Is this supposed to be an argument? — Garrett Travers

Obviously not.

It was intended as a barely concealed insult.

This is specifically why codes of ethics are even created, to ensure that you have a good life for as long as possible.

Good, got a little worried there.

I do not belong to a society, I belong to myself. — Garrett Travers

Of course you do, you rugged individualist.

Glad we're understanding. You wouldn't want me to think that you actually believe that you are the property of me and your other countrymen, would you? That you belong to us?

The Standford essay points to how difficult it is to separate the inquiries. I was hoping for a pithy reference to actual text to illuminate your point.

I am arguing against the notion that ethics is exclusively predicated on such considerations and that individual ethics are not a thing. — Garrett Travers

Maybe a little Aristotle will demonstrate my dissatisfaction with your categories:

Now, knowing what is good for oneself is, to be sure, one kind of knowledge; but it is very different from the other kinds. A man who knows and concerns himself with his own interests is regarded as a man of practical wisdom, while men whose concern is with politics are looked upon as busybodies. Euripides' words are in this vein:

"How can I be called "wise", who might have filled a common soldier's place, free from all care, sharing an equal lot?
For those who reach too high and are too active..."

For people seek their own good and think this is what they should do. This opinion has given rise to the view that it is such men who have practical wisdom. And yet, surely one's own good cannot exist without household management nor without a political system. Moreover, the problem of how to manage one's affairs properly needs clarification and remains to be examined. — Nicomachean Ethics, Book Six, translated by Marin Oswald

I don't know if "individual ethics" are a thing or not, But the concept does not seem to apply to at least one classical author. A counter example to consider would be most welcome.

The Standford essay points to how difficult it is to separate the inquiries. I was hoping for a pithy reference to actual text to illuminate your point. — Paine

The Stanford essay clearly distills the gist of what is the predicate for any following ethical deliberations. That gist being first the pursuit of individual well-being from whence all other ethical deliberations follow. Which is specifically what I've been arguing. Ethics begins with the individual and extends outward to the rest of society.

Maybe a little Aristotle will demonstrate my dissatisfaction with your categories: — Paine

You've come to the wrong conclusion and this is because you've jumped to book six to make your argument, instead of relying on what every book beyond book one is predicated upon regarding "the good," namely:

"If this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." - Nichomachean Ethics bk.1 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

In other words, individual excellence and rationality are the primary virtues from whence the rest of his deliberations are predicated upon. Not unlike our dear Plato expounded upon above.

I don't know if "individual ethics" are a thing or not, But the concept does not seem to apply to at least one classical author. A counter example to consider would be most welcome. — Paine

Only individual ethics are a thing, as only individuals can perform ethical actions. Collectives cannot. Even if collectives did work in unison to achieve an ethical outcome, they would be nothing more than a large conglomeration of individuals independetly choosing to make that decision alongside one another. Meaning, it is not possible to apply ethics to the broader society before first applying ethics to the individuals comprising society. So no, the concept most certainly applies to Aristotle, it is the predicate for every other aspect of his epistemology.

The Stanford essay clearly distills the gist of what is the predicate for any following ethical deliberations. — Garrett Travers

Where?

if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete." — Garrett Travers

So, who notices these virtues? What are they? Courage, Honesty, Loyalty, Fidelity, or What? Where does serving the 'individual' fit in?

Where? — Paine

Literally from the first paragraph onward. The entire essay is about how he formulates his ethics over the course of many works. What is predictaed upon what and when newer ideas of his emerged.

So, who notices these virtues? What are they? Courage, Honesty, Loyalty, Fidelity, or What? Where does serving the 'individual' fit in? — Paine

Who notices these virtues? Serving the individual? I don't know what you're talking about. My claim was that, much like Plato, Aristotle predicated his ethics first and foremost upon the achievement of individual excellence, or virtue. And that the passages you cited can only be attained when individuals do so. There is no bk.6 without bk.1, in other words. As far as what the virtues are, here's a quick video that goes over the entire epistemology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQVatXqEjPM

I wasn't claiming that someone other than an individual could be a virtuous person. The question is what those qualities are. They are described by Plato and Aristotle as largely exhibited through actions done with and for other people.

Doesn't giving our life meaning also self serving? — TiredThinker

Is this your question?:

Is it self-serving to live a meaningful life?

I wasn't claiming that someone other than an individual could be a virtuous person. — Paine

Didn't say you were. What everyone here seems to be arguing, is that ethics are exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. Whereas I am and have been arguing, that that isn't true. Ethics is primarily an individual pursuit; how could it not be? You can't be ethical to others if you aren't an ethical person privately, it's pretty straight forward.

