Ethics 101 - Virtues & Vices

13 Twirling Triskeles

13 Twirling Triskeles

Jedi Master
Hi everyone. I'm going to post a “confession” in the Swamp about going “out” ethics and why I consider keeping my ethics “in” an important part of doing the Work.

Before I post that “confession”, however, I thought I should do a little research online regarding the subject of “ethics”. It seems to me that I sometimes need a nuts & bolts kind of guideline — a list to which I can refer in order to “name” the specific virtue I’m neglecting to align with or the vice I am indulging in.

I don’t know if this list of virtues & vices and their definitions will actually be of much help to anyone else here — I am possibly inferring (taking an educated “guess”) that it may be of use to others in the Forum.

I do hope it’s more signal than noise. But that would be for the Moderators and other Forum members to judge, yes?

If anyone has anything to add, correct, or subtract from this list and information, please, by all means, do so, and thank you.

And — if the Moderators think this post should be moved to a different Board, then thank you for doing so.

And so — without further ado — here are some of the results of my research. As always, FWIW. :)

* * * * * *​
Law of Three -- Reference: The Cassiopaea Materials

There’s “right” — there’s “wrong” — and there’s the specific situation/context which determines if an act is “right” or “wrong”

Taken from the Classical European Philosophy Definitions of Ethics

Ethics = Virtues and Vices (Virtues vs. Vices = Right vs. Wrong)

The 4 Platonic Virtues (from Plato)

Temperance * Prudence * Courage * Justice

Temperance is marked by personal restraint.

Prudence means to govern and discipline oneself by use of reason.

Courage is the ability and willingness to confront fear * pain * danger * uncertainty * or intimidation.

Moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, or discouragement.

Justice is the moderation or mean between selfishness and selflessness between having more and having less than one’s fair share.

Proportional reciprocity, whereby the just person renders to each and all what is due to them in due proportion; what it is in their moral, legal rights to do, possess, or exact.

VICE

Vice is a practice, behavior, habit generally considered immoral, sinful, depraved or degrading.

In minor usage, vice can refer to a fault, negative character trait, defect, infirmity, a bad or unhealthy habit.

Vices are usually associated with a transgression in a person’s character or temperament rather than their morality.

Synonyms for vice include — fault * sin * depravity * iniquity * wickedness * corruption

Etymology: The modern English word which best captures its original meaning is the word “vicious” which means full of vice.

Sarvastivadin Tradition of Buddhism

There are 108 defilements or vices which are prohibited. These are subdivided into 10 Bonds and 98 proclivities (tendencies). The 10 Bonds are:

Absence of Shame
Absence of Embarrassment
Jealousy
Parsimony (stinginess)
Remorse (I think this is an error. It seems as if it should be “absence” of remorse, but I could not locate any other reference to this list online)
Drowsiness
Distraction
Torpor
Anger
Concealment of wrongdoing

Dante’s 7 Deadly Vices (Sins)

Pride or Vanity — excessive love of the self.

Envy or Jealousy — resentment of others for their possessions.

Wrath or Anger — feelings of hatred, revenge or denial, as well as primitive desires outside of justice or love of justice perverted to revenge and spite.

Sloth or Laziness — idleness and wastefulness of time or other alloted resources.

Avarice (covetousness, greed) — a desire to possess more than one has need for; excessive love of money and power.

Gluttony — overindulgence in food, drink or intoxicants, or misplaced desire of food as a pleasure for its sensuality.

Lust — excessive sexual desire which detracts from true love.
 
Thank you for the work, there he has a conclusion? In the "Meno" of Plato, Socrates asks what is virtue? He says that men often classify virtue by gender, age or social status. Socrates said that the definition of a square is four equal sides, without trying to understand if the square is small or of any color. What is the virtue of man?
 
I suggest that the only thing that determines whether an act is 'right' or 'wrong' is the Intent behind it.

At a very macro level, take Killing for instance - deemed a 'wrong' act by virtually all societies, yet some people make a legitimate career out of being in the army which may involve taking life and this is considered a noble profession by society.

