Lets review a few terms before going forward. When we talk about virtue it means the best application for that particular action and passion. The best means what brings the most happiness to us. In the discussion of ethics we don't delve into eternal consequences since those things are not observable. We do see how certain habits can make people miserable and we call them vices. An act doesn't make a person bad but in a relationship, certain ones can be hard for others to overcome, depending on the people involved and the severity. The perception of the commonality of goodness can be perceived as unequal with one bad and the other good. But it all gets down to how hard we are on ourselves and we cannot afford to let other peoples perceptions bring us down. Those who are hard on themselves have a harder time keeping friends since friends are an extension of ourselves, and friends are essential to happiness.
Ethics are more of a measuring tool. When we talk about a good person in this light, it is an ideal that everyone shares. None of us meet these standards of perfection and we all have areas that we are working on. Our internal moral codes have similarities among people that we can point out. Those who are honest with themselves will pay attention to it and make the adjustments needed to get to a place of happiness. "Contentment" is a vague word to use since every thing we do is linked to discontentment. Ethics point us to improvements rather than self-destructive habits for relief. The goals just need to be achievable so our soul doesn't get into futility and we lose hope. A person of good character won't force things but is patient. A soul is happy when it can forgo present pleasure while having confidence that the future holds great things.
We will go into detail concerning our friendship with ourselves and others. I gave some of the conclusions first to keep it interesting. Aristotle likens the characteristics with the ideal friendship with that of a mother and her children. He emphasizes that if we aren't friends with ourselves, it is hard to make friends.
Here are the characteristics a person has ideally toward a friend;
1. He does what is good for his friend
2. He likes the friend for who he is. (celebrates his existence)
3. Others see that he enjoys being with the friend
4. They share similar tastes
5. He rejoices and grieves with his friend.
So these are the characteristics we will explore...
Monday, June 30, 2014
Thursday, June 26, 2014
Obligations
Our actions are driven by obligation. We looked a little bit at one kind of preference; obligations concerning utility. Obligations can be complex since there are always factors involved. To have good character we should pay our bills before helping a friend. It makes sense to keep our household first but if the friend is in trouble an exception might be made. Parents and children should help each other first but that has conditions too; we don't want either to be abused. There are some we give preference in everything and others we might do a favor for. Of course the details influence how far we go.
When it comes to honor, there are different types; one for leaders, those who protect us, fathers and mothers and those who are older than us. We should give the appropriate honor to those who are due. A lack of discretion in this area shows poor character. But when is it appropriate to limit a relationship?
It is easy to see that business friendships discontinue either when the business has ended or one has been ripped off. A pleasure relationship ends when the expectation of pleasure ends. Falling short in these kind of relationships is obvious and the resulting separation expected. Should we cut off a relationship based in goodness when one person goes bad? What if one has a deep relationship based on commonalities and goodness but one person goes bad? It doesn't make sense for both to become bad to make it right since badness denotes unfaithfulness and self destructive actions and love cannot be based in those sort of things. A person can go bad for many reasons so with a deep relationship the good one might stick it out knowing the person's heart. They might come to their assistance to help or hope for rehabilitation of some kind. No one would expect an obligation like this nor would there be any blame if they cut it off. It is the characteristic of a caring person to help but with everything there are limitations. They should support each other in goodness toward themselves and others.
Old friends and acquaintances may get cut off by time or a change in fortune but we always have a fondness toward them that we wouldn't have toward a stranger. Our tastes change with time and sometimes that is a factor also. Good character isn't a matter of taste and so it is one area that is stable. Paybacks are self destructive and so we owe no one anything but to love them.
When it comes to honor, there are different types; one for leaders, those who protect us, fathers and mothers and those who are older than us. We should give the appropriate honor to those who are due. A lack of discretion in this area shows poor character. But when is it appropriate to limit a relationship?
