Virtues Be Independent of Morality & Ethics

[FlashDangerpants]

Dogmatic as usual,

These virtues can cover for 'efficiency'.
"Excellence" implies striving to do things well, often efficiently, to achieve high-quality outcomes.
Diligence: Reflecting perseverance and careful work, which often leads to efficient results.
Resourcefulness: Involves finding efficient solutions, especially in challenging situations.
Prudence: Suggests wise decision-making, often leading to efficient use of resources and effort.

Why bother with any of it then? All of those can just as sensibly be replaced with "good" and you don't need the list at all.

The above are from the links provided above.
If 'efficiency' is valid, then we can add to the listing.

Why did you want your list to be 120 things? Is "120" a good number for some reason? Is that more important? What is your working rationale for any of this junk?

I believe there are more we can add.
Example: Adaptability: Altruism: Awe: Balance: Charisma: Chivalry: Civility: Composure: Conviction: Equanimity: Fraternity: Independence: Magnanimity: Mindfulness: Resilience: Self-awareness: Self-respect: Solidarity: Stoicism: Vigilance:
There could be more.

What do you mean "there could be more" ?.... of course there could be more, there is no actual end to an arbitrary list. Your obsession with making and ordering lists blinds you to this obvious fact.

If 'ethical' is circular, we can exclude it for this OP.

I was making a joke at your expense. There is no structure at all to your thinking and you aren't presenting any form of argument in that rambling OP. You have nothing to form a circle out of. But if you have a proper rationale for manufacturing these weird lists, you shouldn't need ad-hoc pruning to keep them correct.

The main point here is the two list of virtues are sufficient to support my point that the concept of virtue cover a very extensive range of human behaviors and to mix it up with Morality & Ethics would be very messy and inefficient.

Morality and ethics is messy and inefficient. Your messy and inefficient efforts to impose order on it with foolish lists of inadequate nonsense can't change that.

Therefore it is more efficient [Occam] to deal with Morality & Ethics by excluding 'virtues' as independent and complementary.

Or... all you are doing is excluding things you find difficult only because you find them difficult and not because they have any intrinsic reason to be excluded. This is what you already did when you threw out out "good" and "bad" and "right" and "wrong" from your """morality-proper""" which now has nothing to do with actual morality.

You want to push the virtues and vices aside from thoughts about what it even is that makes them virtuous or vicious for the sake of convenience. Wishing for the virtues of laziness and shoddy half-assed work. It's not going to get you anywhere, this effort is nothing but new grounds to mock you.

There you go with your immaturity in thought and looking for something to mock. The 120 is just the number ['replace function in word] from that link. I aim to have a near exhaustive listing regardless of the number.

Nobody has got anywhere by debating with you in a decade or more. You take nothing into account and you learn nothing. So we make fun of you, that's all there really is to be done with you.

You wouldn't get anywhere near an exhaustive list with any number. You should really think one day about whether these lists you fantasize about but are incapable of compiling are even possible, meaningful, and useful. Lists don't actually do any work.

It is because you are so narrow minded and bankrupt of ideas, childish & immature that you resort to mocking instead of recognizing your weaknesses.

Sulk if you want to, but I only get to mock that which is mockable. You never really think about what it is that makes it so incredibly easy for me to take the piss out of you. It's things like the giant, pointless, unwieldy, useless, redundant lists and your insistence on relying on them as a tool of analysis.

I always point you at logical flaws in your arguments. You always take things in a personal direction. Here I am trying to get you to really think about this lists problem you have, and have had for as long as I have known who you are. But you are going to accuse me of some other failing because you can't address that issue.

Usually I don't present anything new without discussing with various AIs's critiques and convincing them with counter arguments my ideas are tenable and feasible.

They are designed to return a set of words that will please you, not to do philosophy. You aren't debating with an AI, you are just modifying the prompts for a text generation engine. If you tell a text generation engine to tell you that your lists are really useful and make a powerful argument, it will do so because its design is to make you happy so that you will come back for more.

You are becoming like a rat in a science experiment that turns away from food because it has a new stimulus to prefer.

Kant, one of the greatest philosopher, have had similar ideas of separating 'virtues' from morality-proper.

I don't think Kant is your source for "morality-proper" and he definitely didn't separate out good from morality. You have to outgrow this Kant nonsense, none of what you do is his fault.

You will look very stupid with your immature mocking when my thesis is proven clearly and rationally to be tenable and very feasible.

You would do better to look beyond your pride and see how easy it is to expose failings in your arguments. None of these, now "near exhaustive" lists are compilable. Your 120 "virtues" don't scratch the surface, a list of 12,000 wouldn't be any better. And what is such a list even useful for?

Separating large complex wide ranging problems into manageable units is one of the most critical steps [a critical maxim] in Problem Solving, it is Occam.