Or on a more micro level, how about prayer - most people would see it as a loving act if you were to pray for them to get over an illness. But what if their soul was supposed to be here to have the illness as a learning opportunity on a soul/consciousness level? And your prayer was actually interfering with that lesson??
In this situation you thought you were doing the 'right' thing, but the Intent behind it (on a soul/consciousness level) was erroneous?
 
I think a good act is determined by the character of the common good. Ie which works for the proper flow of energy from the source. Act that tends to STO is an act which releases more "light" as possible.
 
Kisito said:
I think a good act is determined by the character of the common good. Ie which works for the proper flow of energy from the source. Act that tends to STO is an act which releases more "light" as possible.
Click to expand...

But don't forget, we're in an STS environment - what's deemed best for the common good in an STS environment are STS acts.

STO acts will be in opposition to the laws of this environment.

So are we trying to determine the correct ethics for successful living in this society/density, or for living an STO candidate existence, as they are two different things?
 
electrosonic said:
Kisito said:
I think a good act is determined by the character of the common good. Ie which works for the proper flow of energy from the source. Act that tends to STO is an act which releases more "light" as possible.
Click to expand...

But don't forget, we're in an STS environment - what's deemed best for the common good in an STS environment are STS acts.

STO acts will be in opposition to the laws of this environment.

So are we trying to determine the correct ethics for successful living in this society/density, or for living an STO candidate existence, as they are two different things?
Click to expand...
I do not think that the actions are black or white, but gray. What determines an STS or STO act is also in its shade of gray, STS-O .. I do not think we can be STO candidate if our actions are only STS!
 
This made made me think immediately of Caesar. His (and taking into account the era & civilization) intent & the specific situation of mankind, since Rome was reaching far & wide with its sphere of influence. For an STS individual in an STS environment with power in their grasp with conscience, empathy, awareness & knowledge to NOT try to acquire the tools necessary to help people to help themselves, seems to me to be a more STS choice. In this regard we can see Putin trying something similar. An STO candidate also, OSIT.
 
I think any discussion of virtues and vices is kind of hollow without examples from real life (and history). For example, what makes a specific act courageous vs. impulsive and foolhardy? What are the feelings and inner processes that one experiences in order to distinguish between virtues and vices? How does one respond them? What prior experiences inspire or inform them? What is the role of the environment around the person in question?
 
And how about supposed virtues which may not be that effective when more closely examined?

For example, popular culture seems to laud 'heroic self-sacrifice' - it's such a common trope in movies and fiction. Might this 'value' be, at times, a way to vector possible change agents into a form of martyrdom where they soon get 'selected out' - where strategic enclosure, quiet networking and information dissemination might have been more effective in the long run?

(Or is it context-dependent again?)
 
Indeed- in a free will Universe acts of "right" and "wrong" would seem to be subjective-one person may deem an act as "immoral" or "sinful" while another may view the same act as perfectly acceptable - a lot of what we deem "right" and "wrong" is based on the general consensus of the society in which we live-for instance most folks generally see "stealing" as "wrong" - but to some it may be seen as perfectly acceptable behavior, even encouraged- the same goes for killing-to most it is repugnant and "wrong" but to others it is a virtue to kill as many enemies as possible. There are numerous lists of "codes of righteous conduct" which may or may not be applicable to the society in which one dwells - a tricky subject to be certain.
 
OK. Based on all the replies given so far, I can see I should create another post in order to clear up what I see to be some confusion. And the cause of that confusion is of my making.

Below is my understanding of how this all breaks down. I am not an "authority" on this subject. I cannot present it to you as if it's all objectively true and cannot be disagreed with or argued about. In fact, I welcome your input and perhaps you will be able to diffuse any confusion this post may generate. It is not my intention to confuse. It is my intention to clarify. However, as the saying goes -- The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions. So I must take that into account, yes? :)

WARNING: I have neglected to preface every statement I've made with phrases such as "It seems to me" or "It may be that" or other disclaimers. I have done so primarily for the sake of clarity so that those phrases don't muddy the waters for anyone attempting to follow the steps, so to speak.