It is easy to see that business friendships discontinue either when the business has ended or one has been ripped off. A pleasure relationship ends when the expectation of pleasure ends. Falling short in these kind of relationships is obvious and the resulting separation expected. Should we cut off a relationship based in goodness when one person goes bad? What if one has a deep relationship based on commonalities and goodness but one person goes bad? It doesn't make sense for both to become bad to make it right since badness denotes unfaithfulness and self destructive actions and love cannot be based in those sort of things. A person can go bad for many reasons so with a deep relationship the good one might stick it out knowing the person's heart. They might come to their assistance to help or hope for rehabilitation of some kind. No one would expect an obligation like this nor would there be any blame if they cut it off. It is the characteristic of a caring person to help but with everything there are limitations. They should support each other in goodness toward themselves and others.
Old friends and acquaintances may get cut off by time or a change in fortune but we always have a fondness toward them that we wouldn't have toward a stranger. Our tastes change with time and sometimes that is a factor also. Good character isn't a matter of taste and so it is one area that is stable. Paybacks are self destructive and so we owe no one anything but to love them.
Saturday, June 21, 2014
Boundaries
We established that friendships are rewarding as long as there is a mutual understanding. Concerning goods and services, the price should be the same regardless of a person's background. This allows economic exchanges with the decisions made by the buyers and sellers. We have currency to make it easy for everyone to set the values. When friendships add third parties to regulate, it results in complications and hostilities since the third party will naturally want to profit but can force everyone to follow his judgment. This eliminates friendly exchange between people. Someone who rips another off can normally be cut off while those who treat others well will prosper. It is best left up to the free choice of the participants rather than a bureaucrat.
When other kinds of friendships are involved, we bend the rules of equality. A father should get a good deal from his son but there are limits to this. Of course a son can't be expected to give everything away or vice versa. When we have close friends and people that we want to help out, we should feel free to do so without compulsion. This has it's limits too since a prodigal tries to please everyone but doesn't take care of himself therefore losing everything.
In our personal relationships, we also have preferences and rightly so. When we invite people to a wedding; it is usually the relatives preferred over acquaintances. So in our personal lives, there will always be preferences shown. But when it comes to business with the public, fairness is expected and it is considered wrong to give preference to family and friends. These principles all have particulars and finding the right rule depends on what the business is. A corporation will be more stringent than a mechanic who has his own shop but helping others always has limitations and fairness. We shouldn't fret about setting boundaries but do our best to set and obey proper ones.
The questions arises as to whether there is anything wrong with cutting off a friend who doesn't live up to expectations. Duplicity in a friendship is similar to using counterfeit money to purchase something. It is natural for a person to be angered if the other wasn't being honest. We will look into details in the next post.
When other kinds of friendships are involved, we bend the rules of equality. A father should get a good deal from his son but there are limits to this. Of course a son can't be expected to give everything away or vice versa. When we have close friends and people that we want to help out, we should feel free to do so without compulsion. This has it's limits too since a prodigal tries to please everyone but doesn't take care of himself therefore losing everything.
In our personal relationships, we also have preferences and rightly so. When we invite people to a wedding; it is usually the relatives preferred over acquaintances. So in our personal lives, there will always be preferences shown. But when it comes to business with the public, fairness is expected and it is considered wrong to give preference to family and friends. These principles all have particulars and finding the right rule depends on what the business is. A corporation will be more stringent than a mechanic who has his own shop but helping others always has limitations and fairness. We shouldn't fret about setting boundaries but do our best to set and obey proper ones.
The questions arises as to whether there is anything wrong with cutting off a friend who doesn't live up to expectations. Duplicity in a friendship is similar to using counterfeit money to purchase something. It is natural for a person to be angered if the other wasn't being honest. We will look into details in the next post.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Fair Enough
Starting out Book 9 we are told it is appropriate to set a value on things in a political or business sense. Everyone should get the same thing for their dollar without discrimination. This promotes good will. But concerning lovers it depends more on perception of goodness. They both may want certain things and failure by either party can make one feel they were deceived and therefore their time was wasted. It may be that one or the other feels the amount of love shown isn't reciprocated. But this depends on the object of the love. If one wanted taken care of while the other wanted pleasure, the relationship falters if the amount given isn't satisfactory. It gets down to the motive for the love. If a person is loved because of qualities such as looks, entertainment or money, these things must remain to sustain the relationship. Since character isn't prone to change, a love based on mutual goodness isn't as likely to change. The area that performance is expected is in goodness and good motives are assumed as a result. The other areas are a bonus and are enjoyed as they fall in place. In order for expectations to be met and to avoid conflict, honest communication is important so both parties get what they want out of the relationship.