The question is what those qualities are. — Paine

That has never been any question you and I were addressing before your last statement to me.

They are described by Plato and Aristotle as largely exhibited through actions done with and for other people. — Paine

No, they are not. We have already established that. They are described as actions of individual pursuit: wisdom, science, temperance of hunger, excellence of character etc. The actions described as virtuous in relation to other people are the natural result of the above sought individual traits and the above traits are a requirement to fulfill any ethical goal to others.

Again, this is what I was saying: "I am arguing against the notion that ethics is exclusively predicated on such considerations (that being the well being of others primarily) and that individual ethics are not a thing."

And this is what you were saying: I don't know if "individual ethics" are a thing or not, But the concept does not seem to apply to at least one classical author. A counter example to consider would be most welcome.




Addendum:

"Now this would seem to be in agreement both with what we said before and with the truth. For, firstly, this activity is the best (since not only is reason the best thing in us, but the objects of reason are the best of knowable objects); and secondly, it is the most continuous, since we can contemplate truth more continuously than we can do anything. And we think happiness has pleasure mingled with it, but the activity of philosophic wisdom is admittedly the pleasantest of virtuous activities; at all events the pursuit of it is thought to offer pleasures marvellous for their purity and their enduringness, and it is to be expected that those who know will pass their time more pleasantly than those who inquire. And the self-sufficiency that is spoken of must belong most to the contemplative activity. For while a philosopher, as well as a just man or one possessing any other virtue, needs the necessaries of life, when they are sufficiently equipped with things of that sort the just man needs people towards whom and with whom he shall act justly, and the temperate man, the brave man, and each of the others is in the same case, but the philosopher, even when by himself, can contemplate truth, and the better the wiser he is; he can perhaps do so better if he has fellow-workers, but still he is the most self-sufficient. And this activity alone would seem to be loved for its own sake; for nothing arises from it apart from the contemplating, while from practical activities we gain more or less apart from the action."

- Nicomachean Ethics bk.10 ch.7 http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.10.x.html

What everyone here seems to be arguing, is that ethics are exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. Whereas I am and have been arguing, that that isn't true. Ethics is primarily an individual pursuit; how could it not be? You can't be ethical to others if you aren't an ethical person privately — Garrett Travers

Don't worry. You aren't the only one who believes that. Being ethical is mostly and for all a work that you have to do with yourself. As to realize why being ethical and doing "good" is the "right" thing to do mostly for your own self! It's a deeply pure Egoistic thing.

To say that someone must be ethical cause someone else says so (God for example) or cause we "ought" to society or to anyone else are childish fairy tales,that can never be taken seriously even from the same people who just think they are good. We ought only to ourselves in this life. And none else.

That's why we see all around us such a huge hypocrisy from people thinking or pretending to be ethical and doing "good" but at the end they are full of shit.
Doing "good" is a constant fight with ourselves in our every day actions .A tough one. It is a continuous exercise and not a permanent state. We can never be sure that we do "good" all the time or that we belong to the "good group" of people. But the effort towards that is what actually matters and what grow us bigger.

You can't force someone to be ethical, by imaginary divine punishment or silly stories about social debt to others and things like that.
It should be a personal choice from the individuals. Only that way it makes sense and it actually works both for the individual and the social benefit.

It's no coincidence that good and God differ one o. Doing good is, in a sense, doing God. God is omnibenevolent. Eve ate the apple of knowledge of good and evil, and only by reading and accepting His words the evil can be undone by cutting it's roots out, thereby removing the existence of the knowledge of evil, so devilish implanted by that cunning snake. By tempting the naive Eve to bite the apple. The word of God was received by Mozes (devarim). The Ten Commandments are the base of fighting the evil snake amidst us. The evil snake is wicked and constantly planning and looking for entrance in our being. Beware of the wicked!

About time someone showed up with some sense. This was starting to get tiring. The glaringly bizarre thing about this thread is these people are asserting this whole "ethics is for benefit of others" bit as if it were somehow mainstream philosophy or something. This being inspite of the fact that almost every single code of ethics developed over the past few thousand years has been predicated first and primarily on the well-being and flourishing of the individual, and to the benefit of others a secondary; many of which I enumerated to people, with nothing of the opposite being enumerated to me. It's making me really suspicious as to the source of this unwarrented self-assurance. I would hate to write it off as narcissism, but I'm not hearing much in the way of actual arguments from people.