However, if you are unable to set those considerations aside for any reason whatsoever -- for instance, my statements sound as if they are edicts, commands, or un-arguable truths -- if my "tone" alienates, annoys or irritates, or strikes you as too didactic (teach or lecture others) -- then, by all means, speak up and let me know. It's quite possible that failing to include those disclaimers may be considered externally inconsiderate -- and I do wish to be externally considerate -- act considerately towards others. I'm sort of experimenting here -- to see if I'm being too "lax" about applying the principal of external consideration or if other Forum Members find this "form" un-acceptable.

I'm attempting to strike a sort of balance here. My preference would be to include all those phrases rather than leave them out. But I had to weigh that option against the other option of making it more difficult for readers to follow the train-of-thought because of all the extra words. As I said, it's an experiment, and I have no idea what the results will be. But I know I can trust you all to give me your feedback so I can adjust my writing in future. Thanks so much.

And this is an example of following a Code of Ethics -- or Doing The Work. Both require adopting and following the rules or codes of external consideration.

I see now that I should have included some other related topics and how they are similar and different than the subject of "Ethics" in my original post. Because I did not, I infer (educated guess) that I have caused you all a lot of confusion. For that I sincerely apologize. I hope this post can help clear up some of that confusion. We shall see, yes?

For instance -- There are Ethics -- There are Morals -- There are Etiquette and Manners. They are all inter-related, but they are differentiated in these ways.

In my original post, I listed the Law-of-Three as the first code -- There's "right" -- there's "wrong" -- and there's the specific situation or context which determines when an act is right or wrong. I will go back and modify that portion so that it's more visible -- make it bold and in color. Possibly that might be helpful, yes?

Technically, the Law-of-Three would more accurately fall under the heading of Morals rather than Ethics, but I included it in my original Ethics post basically because I wanted to. However, the Law-of-Three isn't really technically applicable to a Code of Ethics. The Law-of-Three would be applicable with regard to breaking a Moral Law -- such as not stealing or not killing. Stealing and Killing, along with the other 10 Commandment types of "Laws" are Moral Laws rather than Ethical Rules.

Ethics are a self-imposed code of conduct. If you go back and read through the list of Ethics, you may note that if someone engages in any of those "vices" or fails to adopt any of those "virtues", with a few exceptions, that person will not be brought to court for breaking any actual "Laws" as they would be if they had broken a Moral Law.

The Law of Chivalry could be included as an Ethical Code. The Law of the Samurai would be an Ethical Code. I'm sure there are also certain Codes which top-of-the-line military officers are expected to follow. Benjamin Franklin had a list of ethical codes which he followed every day.

Moral Laws are laws that are imposed by States -- and if one breaks these "Laws", one is brought to "justice" and can be imprisoned. These are the "Laws" we refer to when we say someone has broken the law. This is where the Law-of-Three would most definitely apply.

The example given above by electrosonic about soldiers and killing would fall within the category of Moral Laws. In that case, the Law-of-Three would be applicable. It is certainly possible (and even advisable) for a soldier to also apply to him/herself a Code of Ethics. There are other considerations as well. For instance, a soldier who follows a strict inner code of ethics will have a different "attitude" about killing than a soldier who "enjoys" and takes pleasure in killing. The Law-of-Three would apply to the "act" itself. The Code of Ethics would apply to one's "attitude" and state of consciousness when s/he finds it necessary to invoke the Law-of-Three.

I think this "difference" is what sets Ceasar's soldiers, and certainly Ceasar himself, apart from the run-of-the-mill soldiers whose attitudes towards killing is more like a psychopath's attitude.