But who sets a value on services? Is it the giver or the receiver? If the giver sets the value, they may take advantage of the receiver by asking too much for too little. If it is the receiver then they might require too much effort for too little pay. A waitress who is always paid a tip in advance might give worse service than expected but a patron could be cheap and underpay if they set the price. The goal is to be fair and fairness is the mark of good character. Some things can't have a value set on them, such as good advise. We might pay a token or give appreciation but some things between friends are invaluable. A good teacher or a mentor cannot be paid enough but it is similar to how we deal with a parent. We just do what we can. But we see goodness and motive as a factor here as well.
But when something is done specifically with a return in mind, both parties should agree. Of course ultimately it is up to the giver if he wants to provide the service, but a just receiver will make sure there is a proper compensation. A free people will be able to make contracts privately with no need for interference from government. When debt is involved however, terms are usually set upon and put in writing.
But who sets a value on services? Is it the giver or the receiver? If the giver sets the value, they may take advantage of the receiver by asking too much for too little. If it is the receiver then they might require too much effort for too little pay. A waitress who is always paid a tip in advance might give worse service than expected but a patron could be cheap and underpay if they set the price. The goal is to be fair and fairness is the mark of good character. Some things can't have a value set on them, such as good advise. We might pay a token or give appreciation but some things between friends are invaluable. A good teacher or a mentor cannot be paid enough but it is similar to how we deal with a parent. We just do what we can. But we see goodness and motive as a factor here as well.
But when something is done specifically with a return in mind, both parties should agree. Of course ultimately it is up to the giver if he wants to provide the service, but a just receiver will make sure there is a proper compensation. A free people will be able to make contracts privately with no need for interference from government. When debt is involved however, terms are usually set upon and put in writing.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Penance
When we owe a debt to someone that is far beyond our means such as to a parent, the only thing we have to pay them back with is honor. There may be someone we owe our lives to and the only way to repay them is to honor them. In any event, whatever the degree of debt, we should always do what we can to repay. This is honorable. If the son or daughter is disrespectful to his parent, it is disgraceful but at the same time a parent is in his rights to disown one who acts disgraceful. These principles are applied to our religions when people feel we owe a debt to God and he has a right to disown us. Religions are based on reconciling the issue. But of course we know that a loving parent doesn't abandon his children and neither would a loving God. But the reality is that it is in our nature to want the benefits of a relationship while being hesitant to give back what we should. Aristotle points this out as the conclusion to Book eight.
In Book nine we look at a number of different scenarios. It is pointed out how straying from the right principles causes inner conflicts. This inner conflict is manifested in friendships since a friendship is an extension of ourselves. We don't need to find origins to recognize how being unprincipled hurts our lives and those around us. Psychology uses the past; religion uses sin; and atheists use evolution to find the origin of this conflict. In this study all that is asked is that we recognize the behavior so we can deal with ourselves and others with understanding. Rather than penance it is assumed that giving people an "aha" will point them in the right direction to figure out why they are anxious and causing anxiety in others. Friendship or conflict, peace or anxiety; these are the opposing forces in ethics.
If two people from different backgrounds want the same thing, we have to find a way to make the transactions just. We already established that it can't be based on where a person is in life and that there should be equal access for everyone for the same goods. The goods or services set the price and not a person's station or influence. Equality is what gives us a free market and keeps us friendly toward each other. To tax or charge in an unequal manner breeds resentment. The next chapter answers questions about it so we can be objective toward each other when we have dealings. There are a number of areas addressed in book nine. There are ten books total and we have acquired knowledge in how to reason things out for different scenarios so lets check a few of them out.
In Book nine we look at a number of different scenarios. It is pointed out how straying from the right principles causes inner conflicts. This inner conflict is manifested in friendships since a friendship is an extension of ourselves. We don't need to find origins to recognize how being unprincipled hurts our lives and those around us. Psychology uses the past; religion uses sin; and atheists use evolution to find the origin of this conflict. In this study all that is asked is that we recognize the behavior so we can deal with ourselves and others with understanding. Rather than penance it is assumed that giving people an "aha" will point them in the right direction to figure out why they are anxious and causing anxiety in others. Friendship or conflict, peace or anxiety; these are the opposing forces in ethics.
If two people from different backgrounds want the same thing, we have to find a way to make the transactions just. We already established that it can't be based on where a person is in life and that there should be equal access for everyone for the same goods. The goods or services set the price and not a person's station or influence. Equality is what gives us a free market and keeps us friendly toward each other. To tax or charge in an unequal manner breeds resentment. The next chapter answers questions about it so we can be objective toward each other when we have dealings. There are a number of areas addressed in book nine. There are ten books total and we have acquired knowledge in how to reason things out for different scenarios so lets check a few of them out.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Transactions
We are discussing the type of friendship called utility. We might call it business. Friends out of commonalities or those who love each other have less of an emphasis on justice. They aren't worried about getting a square deal as much since they are interested more in making the other person happy. Those who are in a pleasure relationship might have a transaction involved but when the pleasure is gone the relationship is terminated. This is what we call entertainment. Conflicts arise when the objective is misunderstood or when there is an injustice. We don't know entertainers or politicians personally so their personal lives shouldn't affect how we feel. The relationships are entertainment and utility only, so good movies and good governing should be what keeps the relationship going.
Getting back to utility relationships; most conflicts occur here and therefore rules apply to this kind of relationship. These rules are moral or written our heart and we write laws when clarity is needed. The objective is justice; where both parties feel the exchange was good. Things concerning virtue don't change whether it concerns an individual or a group. Justice is justice and business is business. We have addressed how healthy or good friendships are related to justice.
In the business realm, transactions are straight up. A person's wealth should have no bearing on a transaction. It is unjust to charge a person more than anyone else because of their wealth or position. Theater tickets and groceries cost the same to all and this is just. A republic exists to enforce justice and insure everyone has equal rights to goods and property. No one is excluded if they can pay the price.
Every person who uses public works should contribute to the common stock. Those of means who donate are worthy of respect and honor. This is what makes the exchange just. A person should receive honor for giving and there is nothing wrong with being proud of it. Those who benefit and cannot pay enough should at least honor those who do. It is a disgrace for a people to endorse living at the expense of others. It is even a worse injustice for a beneficiary to despise their benefactor.
A strong country will have a strong sense of justice where everyone is proud to give to the common stock and wouldn't think of taking from it without contributing themselves. Those who are committed to public works receive honor as a bonus and out of respect to the contributors, shouldn't look to it as a means of acquiring wealth. So a business transaction deals more with a straight exchange of goods for justice while public works has the element of respect and honor added to those who do the work. Problems arise when public honor and wealth are in the transaction together because the straight up value of the transaction is distorted by the obligation demanded for the honor of public good. A person can demand more for a service and produce less but justify it by claiming the honor of the common good. That is the difference between private business transactions with citizens and public works. The exchange of labor and goods are straight up for the private sector and contributions for public works have the element of honor involved.
Getting back to utility relationships; most conflicts occur here and therefore rules apply to this kind of relationship. These rules are moral or written our heart and we write laws when clarity is needed. The objective is justice; where both parties feel the exchange was good. Things concerning virtue don't change whether it concerns an individual or a group. Justice is justice and business is business. We have addressed how healthy or good friendships are related to justice.
In the business realm, transactions are straight up. A person's wealth should have no bearing on a transaction. It is unjust to charge a person more than anyone else because of their wealth or position. Theater tickets and groceries cost the same to all and this is just. A republic exists to enforce justice and insure everyone has equal rights to goods and property. No one is excluded if they can pay the price.
Every person who uses public works should contribute to the common stock. Those of means who donate are worthy of respect and honor. This is what makes the exchange just. A person should receive honor for giving and there is nothing wrong with being proud of it. Those who benefit and cannot pay enough should at least honor those who do. It is a disgrace for a people to endorse living at the expense of others. It is even a worse injustice for a beneficiary to despise their benefactor.
A strong country will have a strong sense of justice where everyone is proud to give to the common stock and wouldn't think of taking from it without contributing themselves. Those who are committed to public works receive honor as a bonus and out of respect to the contributors, shouldn't look to it as a means of acquiring wealth. So a business transaction deals more with a straight exchange of goods for justice while public works has the element of respect and honor added to those who do the work. Problems arise when public honor and wealth are in the transaction together because the straight up value of the transaction is distorted by the obligation demanded for the honor of public good. A person can demand more for a service and produce less but justify it by claiming the honor of the common good. That is the difference between private business transactions with citizens and public works. The exchange of labor and goods are straight up for the private sector and contributions for public works have the element of honor involved.
Friday, June 6, 2014
Earning Favor
With utility based relationships the goal is for both sides to be satisfied with the results. This is minimized when there is a clear understanding. When there is satisfaction, where justice is perceived by both parties, a bond is formed. We consider each other reliable and just. This is true of other virtues also; those who have formed habits to do what is right will have predictable behavior. There is no telling what a person given to vice will do since they don't do what is honorable. Hitting the target of what is right takes work but there are a thousand ways to miss. A just person will hit the target that we see while there is no telling with an unjust person
We would rather everyone did what was right on their own and it is good to help each other form good habits of doing so. In a perfect world there would be no need for written rules to insure justice. It is a great feeling to do what is just without being coerced. Written laws are needed to compensate for our imperfections and produce clarity among associations.
In utility relationships sometimes we need written agreements too. These are contracts. When debt is involved, the relationship becomes even more complicated since the simple agreement of buying and selling has been preempted by someone else holding the cash. The seller is really giving their property over to the bank while the buyer is trying to buy it back. This can cause the price to become inflated since the buyer and seller are setting terms in the light of easy credit. In a society this can wreck havoc and some in the past regulated it closely with laws. It would be good to outlaw debt holders altogether so the relationship between the buyer and seller can be more realistic but we are always tempted to find a way to get what we want with less wait. The risk should always be on the seller without a third party involved so the price can be realistic.
It is easy to see the terms in a written agreement but with moral agreements it becomes more complicated. A person might perceive that the one giving credit can handle the loss so it isn't a big deal. But is wrong to become indebted to others especially against their will so a person should hold up their part of any verbal agreement too. If you know it isn't possible then have enough honor to decline the offer. We also shouldn't use the excuse that the person wasn't using it. We shouldn't assume someone would just give things away but should make sure that there is an equal if not higher benefit given to them regardless of the conditions.
But when the friendship is based in commonality of goodness there is less to worry about along these lines. We have faith in the persons character and would be apt to dismiss equal repayment because the person has been so good to us. There is still room for abuse but we don't expect a virtuous person to take advantage of us and we give them greater latitude. This is what is meant by "earning favor".
We would rather everyone did what was right on their own and it is good to help each other form good habits of doing so. In a perfect world there would be no need for written rules to insure justice. It is a great feeling to do what is just without being coerced. Written laws are needed to compensate for our imperfections and produce clarity among associations.
In utility relationships sometimes we need written agreements too. These are contracts. When debt is involved, the relationship becomes even more complicated since the simple agreement of buying and selling has been preempted by someone else holding the cash. The seller is really giving their property over to the bank while the buyer is trying to buy it back. This can cause the price to become inflated since the buyer and seller are setting terms in the light of easy credit. In a society this can wreck havoc and some in the past regulated it closely with laws. It would be good to outlaw debt holders altogether so the relationship between the buyer and seller can be more realistic but we are always tempted to find a way to get what we want with less wait. The risk should always be on the seller without a third party involved so the price can be realistic.
It is easy to see the terms in a written agreement but with moral agreements it becomes more complicated. A person might perceive that the one giving credit can handle the loss so it isn't a big deal. But is wrong to become indebted to others especially against their will so a person should hold up their part of any verbal agreement too. If you know it isn't possible then have enough honor to decline the offer. We also shouldn't use the excuse that the person wasn't using it. We shouldn't assume someone would just give things away but should make sure that there is an equal if not higher benefit given to them regardless of the conditions.
But when the friendship is based in commonality of goodness there is less to worry about along these lines. We have faith in the persons character and would be apt to dismiss equal repayment because the person has been so good to us. There is still room for abuse but we don't expect a virtuous person to take advantage of us and we give them greater latitude. This is what is meant by "earning favor".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)