So this guy “von Rivers” says that morality and prudence are the same. He brings this up all the time. When I asked him why this is so important to him, he disappointed me by giving such an abstract answer, that seems to have nothing at all to do with morality, or why morality is important:
Here’s an introduction to the concept of prudence from Wikipedia:
This is very straightforward. The reason the distinction between prudence and virtue is a good and important one, has to do with 1) the development of, and 2) the sustainability of, a virtuous life. Consider the person who has just awakened to the fact that his own affluence could be a source of joy for others. He has just cashed his paycheck, and has, say, $1,000 in his wallet. He receives an invitation to a presentation coordinated by a group of people who are trying to raise money for disadvantaged people of some kind. His conscience assails him, and he wants to give money. But he is tormented by his sense of the act of giving as a slippery slope. Where should he stop? At what exact point can he justify his decision to give no more? Prudence suggests that he can just give a little bit – say $50 – and this is doing something rather than nothing, it saves him from being distraught with regret from giving “too much”, and it allows for training in giving, as giving goes against the grain of entrenched egoistic habit. In this case prudence has made possible the development of virtue.
The previous example also suggests how prudence makes possible the sustainability of virtue. If you give too much of your money away, you actually give your power away. You become unable to command situations in the same way, and your ability to “do good” is therefore heavily compromised. Though it is possible to imagine such a person – a person who “does good” by merely being good – a person who has nothing, is untroubled, and has the knowledge and communication skills to help others overcome their self-cherishing and various attachments – the fact is, if you imagine yourself capable of abandoning attachments, but you prove incapable, then you make things far worse – disastrous, even – for yourself and others. I know people who were 60’s idealists, who are now miserable because they “should be retired by now” but they didn’t save anything, didn’t show any sense of command over their own situation. This would be fine of course, and admirable, except that they are now miserable. And this leads to another important point:
Virtue and prudence don’t exist in easy harmony; rather, they exist in a relationship of creative conflict. Thus, they are not simply names for two different “locations” along a single spectrum. In the example I provided, prudence suggests that a limiting of generosity is morally worthwhile – but virtue constantly challenges the intrusion of prudence, suggesting that prudence has overstepped its bounds. Back to the development of virtue, it’s as if prudence is the brakes, virtue the gas pedal. Learning how to drive requires the use of both.
Could the 60’s idealists that I mentioned have predicted their own future misery, and the misery they would therefore inflict on others as a result? I don’t think so. If they could have, then it could make sense to claim that their choices at that time were “immoral”. But this is not the case, so there was nothing immoral about the very admirable and moral choices they made at the time. They gave more than I would do; they seem to have lived with more conscience and more consciousness of the suffering of others than I do. This is utterly praiseworthy, and to detract from the moral worth of such a life is to do these (and “morality”) an injustice, and to teach others selfishness in the name of generosity.
Finally, it is important to point out that prudence is not about balancing the needs of the self versus the needs of others from an egoic perspective. Prudence is always in the service of virtue – it is never selfish. It is not prudent to be selfish. In general, for instance, it is not prudent to pamper yourself, to entertain yourself, to steal, lie, cheat, murder, etc. It is, however, prudent to eat good, healthy food, to get a good night’s sleep, even to simply enjoy your life (though “enjoying” stretches the meaning of prudence, with its connotation of deliberateness).
This brief account of the distinction between morality (or virtue) and prudence takes for granted that virtue is something worth cultivating, and that a virtuous life is more rewarding than an ego-oriented life. A fuller account of why this is the case will have to wait for another time. However, I’ll briefly mention two points. One, this can be explored oneself. Get some quality instruction on how to approach the whole thing (I recommend Buddhism, personally, but whatever works for you and doesn’t hurt others) and try it out in some kind of deep and extended way. Consider it an experiment, but keep in mind that you have to actually involve yourself to find out the results. Two, no man is an island. This isn’t just a saying – it is true. Anyone can investigate this and see that it is true. We are connected to others, our collective sense of well-being depends on each other. I am only here because of others. Anything I have, I couldn’t have had without the involvement of others. Thus, to think and act in contradiction to this truth will surely bring suffering, to oneself and others.
The quote by von Rivers that I began this post with was edited to remove reference to the is-ought problem. I see no reason to revisit that issue here. It was thoroughly discussed in the thread I copied it from.
EDIT: added introductory sentence.
), but imprudent? She won’t get pregnant, I don’t know of any ovine-human vectors for STDs… It’s imprudent if other people find out about it, of course, or perhaps it’s imprudent 
The difference between morality and prudence?