

Perennial strategies for dealing with non-evenly distributed pleasures include:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasure

Possible complications with strategies:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures may be an impossibility in terms (except if one has conditions like anhedonia or are on certain drugs perhaps?)
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasures may be an impossibility. One may SUPPRESS one's pursuit of one's preferences for pleasures, but it may not really get rid of one's frustration. One can conceive of a sage that suppresses all pursuits of pleasure, but then even this is a preference for the pleasure of not having pleasure, and this too can be frustrated thus going back to the idea that not all suffering is distributed evenly.

Yes, but why did he become unsatisfied and remained attached to his ideal of a romantic relationship? Why did he go on preferring it? And if he indeed preferred it, why did he not mobilise his intelligence, and train in order to make it a reality? Perhaps he lacked intelligence, perhaps he lacked courage, who knows. But the fault doesn't lie with the world, it lies with him. Either due to lack of ability, or due to obstinacy in clinging to the desire of something that was unfit to his nature.

Of course there are tragedies, which are bad and can't be avoided, but even in those cases there are good things that would not have been POSSIBLE (note that I did not say happen) lest for the tragedy.

Yes, but why did he become unsatisfied and remained attached to his ideal of a romantic relationship? Why did he go on preferring it? And if he indeed preferred it, why did he not mobilise his intelligence, and train in order to make it a reality? Perhaps he lacked intelligence, perhaps he lacked courage, who knows. But the fault doesn't lie with the world, it lies with him. Either due to lack of ability, or due to obstinacy in clinging to the desire of something that was unfit to his nature. — Agustino

Can you conceive of a circumstance where nothing simply works out? Some people don't have the capacity (even with effort), or do not have the right contingent conditions. Saying that just putting in more effort will make anything happen is naive at best and dishonest at worst. Also, it may be nigh impossible to change one's preferences so easily as you imply here. Oh, I am unable to do this, move on. I agree one can think it up and talk about it, I just don't think it is something I have seen very often in practice. It is also extremely hard to get information because it is anecdotal and relies heavily on what people say. People can be internally frustrated but not show this externally.

Yes - I've edited my previous post. Even in the case when it becomes impossible to achieve a desire, because of that impossibility, new possibilities that were never possible before open up.

Some people don't have the capacity (even with effort), or do not have the right contingent conditions. Saying that just putting in more effort will make anything happen is naive at best and dishonest at worst. — schopenhauer1

Many things seem impossible to the untrained. Of course, some things really are impossible. That is why the wisdom to distinguish the two is required. Different things are to be done in both cases.

As I stated in the other thread:
Even if pleasure is the only inherent good:
It can certainly be stated that:
-pleasures can change with circumstance.
-preferred pleasures can often be frustrated or not achieved
-some pleasures lead to pain
-preferred pleasures are not distributed evenly in human lives.

Perennial strategies for dealing with non-evenly distributed pleasures include:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasure

Possible complications with strategies:
-trying not to be attached to achieving pleasures may be an impossibility in terms (except if one has conditions like anhedonia or are on certain drugs perhaps?)
-trying to aim one's focus on something different than one's preferences for pleasures may be an impossibility. One may SUPPRESS one's pursuit of one's preferences for pleasures, but it may not really get rid of one's frustration. One can conceive of a sage that suppresses all pursuits of pleasure, but then even this is a preference for the pleasure of not having pleasure, and this too can be frustrated thus going back to the idea that not all suffering is distributed evenly. — schopenhauer1

Why not rather find a way to achieve what you want? That requires intelligence and work, but who says it can't be done? It certainly took intelligence, courage, and work for Alexander the Great to build his empire... most would have said it's impossible when asked. Sure after you achieve what you want, you'll want something else. Why is that a problem? Just employ your intelligence again, and find a way to achieve it. This is the lot allotted to us mortals.

So my points are as follows:

1. In most situations, what one desires is not impossible to achieve, nevertheless, most lack the wisdom to determine this. Hence it is important to develop such wisdom.
2. If it is possible, then one must develop the right strategies, and find the right tactics/techniques of implementation to achieve their aims. All this requires knowledge of the right principles, which can help guide one and focus one's mind on the important aspects at hand.
3. If it is not possible, then one must consider what possibilities are opened up by this impossibility, and hence pursue the possibility that they deem best, using the same way outlined in 2.
4. If the situation is inescapable, and absolutely nothing can be done, one being guaranteed to effectively be killed or gravely impaired by the situation, then one must face it with courage and virtue, taking care to maintain the last freedom one still has.