That isn't Occam, that is a dogma. Philosophy isn't a problem solving exercise. Even if it were, you can't solve all your problems with pointless excursions into atomistic dismemberment.

Your original mistake was to try and make this "morality-proper" thing happen, and that came from this same instinct you have shown here to castrate morality by shearing off body parts and insisting they belong elsewhere.

Besides I am not ignoring "virtues" at all but keep those that are relevant in complementary to morality-ethics proper.

That makes a complete mockery of your own exercise here. More reason to mock you.

[FlashDangerpants]

Discuss??
Views??

Your reason for having these lists of virtues is supposedly for the sake of "efficiency", you say so twice in the OP and yet your lists don't include "efficiency" as a virtue. Which shows that your lists lack the virtue of adequacy... which is also absent from your inadequate and inefficient lists.

You included "ethical" in your list and will need soon to include "circular".

You are the wrong person to list the following in your selection of virtues, none of these applies to you or your behaviour at this forum: Humility, Joyfulness, Modesty, Friendliness, Graciousness, Dignity, Tact, Impartiality, Spontaneity, Diligence, Liberality, Courtesy.

You can have Chastity though. You probably overflow with that virtue.

But there were so many copy pasted virtues...how can you not see the value. None of us could have googled 'virtues.'
What, were you expecting the OP to actually argue something, present some coherent whole???
We have lists and addenda.

A "near exhaustive" list of the virtues that VA possesses...
Self belief, unrealistically high self worth, satisfaction with own abilities, can work Kant's ghost as his personal puppet.

[Iwannaplato]

A "near exhaustive" list of the virtues that VA possesses...
Self belief, unrealistically high self worth, satisfaction with own abilities, can work Kant's ghost as his personal puppet.

...if he has access to an AI.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant, one of the greatest philosopher, have had similar ideas of separating 'virtues' from morality-proper.

I don't think Kant is your source for "morality-proper" and he definitely didn't separate out good from morality. You have to outgrow this Kant nonsense, none of what you do is his fault.

I define morality in general as the management of evil to facilitate the related good. I have not separated 'good' from morality.
Where did I related 'virtue' exclusively with 'good'. I am trying to be precise with what is virtue.
It was you who created the strawman [virtue = good] and now shooting and trashing your own strawman.

You are a moral skeptic, you have no moral say and is bankrupt on moral issues.

[FlashDangerpants]

Kant, one of the greatest philosopher, have had similar ideas of separating 'virtues' from morality-proper.

I don't think Kant is your source for "morality-proper" and he definitely didn't separate out good from morality. You have to outgrow this Kant nonsense, none of what you do is his fault.

I define morality in general as the management of evil to facilitate the related good. .

And when did you make this change?

For years you were mocked specifically for leaving good out of morality having repeatedly claimed that "good" was too subjective. Now you are pretending that never happened?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't think Kant is your source for "morality-proper" and he definitely didn't separate out good from morality. You have to outgrow this Kant nonsense, none of what you do is his fault.

I define morality in general as the management of evil to facilitate the related good. .

And when did you make this change?

For years you were mocked specifically for leaving good out of morality having repeatedly claimed that "good" was too subjective. Now you are pretending that never happened?

What I have been rejecting is in relating right and wrong with morality because these terms are too loose.

I recognize the inclusion of good within morality but my focus is on getting rid of evil to facilitate the emergence of its related good.
For example, if re morality, we can prevent homicide which is evil, it is natural and inevitable its related good will manifest.

[Iwannaplato]

For years you were mocked specifically for leaving good out of morality having repeatedly claimed that "good" was too subjective. Now you are pretending that never happened?

I still think you're being too harsh. Take into account the hip hop thread title and don't be trippin'.

[FlashDangerpants]

I define morality in general as the management of evil to facilitate the related good. .

And when did you make this change?

For years you were mocked specifically for leaving good out of morality having repeatedly claimed that "good" was too subjective. Now you are pretending that never happened?

What I have been rejecting is in relating right and wrong with morality because these terms are too loose.

I recognize the inclusion of good within morality but my focus is on getting rid of evil to facilitate the emergence of its related good.
For example, if re morality, we can prevent homicide which is evil, it is natural and inevitable its related good will manifest.

That's nonsensical. If good and bad and right and wrong are loose terms, so is evil. And now you want to excise virtues, except for the moral ones. All your work is clumsy and everything you do falls apart.

You have this overpowering, compulsive and debilitating need to put things into lists so you can order them, but your thinking is disorderly, and your reasoning is chaotic and the lists idea would be bad anyway without that clumsiness adding to the problem.

[Veritas Aequitas]

And when did you make this change?