What everyone here seems to be arguing, is that ethics are exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. — Garrett Travers

I haven't been arguing that. The references I have made point to how the good for oneself is interwoven with the good of others. The realm of the virtue of being just is directed toward relationships with others. As your citation of the Ethics states:

[quote="Garrett Travers;648171"]the just man needs people towards whom and with whom he shall act justly, and the temperate man, the brave man, and each of the others is in the same case, but the philosopher, even when by himself, can contemplate truth, and the better the wiser he is; he can perhaps do so better if he has fellow-workers, but still he is the most self-sufficient. And this activity alone would seem to be loved for its own sake; for nothing arises from it apart from the contemplating, while from practical activities we gain more or less apart from the action."[/quote]

What you have been arguing is that moral value is measured primarily by the return of personal investment as outlined by Rand's epistemology. Aristotle just disagreed with her in this passage.

I haven't been arguing that. The references I have made point to how the good for oneself is interwoven with the good of others. — Paine

No, that's what Plato, Aristotle, and I have been arguing. You have been arguing this: "The realm of the virtue of being just is directed toward relationships with others."

This is not true. It is primarily individual and secondarily interpersonal. That's what I have been arguing, not you.

What you have been arguing is that moral value is measured primarily by the return of personal investment as outlined by Rand's epistemology. Aristotle just disagreed with her in the passage you cite. — Paine

Aristotle is specifically stating that the contemplative pursuit of wisdom, knowledge, and virtuous activities is the primary attribute of philosophic self-sufficiency. That, although the domain of interpersonal relations is important, as people need one another, much better and wiser is he who seeks virtue through his own contemplation. In other words, ethics is primarily an individual pursuit and interpersonal relations is secondary. Aristotle agrees with me, Rand, and just about every single ethical philosopher of all time. You're getting this confused because, instead of reading that entire segment that I sent you, you only read and underlined what you thought made your point, which it did not.

The value of self-sufficiency, as the highest good for the philosopher, is not the grounds for the conditions that require ethics. As Aristotle says in Politics 1253a:

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

The Randian vision is one of a God who fell to Earth.

— Paine

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god.

I guess you missed the portion of the passage I sent where he emphasizes the specific self-sufficiency he was talking about. He wasn't talking about independence from human interaction, neither am I. He's talking specifically about the independence of the rational mind and the individual pursuit of knowledge, wisdom, excellence, and virtue, which is most certainly his foundation for ethics. It's right there in writ, both in bk. 1 and bk.10.

The value of self-sufficiency, as the highest good for the philosopher, is not the grounds for the conditions that require ethics.

No, it's ethics qua ethics, not a pre-requisite. Nobody made that argument. You're not understanding much of what I say to you. The value of self-sufficiency that Aristotle is emphasizing in bk. 10 is a precondition for ethics on an interpersonal basis. Again, you cannot be good to others if you are not good yourself. It's not possible.

The Randian vision is one of a God who fell to Earth. — Paine

No, it is quite literally a comprehensive, in fact the most comprehensive and sophisticated since Kant, epistemology predicated entirely on the biological nature of Man as a mammal living on earth, bound to a body that requires resources to live and procreate - the biological imperatives that drive all of evolution - that asserts that each individual has responsibility for first and primarily himself. Which his nature would clearly demosntrate, as each individual is bound to a single, mortal body, with a single, limited consciousness that is constatly at threat of bodily injury if said individual does not use his singular means by which to evade misfortune: his reason. Nothing to do with God whatsoever. Actually, it is probably the most straight forward and scientifically sound ethical epistemology to date, cutting out all mysticism, all hyperbole, and all emotional slop.

Again, you cannot be good to others if you are not good yourself. It's not possible. — Garrett Travers

True enough. But that observation is not the same as saying that the moral values needed to be an ethical person can be derived from oneself first and then extended to others. The reference to Aristotle's comparison of man to a God was to show the problem of such a derivation, not invoke a divinity.

Oh, of course not. I haven't made that argument. In fact, I have affirmed numerous times that each individual's values are informed by cultural achievements and norms. Nothing wrong with saying that, it's inextricably true. What I'm saying is very simple: it is the individual that exercises ethics, as collectives can't do it, and I can't do it for you; which only leaves you and I independently, e.g. I also cannot take a math test for you, or eat your food for you. Which by the very fact of such implies that ethics begins with the individual, and extends outward. Values, on the other hand, emerge out of societies through time and are dissemnitated onto individuals, by which their particular ethical inclinations will be informed. And I'm serious about this, I've been studying philosophy both formally and informally for almost a decade now, I do not know a single philosopher among the greats that comes to a different conclusion. And most certainly not among the rationalist school.

