i don't like applying logic to the real world, and drawing conclusions only from the logic. it's theorycrafting

Moving this video to enoch's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued - promote requested by Trancecoach.

*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by Trancecoach.

this is so flawed it hurts my brain to think that this guy can afford a suit.

He might be right... if he's only talking about sociopaths.

Philosophy.....should have died a hundred years ago.

"coerced behaviour is not virtuous behaviour"

That is so stupid I don't even know where to start. I can't make a virtuous decision (for example) not to murder someone unless I have the freedom to murder someone???

ChaosE - This may be a matter of semantics and definitions. Depending on how you define the terms, I agree with your point.

And, in moral philosophy, if it is not your _choice_, it is not an ethical choice. Sorry if this is philosophical bullshit, but think about it: your "not killing someone" because you don't have the motivation or means is not a virtuous choice, it is simply not NOT an unethical one. It is the lack of a negative, not the presence of a positive. Virtue is about our choices, not our defaults.

Virtue is like building a muscle. The virtue is demonstrated/evidenced in building my strength (taking the time and focus to work out and be disciplined), not in the fact that I am strong. If I stop working out, my muscle will decay.

This is like virtue. In a strange way, once we have habituated a virtuous choice to routine/automatic mode, it is no longer a virtuous choice. It was virtuous to build the habit, but it is not virtuous when it is automatic.

Again, it is philosophical quibbling/definitions, but it points to a real distinction that matters in our moment by moment experience. As moral philosophers put it, morality is about what you do in the face of difficulty and temptation, not when things are automatic. It is easy to be nice to people when life is going great for you. It is hard to be nice to others when things are stressful and falling apart. THAT is where the rubber of morality meets the road of reality/daily life. That is where virtue shows up (or doesn't).

I am married and monogamy is part of my commitment. If no other woman would deign to sleep with me, my not sleeping with them is no indication of my virtue. It is only in the face of propositions to which I say "no" that I am exercising the virtue of fidelity.

In this sense, the more we are responsible for our own choices, the more those choice CAN be virtuous and BUILD our virtuous character. In contrast, when other people make our choices for us, we neither act virtuously nor build virtuous character.

I am sure this is true in your own life. If you donate time/money/effort to a charitable cause, it impacts you personally and powerfully. When the government takes taxes from your paycheck to pay for social programs, it is impersonal and has virtually zero impact on your character.

Or, that is one way of looking at it - which the video is all about.

There are plenty of times when I've had both the means and motivation to kill someone. What stopped me? Yeah, I didn't want to go to jail, but primarily I stopped myself because I know that killing someone is wrong and that cutting me off in traffic is not a morally justifiable reason for murder.

As for your marriage, that's a perfect example of how your argument falls apart. Are you telling me that there would be no repercussions on your life if you got caught cheating on your wife? Because unless your wife would just roll her eyes and go "oh asexymind, you and your crazy extramarital affairs", you are being coerced and therefore your decision to not sleep with all the women lining up outside your door is not virtuous.

Just because there are negative consequences to an action, doesn't mean that not performing that action isn't the virtuous path.

But bloody hell, do we need those negative consequences! You only have to look at the finance industry to see how people behave when there are no repercussions.

We don't live in an abstract philosophical conundrum where people will be moral "if we just give them the chance!!!"

We live in a world that has been ceaselessly fucked over by the powerful. Where the poor get exploited and the environment gets destroyed because the majority of those in power (and I don't mean politicians, I mean the people with power) are complete psychopaths, in the clinical sense of the word. If we didn't have government rules, you'd still be working on the weekend and your kids would be working with you.

sure. And, unless you consciously choose to perform or not perform the action, it isn't virtuous nor does it build a virtuous character.

The point of the video is about building virtuous citizens. Assuming everything you say is true - there might be good reasons to make things illegal. I am of that opinion myself.

The question is, will it build virtue? Or will it build obedience? I know and work with rich people who are extraordinarily virtuous, who are faced with temptation regularly, and it is their virtue that stops them from exercising their power unfairly. They could get away with all kinds of bullshit and not get caught. It isn't the rules that stops them, it is the morality.

I believe those with power will always be tempted to use it unfairly, and there are many kinds of power (which are not going away any time soon). The key is to build virtue in those who have the power, and that comes through choices that build that virtue.

I will say there is a meaningful distinction between consequences at the hands of the law involving guns and jails vs. consequences by our peers involving social reputation and retractions of friendship.

Yes, there are real consequences from my wife if I were to cheat on her. They are real and important. I object to these consequences being compared with laws that threaten jail or fines.

In fact, it is exactly these kinds of interpersonal/social consequences that guide us to build virtue.

Well, you were the one that initially compared your marriage fidelity (or hypothetical lack thereof) to virtuous (or immoral) behaviours. You can't really compare one side (the behaviours) and then complain about a comparison of the (dis)incentives.

Both are systems of reward and punishment. You incentivise desired behaviours and disincentivise undesired ones. Whether the incentive is a tax break or an emotional response is irrelevant.

But let's say that you're right and there is a distinction between them. It still doesn't solve the problem of encouraging moral behaviour.

If I'm the CEO of a company and I make a decision that makes me and my family better off, everyone is happier, right? Moral bonus all round.

Except maybe my decision impacts someone else profoundly negatively. Halfway around the world, someones working conditions got much worse. Locally someone got laid off so I could employ the people with the crap working conditions. I saved money on environmental standards now at the cost of a problem in the future.

But none of that has an immediate social or personal consequence to me. I just bought a boat and took my family sailing and they're happy!!

The fact is that with the best will in the world, it's really easy for those with power to abuse it, and no, morality does not keep them in check. It might in a few individual cases, but those are dwarfed by the colossal atrocities perpetrated by those whose morality fails to keep their power in check.

Again, look at the current banking system. Please don't tell me you think there are moral people in charge of that, and for the love of all that is holy, please don't tell me that we just need to give them the opportunity to exercise their moral muscle.

The problem with this libertarian philosophy is that it has been the default position throughout history and the outcome has been spectacularly bad.
Libertarians counter this by claiming that we haven't had a "true" libertarian system, which to me is akin to trying to put out a fire with gasoline and then when it doesn't work, claiming we didn't add enough gasoline.