Having all that power, can do practically anything.

Yet refrained from abusing his power and lived by a set of rules that he thought were righteous.

I feel like I've got two sides, one that would abuse the fk out of that power and embrace the dark side. And another side that wants me to be the man of values too.

It's not clear to me that I should be good, rather just a feeling, and many years of being indoctrination/physically beaten when I did something wrong, being told what is right, etc... these things literally conditioned me, and most of us in society. When someone says that you should be good, and you ask them why... they'll give you an answer, but their logic could just as easily be reasoned in reverse for not being good. There's like a mental blur in people's minds when it comes to this question, and their thought process is simply, "Being good is good. So be good. How could you even question that being a good person isn't the correct way to be?"

People even come away from reading philosophy books on the topic, but they always have this airy headed, "Ahh.. to be good is good." There's not real reason why it's good to be a good in their thought process that has any convincing argument other than it feels to be in line with how they feel things should be. And as I said above, we've all been conditioned to believe we should behave, be 'good', etc. So, our judgement on this question is always likely going to be biased, and not rationally sound.

Question to the misc -

If you were an emperor, would you abuse the fuk out of your power, or would you be a 'good' ruler? And why.

I'd be a good ruler because virtue is it's own reward. I don't think we're conditioned for anything, it's just human nature/the natural order...Marcus Aurelius refers to it as the logos. You naturally feel better after helping someone out or refraining from some type of sin. Back in college psych I remember learning a lot about the positive effects that altruism has on us. We're just built like that brah.Yeah great book. Always thought of re-reading it over and over again. It's the Bible for manhood.

It begs the question wrt some of history's greatest leaders... Alexander and his father Philip, Atilla, Charles Martel, George Washington, among many others. Were they destined for greatness? Were they led by a power greater than them that guided them and kept them out of harms way?

To be remembered in the history books such as these men... You had to have formidable strength in Spirit it feels like to me. Some might even say they were groomed by the omnipotent omniscient forces that run this universe to do great things

Actually, The Bible is the The Bible for manhood.

Everyone should own a copy of Meditations as well though.

Ah, good ole stoicism. And I choose to be good not because good is good, but because being a good and positive person aligns with my values and beliefs. I want positive change in the world and therefore must be an agent of positive change.

I get what you're saying. If someone is built a certain way naturally, and it naturally feels good for them to be good, then it makes sense for them to be good... as they're a pleasure-seeking being that wants to feel good.

However, this falls apart when there's someone built in another way naturally, and it naturally feels good for them to be what some of us would call 'bad', though to them it would be good, because being bad would be what makes them feel good... and just as like above, they're a pleasure-seeking being that wants to feel good.

Would you accept that for the person in the second example, there would be no reason for them to conform to be what most of us would consider a 'good person'?

Even in Marcus's example, his own reason for being good bottoms out at its very root to this - "My nature is to want to be what I consider good, therefore I will act in accord with that way of being".

You see how not everyone has the same nature, and some are built differently, and therefore it could be concluded that it wouldn't make sense for one person to be what you and I might call 'good'?

Maybe it's just common sense, and unfortunately, most people lack it.

Then it makes sense for you to act in accord with how you naturally want to be.

What's your opinion on those that aren't naturally the same as you, and don't have a desire to be good? Do you think they should still attempt to conform to how you think they should be? And why, outside of reasons such as "It would be beneficial for me if they acted the way I wanted them to"

Yeah, killing thousands of people so he can take over land just to feed his own ego. Real fukken righteous.

Good job, OP.

Partly named my son after Marcus Aurelius. Also see sig.

Regarding whether there is a reason being "good" other than that following what you were conditioned, I think having children, or thinking about the ramifications of having children make it very clear. One does not want to bring children into a world of evil. It's in the interest of the whole of humanity to be cooperative and kind.

it takes more work to strive to do Good than it does to be evil or do wicked things to people.

Thus, that is the moral high ground.

What do you say to the fact morals are subjective?

I mean, your quote basically says - "behaviour showing high moral standards is rewarding in itself."

If someone's morals are along these lines - "It's good for me to take what I desire from the world, and to dominate it."

Your quote would still apply to them, that virtue is its own reward... even though their virtues are very different from your own.

They could be acting in accord with their virtues, while still doing things you'd consider to be horrendous. But if they acted in accord with their virtues, even though you considered them to be awful, would you still consider that person to be virtuous?

Do you guys see how this is all very subjective?

I don’t have an opinion nor do I care about those people. I have no ability to change them, only myself. I don’t really see a way to make them conform to anything lol.

You reap what you sow

so, it is better to do Good, especially if it goes against your virtues, because virtues can change. People change. If it is difficult for someone to do Good unto others in this world, they have to do it ten fold more than someone who has always walked the path of Goodness to redeem themselves.