Is what I'm saying making sense now, and do you accept my position as more closely approximating the truth than the idea that ethics is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations? (as seems to be the common opinion in this thread)

The glaringly bizarre thing about this thread is these people are asserting this whole "ethics is for benefit of others" — Garrett Travers

Yeah, we are full of Mother Teresas here as everywhere else in societies. Ready to sacrifice their lives for the well affair of others.
Weird thing though that with all of them around us, world societies are still full of shit.

every single code of ethics developed over the past few thousand years has been predicated first and primarily on the well-being and flourishing of the individual, and to the benefit of others a secondary; — Garrett Travers

That is the case indeed.Anything else is pure hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the Lord of our times.

Yeah, we are full of Mother Teresas here as everywhere else in societies. Ready to sacrifice their lives for the well affair of others.
Weird thing though that with all of them around us, world societies are still full of shit. — dimosthenis9

Right? As if Mother Teresa was anything short of a deluded holy fool who ended up getting a lot of people killed in very miserable fashion. My thing is, where the hell is this coming from?

That is the case indeed.Anything else is pure hypocrisy. And hypocrisy is the Lord of our times. — dimosthenis9

I mean, you get your stragglers in philosophy who try to straddle the fence, so to speak, like Kant, who can clearly articulate the hypothetical imperative, which is individualistic, while also presenting you with the ludicrous notion of the categorical imperative, which is entirely self-sacrificial. But, for the vast majority of philosophers, all of the great ones, the individual rational mind and its pursuit of well-being and flourishing is paramount. No question.

Hey, glad to meet a fellow traveller!

-G

The Stoic ethical framework is almost exclusively predicated upon individual behavior. — Garrett Travers

Yes, behavior. Our behavior involves others, necessarily. Behavior in accordance with nature--the rational selection of things according to nature--according to the Stoics, includes the due consideration of the effect of conduct on other beings, which are a part of nature.

Yes, behavior. Our behavior involves others, necessarily. Behavior in accordance with nature--the rational selection of things according to nature--according to the Stoics, includes the due consideration of the effect of conduct on other beings, which are a part of nature. — Ciceronianus

No, behavior covers both public, as well as private human action. Neither are necessarily contingent upon one another across all circumstances. To assume as much would be to confine yourself to binary thought.

Again, I'm not arguing that interpersonal ethics aren't to be considered. It is the people in this forum that are arguing that ethics is only the domain of interpersonal relations. I am arguing that both are encompassed by ethics, and that ethics is first and foremost an individual pursuit, as the Stoics, one school among many, also contend.

An individual pursuit in the sense of a way of living, as a life of virtue would be? That I can understand.

"Because there's a conflict in every human heart, between the rational and irrational, between good and evil. And good does not always triumph.

" Sometimes, the dark side overcomes what Lincoln called the better angels of our nature."

- Apocalypse Now

"You have to have men who are moral... and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling... without passion... without judgment."

- Colonel Kurtz, 'Apocalypse Now'.

:grimace:

I'm not arguing that interpersonal ethics aren't to be considered. It is the people in this forum that are arguing that ethics is only the domain of interpersonal relations. I am arguing that both are encompassed by ethics, and that ethics is first and foremost an individual pursuit, as the Stoics, one school among many, also contend. — Garrett Travers

Part of the source of the disagreement you have been encountering may be that all the the terms involved:ethics, individual, private, public, self, have shifted their sense over the past two millennia of Western philosophy, and particularly in the modern era. For instance, for a Heidegger the ‘self’ is defined as an interaction with a world. So from that perspective, to say that ethics is an individual pursuit is to say that it is inherently about being with others, since that is what the ‘individual’ is. That may sound incoherent to you , but many models within the social as well as the biological sciences have also moved in the direction of seeing the self as a constantly shifting product of interaction with a social and physical environment. If your approach is closely related to Objectivism , you are relying ona model of the self which probably sees it as akin to a computer , which receives data from the world, processes and stores it in relation to desires and goals which are intrinsic to it , and then selects its behavioral options. In this approach, there is a clear cut distinction between self and non-self, private and public. It would seem obvious that such a being’s interests are separable from those of a community seen as some abstract whole. Even if you disagree with the approach, one can model the psychology of individuals according to a different schematics, that is less like a computer than it is an ecological system. You can see how this muddies the separation between private and public, individual and collective.
You’ve probably noticed how politics on the left is more and more embracing such ways of thinking.