For years you were mocked specifically for leaving good out of morality having repeatedly claimed that "good" was too subjective. Now you are pretending that never happened?

What I have been rejecting is in relating right and wrong with morality because these terms are too loose.

I recognize the inclusion of good within morality but my focus is on getting rid of evil to facilitate the emergence of its related good.
For example, if re morality, we can prevent homicide which is evil, it is natural and inevitable its related good will manifest.

That's nonsensical. If good and bad and right and wrong are loose terms, so is evil. And now you want to excise virtues, except for the moral ones. All your work is clumsy and everything you do falls apart.

You have this overpowering, compulsive and debilitating need to put things into lists so you can order them, but your thinking is disorderly, and your reasoning is chaotic and the lists idea would be bad anyway without that clumsiness adding to the problem.

Whatever word is a loose term, we have to be efficiency to qualify it to be precise so there is no ambiguities thus facilitating communications.
What is most relevant with me re morality is the term 'evil' and I have been precise with it.

What should I give a damn with your view 'my work is clumsy when you don't have any credibility to critique any philosophical work.

So it is wiser move that I separate out whatever is virtue from morality and take into account those virtues where are necessary and are complementary and positive to morality & ethics.

Your earlier mentioned of my omission of 'efficiency' as a virtue is bankrupt-thinking.
Point is, an evil person can be efficient ['virtuous'] is committing evil acts. Many of the listed 'virtues' can be used to make evil acts more evil.

Your philosophical knowledge is primal, primitive, crude, lack wisdom and crass.

[FlashDangerpants]

What I have been rejecting is in relating right and wrong with morality because these terms are too loose.

I recognize the inclusion of good within morality but my focus is on getting rid of evil to facilitate the emergence of its related good.
For example, if re morality, we can prevent homicide which is evil, it is natural and inevitable its related good will manifest.

That's nonsensical. If good and bad and right and wrong are loose terms, so is evil. And now you want to excise virtues, except for the moral ones. All your work is clumsy and everything you do falls apart.

You have this overpowering, compulsive and debilitating need to put things into lists so you can order them, but your thinking is disorderly, and your reasoning is chaotic and the lists idea would be bad anyway without that clumsiness adding to the problem.

Whatever word is a loose term, we have to be efficiency to qualify it to be precise so there is no ambiguities thus facilitating communications.
What is most relevant with me re morality is the term 'evil' and I have been precise with it.

By what argument do you justify changing these concepts to suit the needs of your args? Your work revolves around substituting a forgery for these items and then making up a story about that as if it were the original. Then you call everyone who objects names.

Good and bad, right and wrong, evil and so on aren't the sort of things that can be neatly defined. Nobody gave you the right to just make up some other thing that is better for your purpose and make us all switch to that. This is something you will need to learn one day.

What should I give a damn with your view 'my work is clumsy when you don't have any credibility to critique any philosophical work.

So it is wiser move that I separate out whatever is virtue from morality and take into account those virtues where are necessary and are complementary and positive to morality & ethics.

Your earlier mentioned of my omission of 'efficiency' as a virtue is bankrupt-thinking.
Point is, an evil person can be efficient ['virtuous'] is committing evil acts. Many of the listed 'virtues' can be used to make evil acts more evil.

Your philosophical knowledge is primal, primitive, crude, lack wisdom and crass.

The problem isn't that I think your work is clumsy, it is that it is very easy to show that your working is clumsy. I never just say it, I always provide the example that demonstrates it. Conversely to that, you always just say that my work is crude, but you never have the ability to provide the example.

I do incidentally hold a university degree in this stuff, and that is a course you would not be able to complete due to your reading and comprehension issues.

[Iwannaplato]

The problem isn't that I think your work is clumsy, it is that it is very easy to show that your working is clumsy. I never just say it, I always provide the example that demonstrates it. Conversely to that, you always just say that my work is crude, but you never have the ability to provide the example.

This is central to the problem. He doesn't really interact with other people's ideas. It happens but it's rare. He generally restates his postion, after insults and, yes, evaluations and labels without pointing to specific parts of the texts.

So, the person responding has the option of restating the same objections in the hopes that they will be addressed or responding to problematic things presented in the new rewording of his position.

One can stop raising the points he does not interact with, but this then becomes part of the threads where he supposedly 'demonstrated' X.

One of the ways this lack of interaction manifest is in his crying Strawman. He seems to think if we argue that something is entailed by what he wrote and which he never said, this is a strawman. If he interacted with the argument, he might find that it is or is not entailed, but at least he could address the argument. Instead it just gets a quick dismissal. He never said it so it must be incorrect.

And this contributes to the repetition around him, and similar posters like Iambiguous and Peter Kropotkin, monologists all, sometimes posing as 'being in dialogue with someone'.

The virtue be missing.