If someone is virtues align with greed, selfish ambition, that tells me they learned that from someone or something in their past to be that way it goes the same way with virtues of Good. People can change for better or worse, but we should always strive to do good unto others, such that good may come unto us

I don't think this is even true.

Would it be easy for you to be forced to stab an innocent person? No, judging by your posts, it would kill you on the inside to do such an evil thing, and therefore difficult for you to do.
Would it be easy for you to do something good for an innocent person? Yes, at least relative to stabbing them, as, judging from your posts, it feels good to you to do good.

So how does it take more work for you to be good, if it's literally harder for you to be bad... as it goes against who you are as a human being to do something awful?

It seems evident to me that it would take more work to get you to do something evil, than to do something good.

And the difficulty of something doesn't automatically make it the moral high ground option. That literally made no sense. Sorta like saying - "A rocket ship is harder to drive than a car, thus it is better to drive a rocket ship to work." Logic doesn't even make sense

On the other side of virtue is vice. And what you're describing (if they take it as far as hurting or destroying what they are taking from) as someone's "virtue" is the vice of greed. They might be deluded, but it doesn't change that they are acting out of selfishness and lack of regard for others. What is considered "moral" might be subjective, but there are tests to apply to narrow down if something is "good" or "bad." I would say if an action is causing suffering, and could be avoided, there's no way that's be considered virtuous.

In the end, we have ourselves to answer to, and and what we honestly consider virtuous.

BTW what happened to your avi? Lol.

yea, i think most people are dumb. so i agree with your assessment they just think good is good

but objectively speaking, ive thought about this.. i think morality is universal. even animals recognize "good" and "bad". if they sense youre not a threat, they won't attack. if you put them in danger, they may go on the defensive and attack

id say anything dangerousCOULDbe (not that it is) considered bad, while anything conducive to life is considered good

"one man's vice is another man's virtue"

You still seem to be applying your own virtues onto others, without acknowledging... essentially that - "one man's vice is another man's virtue"

And to maintain your way of thinking you call them deluded.

What if they called you deluded?

I'm not even trying to be hard with my argumentation, but it's as clear as day to me that there's no such thing as objective virtues that everyone has. Your argument would be to suggest that virtues are universal/objective.

That's almost like saying that everyone has the same taste in music, or the same taste in icecream, or value pizza more than they do burgers. And when someone says... "no, actually i value burgers more than pizza" ... maintaining your stance within this analogy, your response would be "you might be deluded"

Surely someone isn't deluded because they prefer burgers than pizza... rather, they just have a different preference. Just as someone has different virtues to you... "one man's vice is another man's virtue"

Marcus Aurelius was cucked...literally

I edited my post, which maybe you missed, but basically with regards to vice, my opinion is that if it causes avoidable suffering or damage to others, or was unnecessary, then the action can't be considered good. Example, my family is cold and hungry, there's a farmer with pigs and a house next door. If I kill that farmer with the justification of feeding and warming my family-that would not virtuous at all. I could have gotten a fukkin job and went to the grocery for food. The vice of laziness causes the whole stupid situation. You're free to say say morals are subjective, but in reality we've already accepted what's moral or not long ago.

I'd say the way to get closer to objective definitions is to come up with tests that you can apply to multiple situations that would yield consistent results, maybe with modification.

Example: is it good to give money away?
Yes! Everyone loves money.
-Oh wait-drug addicts would spend it on drugs and maybe harm themselves or others.
Modification: Giving money to people who are not a danger to themselves or others is good.
-Oh wait, what if some people don't need the money and it causes unnecessary and avoidable problems (like inflation) for people that do need the money?
Modification Giving money to people who aren't a danger to themselves or others, and who need it is good.

One could modify this forever and it might be an action is neither good, nor bad. I would be inclined to say most fall into either virtuous or vice being most actions either advance virtue, get in the way of virtue (bad), or advance vice.

More to your observation, so maybe laziness is considered a virtue to those who are lazy, big surprise lol. It's not virtuous to put a strain on others. Unnecessary and avoidable suffering is being inflicted on others. I don't know, that's my test, I haven't delved super deep into philosophy so maybe there's a better way, or maybe I'm partly (incompletely) reinventing the wheel here.

Ever notice how people acted during the lockdowns? It was a great example of herd mentality, "You wear a mask", "I'm reporting you for not wearing a mask", "Jesus Christ! Wear a mask, are you TRYING TO KILL PEOPLE?"

What happened there? The masses took upon themselves a way of thinking. That's essentially what religion is, the masses getting brainwashed into a belief system.

And so in their religion there's "Do not... whatever, don't fuk your buddies wife," that kind of thing. Those rules then sweep action an entire nation of people and molds them into a belief system of how they should be.

This is also true for Marcus Aurelius', he was groomed from a young age by the stoics. I think they did a great job with him, and I love who he was a human being, or at least as the historians portray him, beautiful person, etc. ... but he was 100% absolutely groomed to think the thoughts he had, and to feel the way he felt about things.

It's the same with our virtues, we were essentially groomed into having the ones we have, and they shaped us. Take the vikings for example, for them it was a great virtue to go raid other countries, kill, rape, steal... dominating the land was what they believed to be their right,and dying in battle would get them to Valhalla.

What would you even say to the Vikings?

Vikings: "Johnez, it's my right to dominate your land. My Gods literally encourage it. It makes me feel ****ing amazing to take from your lands."

Do you just say to the group of Vikings, "Listen, friends, virtues are objective, you do not know what you say."

Meanwhile, their cocks are rock hard while they run around being total bastards, doing whatever they want, with the belief they deserve whatever they want, and that it's theirs to take AND, their Gods WANT THEM TO, in their believe system. So why would they not feel that way? They have their God's blessing.

How can you say to such a group of people with a vastly different set of beliefs, that they're on the wrong path? They've literally never came so hard.

Your money example is still clinging to an objective set of values, and I'll use the Vikings in he examples -

"Is it good to give money to the poor?"
Vikings: "**** the poor, they're a scourge to our land."

"Is it good to help the helpless?"
Vikings: "**** the helpless, weak genes, only the strong deserve to survive"

And they entirely believe every single word and sentiment they hold. I think holding onto the argument of objective virtues is just a losing argument. It crumbles really quickly, and its only defense is... "But they should hold my values." and that's not really a defense of the position, it's an opinion.

I get that it feels a bit **** to know that there's evil people out there that enjoy being evil... but not accepting that is like taking a blue pill, and being blind, and just saying there's something wrong with them. Well, there IS something wrong with them, but only in our subjective opinions. It's just our opinion, not fact. In their subjective perspective, they're blowing loads and having a good time. Of course anytime it's thought that they could possibly be enjoying being the way they are... people of our 'good values' will say that that can't be possible, and that surely they're really sad on the inside. And there response to the "why must they therefore be sad?" is, "I would be." and then infer that onto how they think they are feeling on the inside. It's painting the world with the same brush, and making everything the same... everything and everyone just are not the same

No I can’t imagine having that power.

Remaining humble and truly introspective is hard when you’re given even a little bit of power or wealth.

Not everyone is Marcus Aurelius. That’s why his memory has endured, and why he is revered.

Virtue is more action than thought. Virtue encompasses more than pleading your case, but forcefully defending yourself, your family, your land. I'd say "Piss right off viking, go the fuk home in your boat, or leave in a pine box and some lead in your noggin."

Your description of what you imagine to be my reaction is the total opposite of virtue BTW. Watching a horde pillage is the epitome of weakness.

Morals and virtue isn't about comparing what somebody else is doing as opposed to what your doing. There's endless motivation and reasons behind actions. What's important is to know what's right, and follow through on doing the right thing-IN YOUR SITUATION. Doing the right thing, being virtuous is doing things like providing for your family, following a healthy lifestyle, helping others that need help. Not getting on a boat and pillaging some random city. How would you argue that's even virtuous?

With regards to what I consider virtuous or not, I'll repeat what I posted earlier which addresses your earlier observation on the subjectivity of morality and virtue:

Maybe laziness is considered a virtue to those who are lazy, big surprise lol. It's my opinion that it's not virtuous to put a strain on others. Unnecessary and avoidable suffering is being inflicted on others. That's my test, and under that test I'd say laziness is a vice. I haven't delved super deep into philosophy so maybe there's a better way, or maybe I'm partly (incompletely) reinventing the wheel here.

I argue it could be virtuous to someone because I believe virtues are subjective.

There's a man, this man believes in God. All his friends believe in this God. There was a book that this God himself wrote. This God wrote some rules in this book of how he wanted his subjects to act in the world, that he, God, created -
#1. Getting in a boat and pillaging foreign towns is your birthright. Do so and reap every pleasure you wish. Feel righteous in doing so. You deserve what you take from them. It is right and good that you do so. The end. Being kind to outsiders is not virtuous, it's a weakness.

All it takes for something to be virtuous is for someone to believe it to be so. That's all, full stop. They do not exist outside of a person's belief system.

Is it objectively virtuous? No.
Is it the set of virtues you hold? No.
Are their virtues not virtuous? According to you, they're not even virtues.
Are your virtues not virtuous? According to them, you don't even have virtues.

You: My virtues are better.
Them: Not they're not.
You: But you raid villages, and do bad things
Them: No, we raid villages, and that's good.
You: No, it's bad.
Them: No it's not. It's great.

Lion: Gazelle, it's good for me to eat you.
Gazelle: No it's not.
Lion: It really is, mate.

It's not good for the Gazelle, but it's good for the lion. Hope I'm showing the relative nature of values here. Just because it's not good for the gazelle does not mean it's not good for the lion.