PDA

View Full Version : Is Freedom Possible Without Virtue?



Chris
06-04-2012, 07:33 PM
Is Freedom Possible Without Virtue? (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/06/03/is-freedom-possible-without-virtue/) provides some excerpts from Albert Jay Nock’s masterly essay “On Doing the Right Thing” (http://mises.org/document/3000/On-Doing-the-Right-Thing).

Nock’s essay on the Right Thing is a reminder that the advocates of the paternalistic state, whether “left” or “right,” have it backward: good conduct isn’t a precondition of freedom; it is a consequence of freedom. He contrasts the “region of conduct” regulated by force, that is, by government, with the region regulated by the individual’s sense of doing the Right Thing.

Nock wrote,
The point is that any enlargement [of the first region], good or bad, reduces the scope of individual responsibility, and thus retards and cripples the education which can be a product of nothing but the free exercise of moral judgment. Like the discipline of the army, again, any such enlargement, good or bad, depraves this education into a mere routine of mechanical assent. The profound instinct against being “done for our own good” . . . is wholly sound. Men are aware of the need of this moral experience as a condition of growth, and they are aware, too, that anything tending to ease it off from them, even for their own good, is to be profoundly distrusted. The practical reason for freedom, then, is that freedom seems to be the only condition under which any kind of substantial moral fibre can be developed. [Emphasis added.]
Here he echoes Thomas Paine in Rights of Man :
Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.
Some, John Adams for instance, may argue only a virtuous people can be free. I agree with Nock, only a free people can be virtuous.

Peter1469
06-04-2012, 08:26 PM
Clearly. Look at what the unvirtuous do with capitalism- they destroy it with corporatism. Morality plays a very large role in capitalism.

Deadwood
06-04-2012, 08:28 PM
Only the virtuous can be free

MMC
06-04-2012, 09:28 PM
Yeah, I would agree with Nock.....only a free people can be virtuous.

Trinnity
06-04-2012, 10:21 PM
A strong virtuous character is essential for anything good.

Chris
06-05-2012, 07:51 AM
But how can one be virtuous without freedom of choice? It doesn't imply all will be virtuous given freedom, but without freedom, none can be.

roadmaster
06-05-2012, 12:22 PM
Even without freedom a person can rise up and be virtuous. Then you have many that take freedom for granted.

Chris
06-05-2012, 01:48 PM
But then aren't they actually free to rise up and be virtuous. The OP looks at the case of the soldier who must follow commands. In doing just that he is not virtuous, nor is he free to be, he is amoral. But we all know of cases where soldiers do rise up and make a moral choice. Or consider the case of a slave, same thing, amoral, unless he rises up, breaking the chains of slavery, claiming the freedom to choose morally.

It's a philosophical question, an argue for freedom. In practice, you can't have one without the other.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 03:27 PM
Even without freedom a person can rise up and be virtuous. Then you have many that take freedom for granted.

Spot on.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 03:30 PM
But then aren't they actually free to rise up and be virtuous. The OP looks at the case of the soldier who must follow commands. In doing just that he is not virtuous, nor is he free to be, he is amoral. But we all know of cases where soldiers do rise up and make a moral choice. Or consider the case of a slave, same thing, amoral, unless he rises up, breaking the chains of slavery, claiming the freedom to choose morally.

It's a philosophical question, an argue for freedom. In practice, you can't have one without the other.

Humans have free will even if they live in a totalitarian society or serve in the military.

Soldiers can follow commands and be virtuous (if his orders are lawful). Soldiers can be virtuous by refusing to follow illegal orders.

Why cannot a slave be virtuous by following doing the best under the circumstances? Would it not be virtuous for a slave to notify his master of a harm to the master?

Chris
06-05-2012, 03:51 PM
Humans have free will even if they live in a totalitarian society or serve in the military.

Soldiers can follow commands and be virtuous (if his orders are lawful). Soldiers can be virtuous by refusing to follow illegal orders.

Why cannot a slave be virtuous by following doing the best under the circumstances? Would it not be virtuous for a slave to notify his master of a harm to the master?

"Humans have free will..."

Which is what Nock is saying, imo, freedom, free will, comes first. You must have that freedom, free will, to make moral choices.

