What makes an act right, to you?

[Smaland]

For me, an act is right or wrong depending on whether Scripture commands or bans it.

[Anthropos]

You forgot about virtue ethics, what would be closest to me, I guess; traditional virtue ethics, to be more precise.

I do feel though that there is a nauseating moralist tendency in 'ethics' and 'moral philosophy'. "Theologism", e.g., does not appeal to me for the reason that what comes to mind, and what is perfectly fit under that heading, is someone who views Scripture as a dry collection of ethical commands and someone who thinks that he knows God's will on every occasion. I don't feel at home there.

[Loxias]

I have to admit I know very little about virtue ethics. Can you explain a bit more about it and why it is the one that corresponds the most to you?

[Anthropos]

I have to admit I know very little about virtue ethics. Can you explain a bit more about it and why it is the one that corresponds the most to you?

Virtues were always spoken of in any traditional context such as the canonical sources of various traditions. Virtues were also spoken of by many of the Greek philosophers of the classical era. The New Testament of Christianity does also mention virtues, e.g. in Paul's epistles, where several are mentioned by name, in the first epistle of John where Love plays an important role, as well as in the Gospel, where virtues are often explained by way of parables and events in the life of Jesus. The Christian virtue of Love is thus revealed in Luke 7:36-50:

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth him: for she is a sinner. And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.

A virtue is something that comes from within and from above, from the heart; it is something the exercise of which requires a change of heart.

[Black Turlogh]

Well this is all very technical, isn't it? Ultimately I just ask myself whether what I'm doing is just, fair or noble. Whether it's something, if I were to walk outside my current circumstances and look at from the outside in, I would admire or something I would frown upon. In the end, if casting aside the prospect of gaining my immediate desires means that my conscience won't weigh heavily upon me, I find myself being far more content and at ease than I otherwise would be.

[Lutiferre]

I agree with Alasdair McIntyre and his central work, After Virtue, that the only real options are Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas) and Nietzsche. Anything else is ultimately just a subjective abstraction which amounts to nihilism by failing to give any real foundation to morality, and hence supports Nietzsches case.

[Sol Invictus]

Cool thread. I chose ethical relativism, or:

"The act is generally judged to be right by one's culture or group."

If it is good for the people, and is in harmony with the people, then yes I deem it to be right.

For me, an act is right or wrong depending on whether Scripture commands or bans it.

I also support this as well. And I think it is in harmony with my choice of Ethical Relativism.

[Lutiferre]

Cool thread. I chose ethical relativism, or:

"The act is generally judged to be right by one's culture or group."

If it is good for the people, and is in harmony with the people, then yes I deem it to be right.

So I guess human sacrifice is alright as long as parents would love to burn their children for better crops?

And if it just has to be "good for the people", then you run into the collectivist justifications for immoral actions of the Marxists and Communists, and can practically speaking just as well advocate Stalinism.

I also support this as well. And I think it is in harmony with my choice of Ethical Relativism.

How so? Christianity claims to be universally valid and authoritative, regardless of cultural relativities.

[Loxias]

I agree with Alasdair McIntyre and his central work, After Virtue, that the only real options are Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas) and Nietzsche. Anything else is ultimately just a subjective abstraction which amounts to nihilism by failing to give any real foundation to morality, and hence supports Nietzsches case.

Can you clarify to the few profanes here (at least me) what ideas and views you refer to as the Artistotle and Nietzsche cases?

Edit : the link does give quite a lot of explanation, actually. But feel free to add stuff if you think it's important.

[Lutiferre]

Can you clarify to the few profanes here (at least me) what ideas and views you refer to as the Artistotle and Nietzsche cases?

Edit : the link does give quite a lot of explanation, actually. But feel free to add stuff if you think it's important.

"Aristotle" refers simply to Christian/Aristotelian ethics which are based on telos (end/goal/purpose and hence, value), which is also what Anthropos referred to as virtue ethics, whereas "Nietzsche" refers to the dissolution of all such "intrinsic" cross-subjective teloi and values in favour of.. well, in McIntyres words, moral solipsism and acting simply according to impulses.