Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm

(full argument)(read it and weep. lol)

—“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”—

Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion.

  1. I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities.

a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral)

or

b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral)

OR

  1. I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities.

a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous)

or

b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral)

1………..DV……I

2………..CV……E

Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not.

  1. Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge,

I have the choice of:

Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical)

OR

I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical)

OR

I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical)

So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES.

1……E……U

2……FE….U

So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical.

You see?

The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical.

See?

It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically.

QED

Thus Endeth The Lesson.