One is virtuous only if one so chooses. Following commands is not, for then the commander makes your choices.

But that is Nock's point, with government, the more it makes our choices for us, and coerces those choices on us, the less free we are to make moral choices for ourselves.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 04:46 PM
"Humans have free will..."

Which is what Nock is saying, imo, freedom, free will, comes first. You must have that freedom, free will, to make moral choices.

One is virtuous only if one so chooses. Following commands is not, for then the commander makes your choices.

But that is Nock's point, with government, the more it makes our choices for us, and coerces those choices on us, the less free we are to make moral choices for ourselves.


One is virtuous only if one so chooses. Following commands is not, for then the commander makes your choices.

Have you been in the military, or spent time around soldiers? Commanders hardly make choices for soldiers. Soldiers obey officers that they respect. Soldiers even follow orders that will probably lead to their deaths- that is virtuous.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 04:47 PM
But that is Nock's point, with government, the more it makes our choices for us, and coerces those choices on us, the less free we are to make moral choices for ourselves.

Perhaps in such extremes as North Korea or tribal Africa. This is not really true in most societies.

Chris
06-05-2012, 04:49 PM
Have you been in the military, or spent time around soldiers? Commanders hardly make choices for soldiers. Soldiers obey officers that they respect. Soldiers even follow orders that will probably lead to their deaths- that is virtuous.

So you are saying soldiers are free to follow their conscience?

But that is Nock's point.

You already said this is so because "Humans have free will..."

And that is Nock's point.


Perhaps I'm missing what you're arguing about.

Chris
06-05-2012, 04:53 PM
Perhaps in such extremes as North Korea or tribal Africa. This is not really true in most societies.

Oh? You pay taxes, you have no choice, the full force of the government would descend upon if you didn't. Those taxes are spent on what politicians and bureaucrats deem good. That detracts from you being free to choose how to spend that money for what you believe a moral good.

I think the way Walter Williams expresses it is the more power given government, the less liberty we have.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 04:54 PM
So you are saying soldiers are free to follow their conscience?

But that is Nock's point.

You already said this is so because "Humans have free will..."

And that is Nock's point.


Perhaps I'm missing what you're arguing about.

Have you been an enlisted soldier or gotten to know any of them? They are not robots who unthinkingly carry out orders.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 04:56 PM
Oh? You pay taxes, you have no choice, the full force of the government would descend upon if you didn't. Those taxes are spent on what politicians and bureaucrats deem good. That detracts from you being free to choose how to spend that money for what you believe a moral good.

I think the way Walter Williams expresses it is the more power given government, the less liberty we have.

We all live under a government. Taxes are a given in our reality. Although I paid just under $50K in federal income taxes last year, I still lived a virtuous life last year.

Chris
06-05-2012, 06:31 PM
Already answered the first.

The second says you've missed the point altogether. The point isn't either/or, the point is more or less. You were not a slave to government last year, but $50K less free to exercise virtue as you would have chosen.

Either that or you're not being clear what your counterpoint is, but I already suggested that, and you're not clarifying.

Peter1469
06-05-2012, 07:21 PM
Already answered the first.

The second says you've missed the point altogether. The point isn't either/or, the point is more or less. You were not a slave to government last year, but $50K less free to exercise virtue as you would have chosen.

Either that or you're not being clear what your counterpoint is, but I already suggested that, and you're not clarifying.

But there is no alternative for me- any nation that I live in will tax me. Are we only talking theory here? If so, then I agree with you.

Chris
06-05-2012, 09:00 PM
No, way I see what Nock is saying is the in order for man to be moral he must be free to choose. As you put it, man has free will. Man has to choose to be moral.

To me you're both saying the same thing in different ways, yet you seem to respond argumentatively, and I don't see a counterpoint.

The question isn't are we free but how free should we be. The question isn't are we taxed but how much should we be taxed. Taxed, we are forced to give up a certain amount of economic freedom. Now inasmuch as that tax goes toward protecting other liberties, other freedoms, freedom to travel, say, freedom to worship, say, then, judged from a perspective that that freedom is a means toward moral choices, then the trade off is valuable, but if it reduces freedom, then it's not such a good trade off--again, judge from the position that freedom is necessary to make moral choices. Taxes was just an example, but you seem to latch onto that, so I'll go with that. I still see no difference in what Nock and you say, but you seem to disagree.

Take another example, Adam and Eve, would the story of the fall of man have any meaning if they were not free to choose, did not have free will? And what did their choice lead to but the knowledge of good and evil by which to make moral judgments?

kshRox
07-10-2012, 05:41 PM
Is Freedom Possible Without Virtue? (http://www.bastiatinstitute.org/2012/06/03/is-freedom-possible-without-virtue/) provides some excerpts from Albert Jay Nock’s masterly essay “On Doing the Right Thing” (http://mises.org/document/3000/On-Doing-the-Right-Thing).

Some, John Adams for instance, may argue only a virtuous people can be free. I agree with Nock, only a free people can be virtuous.

On first glance I would agree freedom is only possible in a virtuous envirionment as freedom can only exist where those strong enough to withstand oppression can guarantee freedom. Therefore they exhibit virtue by not oppressing others. I think oppression is often the result of ignorance and abuse.

Not always, but often.
There seem some who given guidance and security while growing up will still seek to dominate and subdue others in order to elevate themselves.

Then of course there is also the subject of competition for limited resources. Those who will survive in these envrironment by definitino will dominate and subdue those who will perish when there are not enough resources for all.

It is a fascinating topic for discussion.

I'm not sure I agree that only a free people may be virtuous.
There are those who in spite of oppression have still aspired to higher ideals.
This is one of the most common themes in our literature - rising above circumstance.

Peter1469
07-10-2012, 07:57 PM
I would also say that free market capitalism is not possible without virtue.

Chris
07-10-2012, 08:17 PM
On first glance I would agree freedom is only possible in a virtuous envirionment as freedom can only exist where those strong enough to withstand oppression can guarantee freedom. Therefore they exhibit virtue by not oppressing others. I think oppression is often the result of ignorance and abuse.

Not always, but often.
There seem some who given guidance and security while growing up will still seek to dominate and subdue others in order to elevate themselves.

Then of course there is also the subject of competition for limited resources. Those who will survive in these envrironment by definitino will dominate and subdue those who will perish when there are not enough resources for all.

It is a fascinating topic for discussion.

I'm not sure I agree that only a free people may be virtuous.
There are those who in spite of oppression have still aspired to higher ideals.
This is one of the most common themes in our literature - rising above circumstance.

I would put virtue, voluntary, up against command, coerced, neither exists in purity, except as ideals, thus the more virtuous the freer, the freer the more virtuous. Commanded, coerced, is amoral, the morality left to others.

wingrider
07-11-2012, 12:14 AM
Lord Acton"Liberty has not existed outside of Christianity."

John Adams
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.""The church is the moral compass of society.""We have no constitution which functions in the absence of a moral people."
John Quincy Adams
"Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the word of God or by the strong arm of man: either by the Bible or by the bayonet.""The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: It connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of
civil government with the principles of Christianity.
- On July 4, 1821.
William Blackstone"This law of nature, being co-_eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original."
- Commentaries on the Law of England (1765)

Edmund Burke
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.""Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
President Calvin Coolidge"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be
difficult to support them if faith in these teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country...."

Lawrence Dennis"There is not a peace cloud in the war boom sky."

Ken Freeman
Vietnam Veteran and Chairman of Alliance for Citizens Rights (ACR) in Alabama
"The Ten Commandments summarize the basis of our structures of government, of our ethics and of our moral codes. To remove them is to remove the very ground on which we stand as a nation and as a people. We are gathered here today to say that this is a battle worth fighting! To the enemies of freedom, we are here to say, 'Thou shalt not' destroy this nation from within. And that "we the people" shall defend America from all her enemies- foreign or domestic!"
Patrick Henry"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Stonewall Jackson"Duty is ours. Consequences are God's."

Thomas Jefferson
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the mind of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?""Deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support.""I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus. I have little doubt that our whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator."


I think I will go along with these guys...

dalekrebs
03-20-2013, 10:34 AM
But then aren't they actually free to rise up and be virtuous. The OP looks at the case of the soldier who must follow commands. In doing just that he is not virtuous, nor is he free to be, he is amoral. But we all know of cases where soldiers do rise up and make a moral choice. Or consider the case of a slave, same thing, amoral, unless he rises up, breaking the chains of slavery, claiming the freedom to choose morally.

It's a philosophical question, an argue for freedom. In practice, you can't have one without the other.

Chris, you cannot be further from the truth. You make the assumption of needing freedom to make a virtuous choice. The soldier can make a moral choice against leadership/orders, even if there are consequences for his choice. The slave can choose virtuously, even if the choice is against the master--and there is consequence to be paid. Anyone can choose to live virtuously even if it leads their death. One does not require the protection of government, security of the law enforcement, or safety from harm in order to be moral /virtuous. I will always have enough freedom to make the moral choice--the problem is: I may not have the willingness or moral stamina to pay the price for my choice.

Chris
03-20-2013, 11:17 AM
Chris, you cannot be further from the truth. You make the assumption of needing freedom to make a virtuous choice. The soldier can make a moral choice against leadership/orders, even if there are consequences for his choice. The slave can choose virtuously, even if the choice is against the master--and there is consequence to be paid. Anyone can choose to live virtuously even if it leads their death. One does not require the protection of government, security of the law enforcement, or safety from harm in order to be moral /virtuous. I will always have enough freedom to make the moral choice--the problem is: I may not have the willingness or moral stamina to pay the price for my choice.


You make the assumption of needing freedom to make a virtuous choice.

And you contradict yourself. How can you choose if not free to choose? Your examples, a soldier, a slave, are of people free to choose by the very fact they make choices. To be moral, or virtuous, you must choose between good and evil.

Command theories of morality don't allow for that freedom.

My main argument here is those who let government make moral choices for them are not moral themselves.

TheDictator
03-21-2013, 02:53 PM
With all do respect to Albert Jay Nock, virtue is a quality of ones own character. Freedom is not needed. Choice on the other hand would be needed. Humans alway have a choice. One can obey a law or one can disobey. Human governments can't take a ways choices they can only punish or reward for the choices that are made. You ALL WAY have the choice to do the right thing free or slave.

Chris
03-21-2013, 04:21 PM
With all do respect to Albert Jay Nock, virtue is a quality of ones own character. Freedom is not needed. Choice on the other hand would be needed. Humans alway have a choice. One can obey a law or one can disobey. Human governments can't take a ways choices they can only punish or reward for the choices that are made. You ALL WAY have the choice to do the right thing free or slave.

Having the full force of government/owner over your head is not being free to choose and then suffer the consequences of your actions.

TheDictator
03-21-2013, 06:06 PM
It does not matter if there is consequences you still have a choice.

Chris
03-21-2013, 06:10 PM
It does not matter if there is consequences you still have a choice.

Not with the full force of government making your choice for you. Say, for example, paying taxes is a virtuous thing. How can it be virtuous when you supposed choice is confused with government incarcerating if not shooting you for noncompliance.


If there are no consequences, then there is no moral choice involved.

TheDictator
03-21-2013, 08:50 PM
Just because there are consequences does not mean there is no choice. That choice may be harder to make because of consequences but it is still a choice.

junie
03-21-2013, 08:57 PM
of course, freedom is not necessarily virtuous...

Chris
03-21-2013, 08:58 PM
Just because there are consequences does not mean there is no choice. That choice may be harder to make because of consequences but it is still a choice.

We're talking virtuous, moral choice here. Animals choose fight or flight, but that's not considered virtuous, moral.

Harder? Perhaps your last, that has little to do with a virtuous society.

junie
03-21-2013, 09:02 PM
i should say freedom does not necessarily evoke virtue...

Chris
03-21-2013, 09:05 PM
i should say freedom does not necessarily evoke virtue...

If you mean freedom does not guarantee virtue, I agree, it only allows for the choice to be moral or not.

Peter1469
03-21-2013, 09:18 PM
i should say freedom does not necessarily evoke virtue...

But within a society, freedom and virtue must go hand in hand.

TheDictator
03-21-2013, 09:29 PM
You do not need to have freedom to make virtuous choices in life. Just do the right thing free or slave.

Chris
03-21-2013, 10:14 PM
You do not need to have freedom to make virtuous choices in life. Just do the right thing free or slave.

How do you choose between right and wrong without the freedom to choose? How do you justify your choices if you had none because some one else made those choices for you? I think you're merely begging the question, dictator.

TheDictator
03-22-2013, 10:01 AM
Ok, let look at this.

The government says you must obey Law A or you will be put to death. ( By the way many Christians face this in other countries )

Let say the law is immoral

Choice 1 Obey the law and do wrong.

Choice 2 Do not Obey the law and do right

Having the consequences of your choice does not take away the choice. It takes more virtue to do right with consequences than to be free to do right without consequences.

Chris
03-22-2013, 11:15 AM
Ok, let look at this.

The government says you must obey Law A or you will be put to death. ( By the way many Christians face this in other countries )

Let say the law is immoral

Choice 1 Obey the law and do wrong.

Choice 2 Do not Obey the law and do right

Having the consequences of your choice does not take away the choice. It takes more virtue to do right with consequences than to be free to do right without consequences.

But the choice is not between right and wrong, that choice is not free, the choice is between obey and live or don't and die.

I didn't say consequences takes away choice, I said taking taking those into account, taking responsibility for your actions gives you a choice, a moral one. It's government as master taking choice away.

BTW, many nonChristians face this. Irrelevant.

TheDictator
03-22-2013, 12:36 PM
But the choice is not between right and wrong, that choice is not free, the choice is between obey and live or don't and die.

I didn't say consequences takes away choice, I said taking taking those into account, taking responsibility for your actions gives you a choice, a moral one. It's government as master taking choice away.


BTW, many nonChristians face this. Irrelevant.


Again you do not need freedom to do what is right. I would prefer freedom over slavery anyday but virtue comes from a persons character not a persons Cirumstances.

Human Beings ( Government ) do not have the power to take way a persons virtue of character. Man has free will given to him by GOD that can not be taken way by man or government.

A man can have virtue and be a slave to the state or other men, because being free does not change his character.


Now on the other Hand, Freedom will not last unless the people in that nation have virtue. In the United States virtue is going away and freedom with it.

Chris
03-22-2013, 03:16 PM
Again you do not need freedom to do what is right. I would prefer freedom over slavery anyday but virtue comes from a persons character not a persons Cirumstances.

Human Beings ( Government ) do not have the power to take way a persons virtue of character. Man has free will given to him by GOD that can not be taken way by man or government.

A man can have virtue and be a slave to the state or other men, because being free does not change his character.


Now on the other Hand, Freedom will not last unless the people in that nation have virtue. In the United States virtue is going away and freedom with it.

I don't disagree that virtue comes from a person's character but to exercise that virtue you need the freedom to choose to do good or evil in your interactions with others.


Man has free will given to him by GOD that can not be taken way by man or government.

Now you contradict yourself again. If man does not have this free will, the freedom to exercise his will virtuously, then he cannot be virtuous. This, what you're now saying, is exactly what I've been saying.


A man can have virtue and be a slave to the state or other men, because being free does not change his character.

But then he cannot exercise that virtue if he is not free. Earlier I said you were begging the question, here you're special pleading, redefining slavery as freedom.


Freedom will not last unless the people in that nation have virtue. In the United States virtue is going away and freedom with it.

And so we agree again, for conversely, without freedom a people cannot be virtuous. The two go hand in hand.

KC
03-22-2013, 03:29 PM
A good example of the point of this thread is a robot who is programmed to do tasks. Let's say the robot were programmed to assist in a soup kitchen. Would that robot be virtuous, since it is helping out others who are unfortunate? No, the robot was simply programmed. The robot has no freedom as it only does as it is programmed to do, so it cannot be virtuous.

Similarly, let's say I have a sandwich. There is another man near me who is hungry. If I give him my sandwich, many would say that I am virtuous.

Now let's take another scenario. I still have a sandwich, and there is another man near me who is hungry. You take a gun to my head and tell me to give the man my sandwich or you will shoot. I did not give the man my sandwich of my own free will, I gave it to him because if I did not I would have had my brains blown out. In this example, I was not being virtuous. The fundamental difference between those on the left and those on the right is that the left would say the man with the gun was being virtuous, those on the right would call him a thug. Anyone who is paying attention, however, knows that the man with the gun is simply hoping to extract some benefit from the hungry man in return for feeding him.

(First example mine, second one is a paraphrase from Dinesh D'Souza, Letters To A Young Conservative)

Chris
03-22-2013, 03:36 PM
Now let's take another scenario. I still have a sandwich, and there is another man near me who is hungry. You take a gun to my head and tell me to give the man my sandwich or you will shoot. I did not give the man my sandwich of my own free will, I gave it to him because if I did not I would have had my brains blown out. In this example, I was not being virtuous.

Exactly for your choice was not whether to be virtuous or not but to live or not.


The Bible itself puts freedom before virtue. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are not virtuous until they exercise their freedom to choose by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without such knowledge one cannot be virtuous.

junie
03-22-2013, 07:45 PM
But within a society, freedom and virtue must go hand in hand.



ideally yes, but what i mean to say, in terms of the choice he mentions, i see the choice as freedom.


Is Freedom Possible Without Virtue?

yes you have freedom without virtue when any choice is not virtuous...

junie
03-22-2013, 07:47 PM
If you mean freedom does not guarantee virtue, I agree, it only allows for the choice to be moral or not.


i was thinking of the choice as the freedom...

junie
03-22-2013, 08:00 PM
But how can one be virtuous without freedom of choice?

It doesn't imply all will be virtuous given freedom, but without freedom, none can be.




you meant to say... "Is Virtue Possible Without Freedom?" :laugh:

Chris
03-22-2013, 10:15 PM
i was thinking of the choice as the freedom...

Exactly, the freedom to choose.

Chris
03-22-2013, 10:18 PM
you meant to say... "Is Virtue Possible Without Freedom?" :laugh:

It's both, without freedom you cannot be virtuous, without virtue you cannot be free.


For dictator's sake we can amend that to without freedom you cannot be virtuous for long before government/master shot you.



I think the topic is getting off track in considering only individual freedom and virtue when the question is can a society be virtuous without freedom, free without virtue.

TheDictator
03-25-2013, 12:34 PM
Exactly for your choice was not whether to be virtuous or not but to live or not.


The Bible itself puts freedom before virtue. In Genesis, Adam and Eve are not virtuous until they exercise their freedom to choose by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Without such knowledge one cannot be virtuous.


Your Wrong. There was nothing virtuous about Adam and Eve eating the fruit, that was an evil act that brought evil into the world. They were virtuous before the Fall. The virtue of not eating is a choice.

Chris
03-25-2013, 12:47 PM
Your Wrong. There was nothing virtuous about Adam and Eve eating the fruit, that was an evil act that brought evil into the world. They were virtuous before the Fall. The virtue of not eating is a choice.


Your Wrong.

Mere opinion.


There was nothing virtuous about Adam and Eve eating the fruit, that was an evil act that brought evil into the world.

To begin with that's not what I said, so my being wrong seems to be based on you're being wrong what I said. I said by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil they gained the liberty to choose to act morally/virtuously, for without that knowledge you cannot choose. Knowledge, in a way, is freedom. Without that knowlege they could not be virtuous, they were innocent.

As far as it being an evil act, that again is merely your opinion. God, in the story, gave them the liberty to choose to eat of that fruit, he warned them not to, but gave them the choice. Is God's gift of free will then evil? That's blasphemous.


The virtue of not eating is a choice.

That doesn't even parse semantically.

TheDictator
03-26-2013, 09:24 AM
Well Chris what you posted is also just opinion.

No God's gift of free will is not evel, but the act of Adam and eve eating the fruit was evil. The choice not to eat the fruit was the virtuous choice.

Chris
03-26-2013, 09:42 AM
Well Chris what you posted is also just opinion.

No God's gift of free will is not evel, but the act of Adam and eve eating the fruit was evil. The choice not to eat the fruit was the virtuous choice.

This is a forum, dictator, everything posted is just opinion.


the act of Adam and eve eating the fruit was evil. The choice not to eat the fruit was the virtuous choice

Why? You repeat your opinion, but don't explain, please do.

TheDictator
03-26-2013, 10:57 AM
Why? You repeat your opinion, but don't explain, please do.

Ok


God gave us free will not to do evil but to do what is right.

Adam and Eve had two choices.

Choice One - Do what God said, Do not eat the fruit and live ( the virtuous choice )


Choice Two - Disobey God, eat the fruit, and Die, ( the evil choice )

Each day that they chose not to eat the fruit was a virtuous choice, the day they chose to eat the fruit led to them becoming evil and not virtuous, and from that time on death came into there life and ours. Adam and Eve murdered all of humanity by their act of evil.

Chris
03-26-2013, 11:04 AM
Ok


God gave us free will not to do evil but to do what is right.

Adam and Eve had two choices.

Choice One - Do what God said, Do not eat the fruit and live ( the virtuous choice )


Choice Two - Disobey God, eat the fruit, and Die, ( the evil choice )

Each day that they chose not to eat the fruit was a virtuous choice, the day they chose to eat the fruit led to them becoming evil and not virtuous, and from that time on death came into there life and ours. Adam and Eve murdered all of humanity by their act of evil.

In the story, Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve free will to choose. But that choice could not be moral or virtuous without knowledge of good and evil. Only after they gained that knowledge could they exercise free will moral or virtuously in the choices.

Obedience to God has nothing to do with being moral or virtuous, being moral or virtuous has to do with out choices in interaction with others.

TheDictator
03-26-2013, 12:54 PM
In the story, Genesis, God gave Adam and Eve free will to choose. But that choice could not be moral or virtuous without knowledge of good and evil. Only after they gained that knowledge could they exercise free will moral or virtuously in the choices.

Obedience to God has nothing to do with being moral or virtuous, being moral or virtuous has to do with out choices in interaction with others.


I disagree, obedience to God has everything to do with morality and virtue.

They were vertuous already, God made them that way. The knowledge made them evil. Virtue comes from our character, not the outcome of our actions.
Our actions only reflect the vertue we have or the lack of it.

Chris
03-26-2013, 01:50 PM
I disagree, obedience to God has everything to do with morality and virtue.

They were vertuous already, God made them that way. The knowledge made them evil. Virtue comes from our character, not the outcome of our actions.
Our actions only reflect the vertue we have or the lack of it.

Obedience falls under command theory which recognizes no choice, and we're back to master/slave.


They were vertuous already, God made them that way. The knowledge made them evil.

Not the way the story goes. They were innocent, that's not virtuous.


Virtue comes from our character, not the outcome of our actions.

But there is no virtue if there is no action. Character is found in our choices of action towards others. These, on simplistic, biblical terms, are choices between good and evil which we cannot possibly make without knowing the difference.

jillian
05-03-2013, 01:53 PM
you meant to say... "Is Virtue Possible Without Freedom?" :laugh:

he wants to decide which choices are virtuous.

personally, i think not letting girls get these pills; then cutting their WIC is immoral...

but go figure

Chris
05-03-2013, 02:20 PM
he wants to decide which choices are virtuous.

personally, i think not letting girls get these pills; then cutting their WIC is immoral...

but go figure

No, I want society free to choose. Go figure.

jillian
05-03-2013, 02:29 PM
No, I want society free to choose. Go figure.

free to choose what? to starve women and children?

or to force women to carry pregnancies to term?

what choice is it you're for?

Greenridgeman
05-03-2013, 02:42 PM
free to choose what? to starve women and children?

or to force women to carry pregnancies to term?

what choice is it you're for?


Choice in my time was keeping your panties on.

TheDictator
05-03-2013, 03:03 PM
Some like jillian want the choice to do evil, then want others to take away the consequences of doing that evil. Sorry I say live with the consequences.

Chris
05-03-2013, 03:10 PM
free to choose what? to starve women and children?

or to force women to carry pregnancies to term?

what choice is it you're for?

The freedom to choose to act morally, or not, and concomitantly take responsibility for one's actions.

Where did you get those straw men?