Yes it is.

There is an ethical problem with freedom as construed in liberal thought. If freedom is founded on sovereignty, then my freedom can only be won at the cost of your sovereignty. This is an approach that sets each individual against all the others. We see the result in the dissolution of the common wealth in those nations that claim a liberal heritage.

Better, then to see freedom as a building of the capacity to achieve, to become more than one already is, both individually and as part of that common wealth. We achieve freedom so considered by building the capacity of those around us to be free.

I’m not sure how a freedom founded on sovereignty can only be won at a cost to another’s sovereignty. If each of us are (or ought to be) sovereign over our own actions, and therefor is (or ought to be) free, it seems to me the ethical act would be to give sovereignty instead of purchase it.

Arendt doesn’t describe freedom as a building of the capacity to achieve, but as a capacity to begin. Beginning does not necessitate achieving anymore than it necessitates failing. So I would say your “building of the capacity to achieve” falls more under her Christian conception of “freedom for the sake of salvation” as it appears in her genealogy.

Arendt doesn’t describe freedom as a building of the capacity to achieve, but as a capacity to begin. — NOS4A2

Sure, but

"action and beginning are essentially the same"...

Every act, seen from the perspective not of the agent but of the process in whose framework it occurs and whose automatism it interrupts, is a "miracle" that is, something which could not be expected. If it is true that action and beginning are essentially the same, it follows that a capacity for performing miracles must like- wise be within the range of human faculties.

The link between the capacity to begin and the capacity to act is apparent. The link to Nassbaum is my own, after @Paine

You say moral acts are algorithmic at the start of your post only to say at the end that there is no such algorithm. — Banno

I believe you refer to these two instances in my post:

I don't think I ever said that moral acts are algorithmic processes, but now that you say that, I believe they are. — god must be atheist

Thus, it is not some sort of moral ethical decision tree or moral ethical algorithm that I invoked that would be developed to guide man in every different ethical dilemma or challenge — god must be atheist

I left out a major part in my first quoted text. The processes are algorithmic in the sense that the decision is based on the circumstances as well; in a way that the decision can be traced back (by a very smart "mind") from the actual act backwards in time to the constituent causing parts, and then one can see how those causing parts fit together to produce the act. Conversely, if the "smart mind" was aware of the causing parts, it could correctly predict the ensuing act. Without a decision tree or algorithm this task would be impossible.

In the second part I attempted to explain that the mutation that guides ethical behaviour is not a hard-and-fast command to how to behave; therefore I denied that it is some moral ethical decision tree that's at play.

In summary, the decision tree that I don't deny is there is processing of all causational components; and the denial of the decision tree is that it is SOLELY based on a pre-existing command by ethical mutation.

These are subtle differences, and one can argue that in the original text, from which i quoted, I ought to have been more careful in the wording.

The basic reason for rejecting a place for sociobiology in ethics remains: even if our genes demand that we act in a certain way, it remains open for us to do otherwise. — Banno

The evolutionary change I suggested is nowhere near what you suggest here I suggested. I merely suggested in the article that there was a mechanism in place originally; that was fast and hard-wired; and its mechanism was transported from one application in behavour to a different application of behaviour. The second application (to which it was transported) is not hard-and-fast in behaviour; it is rather that that the reward and punishment system after any moral behaviour is the mehcanism that was inherited from the hard-wired system.

It is all there, and because it's a brand new concept, it requires (I am sorry to say) very careful reading. New concepts are normally resisted in acceptance, but before that phase, they are often misunderstood entirely.

So... we agree that moral issues are to be solved heuristically, not algorithmically?

Then I stand by the thrust of the post, that virtue ethics better suits ethical problem solving.

What article?

What article? — Banno

I suggest this article.

I was responding to the article you posted elsewhere rather than your comments here. — Banno

You need a good night's sleep, Banno.

So... we agree that moral issues are to be solved heuristically, not algorithmically?

Then I stand by the thrust of the post, that virtue ethics better suits ethical problem solving. — Banno

I apologize, but I can't agree to something I don't understand.

I have no formal training in philosophy, and you seem to have.

You have to come down to my level on this if you wish to elicit an agreement. Otherwise just let it go.

I was referring to the article you cited for @Tobias, here;

DO you need an explanation of the difference between an algorithm and an heuristic? Or of virtue ethics?

DO you need an explanation of the difference between an algorithm and an heuristic? Or of virtue ethics? — Banno

No thank you. Instead, it would be helpful if you could explain in simple, street-level terms what you mean. But I won't hold you to it, you do it if you feel like it.

I was referring to the article you cited for Tobias, here; ↪god must be atheist — Banno

you referenced something without telling me what you were talking about; a little while later you gave an ambiguous answer what you were talking about; and the third time you blurted out what you were talking about.

It's a little bit like playing the game "Mastermind" and using the wrong pegs three times and still expecting the other bloke to guess the solution correctly.

Please don't do this. This is impolite and unnecessarily confusing your debating partner.

you referenced something without telling me what you were talking about; — god must be atheist

I linked directly to the article to which I was referring. Look: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/652160

I apologise for assuming you read the post you commented on...:grimace:

Banno, there was no way for me to quess the reference to the article you cited came from, since you claim now that the article you referenced was mentioned by me, but in another thread. This is clearly not acceptable... of course it's acceptable to quote a reference from a wholly different topic, but it's unacceptable to expect me to know when you don't at all point its origin out precisely for me, only three debate-exchanges later.

Then you ask me, "What article?"

You need a good night's sleep, like I said earlier.

If you were making this mistake in a formal academic setting, I believe you would be penalized for that.

I linked directly to the article to which I was referring. Look: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/652160 — Banno

god must be atheist's article might give one pause when considering — Banno

I had published one article in two versions here as a thread. Since you referred to the article as mine, I thought you meant the one I had created. There was no reason for me to check my own article.

This was precise, at the same time as ambiguous. Okay, I admit you referenced it, but your wording was so worded that I rightfully assumed that you referenced my article, not an article I quoted.

To be honest, I glided over your referencing, since I assumed you talked about my article... how on earth would someone read "god must atheist's article" as an article which is not god must be atheist's article?

I had published one article here as a thread. Since you referred to the article as mine, I thought you meant the one I had created. There was no reason for me to check my own article. — god must be atheist

No. I meant the article I linked to in the sentence in which I mentioned it.

Cheers. :grimace:

No. I meant the article I linked to in the sentence in which I mentioned it. — Banno

I got you already. Cheers.

For to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others. .

Nelson Mandela - Reflections on Working Toward Peace

Interesting.

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

--Abraham Lincoln