Etiquette -- Manners -- Politeness -- Hospitality: These are the "rules" which grease the wheels of social conduct when one is amongst others. They would include such acts as "external-consideration", paying attention & listening when someone is speaking to you, opening a door for someone, offering to allow someone to go ahead of you, conducting oneself appropriately when visiting someone else's space. This can extend to such issues as not putting a fork into one's mouth (Thailand & Bali -- where it is considered rude to do so).

Moral Laws and Etiquette, Manners, Politeness, & Hospitality rules and laws can be different in different cultures.

Ethics are a code of conduct which can be practiced in any and all cultures without offending any Laws of the Land.

Because Ethics are a "personal" code of conduct. They are not "required" -- which is why they are called "Virtues". Because people who adopt the virtues as a code to live by are not just following the Letter-of-the-Law. They are living according to the Spirit-of-the-Law. Do you see how this could be so?

Not breaking a Moral Law or being impolite, exhibiting bad manners, or inhospitable behavior are the basic "ground rules" that any normal person should and usually will follow. These are a given. Following these rules is our "duty" as a good citizen.

To go beyond the call of "duty" -- to adopt a stricter code of behavior -- to practice the virtues and refrain from engaging in the vices -- this is more in alignment with the Work. For example, there is no Moral Law, or Etiquette Rule, or Polite, or Hospitality Code which requires us to "self-observe" or say "no" to the Predator Mind. Which is why I am proposing that Doing the Work is more closely aligned with following an Ethical Code because these are self-imposed rules we choose to follow. They are much stricter rules than what is permitted by Moral Laws & Etiquette Rules.

I hope I have cleared up some of your questions and concerns and clarified some mis-understandings and assumptions.
I got the feeling that there may have been a conflation (merging) between the subjects of morals, ethics, etiquette, hospitality, and social rules of conduct -- that they had got all lumped together -- which was my fault for not making it clear that I see all these as related, but also different.

I think that after reading this post, if you go back and re-read the list of vices & virtues with a better understanding of how that list did NOT include any Moral Laws of the Land or Laws of the Sea or Laws of the State, you might more easily understand the original post -- which was to write out a list of vices & virtues -- which fall under the umbrella of "Ethics" -- and how adopting or honoring the Virtues would be relevant to Doing The Work.

My AIM was to provide us with a check-list of character traits, attributes, as a "guideline" for maintaining ethical conduct -- specifically naming the various virtues & vices, their definitions, and how, if we apply them in our lives, it might be "similar", if not precisely the "same", as adopting certain methods of self-disciplining the Predator.

Because the whole point of aligning with the Virtues and rejecting the Vices is an exercise in SELF-DISCIPLINE. We are engaged in saying "yes" or "no". And, as I was seeing it, that "yes-ing" and "no-ing" is HOW we engage in the BATTLE. Our choices are Yes and No. Regardless of all the reasons why we choose, those are basically the choices we have.

And every "yes" and every "no" aligns us more closely with the Creative Face of God or the Entropic Face of God. I'm proposing that saying "yes" to practicing the Virtues and "no" to the Vices is a way to "apply" or "DOING" the Work because one of the things we are Doing is saying "yes" or "no".

Is any of that making any sense?

Well, I hope that helped resolve some objections, clear-up some confusions, answer some questions, and provide some useful information. As always -- FWIW and feedback is appreciated. Thank you all.

Cheers! :)
 
So, to sum up the above - you are trying to gather together a list of ethical codes, or behaviors, to live by, in order to assist the Work?
This correct?
 
I would like to take the "problem" by the other sens:
If you follow the Way, and work, networking, learning, experiencing, practising, knowing and understanding , you are aware but you don't need "the programs" of virtues and vices, you make the right thing, with the right person in the right moment_ A LOT OF WORK for me, in the LONG way from home.
And as said Ceasar himself, or Ark: "In the end you must be true to your own nature, and fear nothing."
By the way, the Work, and the work cannot be without the knowledge of the codes, behaviors, and vices disguise in virtues of the psychopaths.

My piece of beacon.
 
There's a post on the forum somewhere about Benjamin Franklin's method which I think is very useful. Somebody see if they can find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom