[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 122 KB, 592x600, ykE43.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3003909 No.3003909[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Have to write a paper about the moral virtue being a mean that lies between two vices, excess and deficiency. Having some writers block was wondering /lit/ opinion

>> No.3003914

self curiosity bump

>> No.3003915

I have no idea, I guess it's sort of a balancing act that's my best guess

>> No.3003952

Use this wiki page as a jumping-off point

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29

>> No.3003997

Call bullshit because it's subjective and relative.

>> No.3004028

>>3003997
I agree which is why I found it hard to write about but I needed the grade so I just pushed out the biggest turd of a paper

>> No.3004127

Its not purely subjective nor is it purely absolute imo. The moral of a group depends on the group's view. In which there will be moral standards that most/everyone follows. If it were completely subjective, there wouldnt be any agreements over any morals.

>> No.3004596
File: 3 KB, 580x387, image39.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004596

On a continuum like this, where both extremes are 'bad', it's a mathematical fact that the mean is going to be the 'best'. It's like a parabola, the mid-point is always going to be the highest point.

The question is whether or not this continuum is actually applicable in a given scenario.

(I say this assuming you're writing a philosophical essay)

>> No.3004611

Read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. The idea comes from there.

>> No.3004639
File: 117 KB, 406x391, 1338822484733.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3004639

(Start by) ask(ing) yourself what's bad about an excess of care/punishment and a lack of it. Use the answers to construct your arguments.
Shouldn't be too hard.
Calling morality subjective is silly; the concept implies that (more than) one (person) is 'subjected' to it. It's blatantly obvious that morals have no essential quality, that's not relevant. See >>3004127

>> No.3004666

>>3004639
On morality not being subjective because one is not "subjected" to it. That's not how that word is used.