Yes - I've edited my previous post. Even in the case when it becomes impossible to achieve a desire, because of that impossibility, new possibilities that were never possible before open up. — Agustino

That is a bit fairytale sounding. A lot of time other circumstances are available, but they were not ranked as the most preferable. Again, I refer you back to the idea that one may suppress their preference, it doesn't mean they weren't frustrated or disappointed.

Many things seem impossible to the untrained. Of course, some things really are impossible. That is why the wisdom to distinguish the two is required. Different things are to be done in both cases. — Agustino

Ok, so we both agree some things are impossible given contingencies of capacity and environment of the individual.

Why not rather find a way to achieve what you want? That requires intelligence and work, but who says it can't be done? It certainly took intelligence, courage, and work for Alexander the Great to build his empire... most would have said it's impossible when asked. Sure after you achieve what you want, you'll want something else. Why is that a problem? Just employ your intelligence again, and find a way to achieve it. This is the lot allotted to us mortals. — Agustino

I feel this doesn't need comment. I don't think the outcome is always "meeting our preferences" simply by intelligence, courage, and work which AGAIN may be different for different people. Not everyone can be an Einstein or Edison. If that was one's goal. Perhaps no matter how hard you try, it just doesn't work. Same with relationships, etc. etc.

1. In most situations, what one desires is not impossible to achieve, nevertheless, most lack the wisdom to determine this. Hence it is important to develop such wisdom. — Agustino

Right, and this is not easy as you say. You just moved the goal post from the actual achievement being hard to the development of wisdom being hard. If one is the key to the other, they are both hard to achieve.

If it is possible, then one must develop the right strategies, and find the right tactics/techniques of implementation to achieve their aims. All this requires knowledge of the right principles, which can help guide one and focus one's mind on the important aspects at hand. — Agustino

This is what many people do to achieve their goals. It is not saying anything that new. Also, goals don't just happen because you have a plan. Also, this is essentially what you said before with wisdom and thus falls under the same critique- you have moved the goal post from achieving the goal to achieving the right strategy to achieve the goal.

If it is not possible, then one must consider what possibilities are opened up by this impossibility, and hence pursue the possibility that they deem best, using the same way outlined in 2. — Agustino

This is what people do. It doesn't mean that the original preference wasn't more preferable.

If the situation is inescapable, and absolutely nothing can be done, one being guaranteed to effectively be killed or gravely impaired by the situation, then one must face it with courage and virtue, taking care to maintain the last freedom one still has. — Agustino

This just sounds like a way to impress people. It won't matter once you're dead.

That is a bit fairytale sounding. A lot of time other circumstances are available, but they were not ranked as the most preferable. Again, I refer you back to the idea that one may suppress their preference, it doesn't mean they weren't frustrated or disappointed. — schopenhauer1

But surely, if new possibilities open up, they should be investigated, otherwise one may miss a possibility which is actually preferable to the one which one is currently holding on to.

Perhaps no matter how hard you try, it just doesn't work. Same with relationships, etc. etc. — schopenhauer1

How do you know this prior to trying? Again, it just betrays a lack of confidence, and self-doubt, and lack of courage to pursue one's ambitions.

Right, and this is not easy as you say. You just moved the goal post from the actual achievement being hard to the development of wisdom being hard. If one is the key to the other, they are both hard to achieve. — schopenhauer1

Sure, I never said excellency would be easy. If salvation were at hand, as Spinoza wrote, everyone would achieve it. But it is as difficult as it is rare.

This is what people do. It doesn't mean that the original preference wasn't more preferable. — schopenhauer1

Surely it doesn't. But to have a preference for that which is impossible is just silly. It is the sign of a mind that doesn't function properly, and it is alike having a preference to have been a fish, or a lion, or why not a rock? So if whatever you have a preference for becomes impossible, then how can you still have a preference for it?

This just sounds like a way to impress people. It won't matter once you're dead. — schopenhauer1

But I'm not doing that to impress anyone, or because it would matter after I'm dead. It matters in the moment that I do that. I feel better if I do that, then if I don't.