I don’t think I really disagree with any of that, except that it isn’t necessarily the approbation of others that makes something right or wrong. Galileo comes to mind. There’s nothing wrong with establishing general principles—I dare say it’s prudent.
“I think if you have sex with a six-year-old and it’s loving and mutually satisfactory, it’s still immoral, and I think you do too, no? Because we probably agree that sexual activity is something that requires informed consent, and should ideally involve an attitude of mutual respect, and that’s not there with children and animals - regardless of the consequences”
“It’s imprudent if other people find out about it, of course, or perhaps it’s imprudent because other people might find out about it”
I don’t think these are the same.
A strict Kantian, in fact Kant himself, says you should tell a murderer where his intended victim is hiding rather than lie to him, because moral actions are unrelated to consequences. For me this is an example of imprudence in following a moral precept, insofar as prudence is (at least, to my understanding and use of the word) foresight, informed awareness of the consequences and wisdom in evaluating them. To my mind, Kant holds that acting according to CI is the moral thing to do, as foresight is irrelevant.
My OP pointed out various bad consequences that are likely to arise from not properly distinguishing virtue and prudence - what are the bad consequences that result from making the distinction? I don’t know of any. Wouldn’t that make the lack of distinction immoral from the point of view of von Rivers, et al?
An attitude of mutual respect and informed consent is moral, and prudent. You are trying to give an example of something that is immoral but also prudent. I’m sure you are not claiming that this example has anything to do with what is prudent----but I’m not sure why you still think it’s still a good example.
“It’s not imprudent because others might find out about it—it’s imprudent because of what they’ll think if they do. And what they’ll think if they do find out about it is the same reason it is immoral”.
If you don’t follow the CI, you’re not a rational autonomous person, and worse. The CI generates perfect and imperfect duties (the latter are states of affairs that you find undesirable when you try to universalize the maxim you’re acting on). “Being mean to your mother” can pass the CI, and be universalized, but it’s something you wouldn’t want. Acting on that maxim is imprudent. Acting on a maxim that can’t even be universalized is incoherent. —Not only would Kant say it’s imprudent, he’d say it’s irrational and inconsistent.
You are free to associate Kantianism with morality, and Consequentalism with prudence, if you want… but pretending to be a Kantian about morality is a bit dishonest on your part.
Apparently you didn’t bother to read any of the replies.
This example doesn’t have anything to do with prudent, you’re right. The reason it’s a good example is because it does have to do with what is moral.
I’m not sure whether you’re unwilling to read my posts or unable to understand them. Prudence is concerned with consequences. It’s an important part of morality. It’s not all of morality, because very many people hold that some things are immoral regardless of the consequences, and so no wise foresight is necessary in decision making. You might hold that prudence is not about wisdom in foresight, in which case I think you’d be wrong but I’d be interested to hear why.
However, you’re free to just keep insisting that they’re absolutely the same thing; having made my point I have no deep-seated need to keep repeating it.
You can cut and paste one of them for me. Be generous - I must be dim. I just don’t see any reference to bad consequences that come from making a distinction between morality and prudence.
This is trolling - that’s the most generous explanation I can come up with.
I think informed consent and respect is very prudent. I certainly don’t think taking advantage of a little kid for sex is prudent.
That’s not the only criteria that makes things immoral, but I think it’s a good reason why having sex with a sheep might be. Why else do you think it is?
Then why not? If we are both happy, what’s the problem?
An example that separates prudence from morality, would be an example of something that is one but not the other. None of your examples are of something that is moral, but imprudent. Or prudent, but immoral. And furthermore, none of your examples indicate that something is prudent for a different reason than it is moral (or vice versa). I’ve explained this, already.
Two points:
-
You need an example, apparently, of something that has bad consequences (i.e., not prudent) but is moral anyways. Or, something that has good consequences, but is immoral)----AND YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN AN EXAMPLE OF EITHER. Wake up, please. You’ve been talking about fucking sheep, fucking children, and marrying for money. And if you don’t recognize what I’ve done with your examples, then I can’t help you, and you can continue to say, “pfft, he must not have read my post after he hammered my example and made me look silly”.
-
It is disingenuous of you to argue that you think there is a difference between prudence and morality because some people are Kantians… unless you are a Kantian who is going to defend Kant. As I’ve already said, I have no doubt that many people think there is a difference between prudence and morality… what I doubt is that they have coherent conceptions of both terms that really are different.
You can find them, since this thread is 2 pages long, and you should be reading your own thread regardless.
My general thesis is that you don’t have a coherent conception of either term, once you draw an essential distinction between prudence and morality. An indication of this is that you haven’t bothered to define or explain either term. Nor have you given an example that separates them. Nor does your OP even seem to make sense, building as it does from that misguided quote from Wikipedia.
One bad consequence, (that you can start with), is your own confusion.
Distinctions make for clarity. Lack of distinctions confusion. I always thought, realistically, and by common usage, that prudence, simply meant "with caution.". Nowadays its really irrelevant what the intended usage was, language seems to evolve along with everything else. "Virtue", on the other hand simply implies an ideal set of qualities which admirable people seemingly possess.
Right’ in the last paragraph, he refers to prudence as an action. This may hold the key. If it is an action towards doing things which are for the good, then where the distinction arises is where he approaches it from the point of definition as “doing” good, rather then being good, as an idea of what good is. Therefore the effective nature of good is brought out from the good, the virtue, which basically is a definitional problem. What good is it, if it’s not acted upon. People may have needed clarification in his time, as to what virtue was, by way of an action to do it.something along those lines, perhaps.
I quoted from Wikipedia to define the term. You can also look it up in the dictionary. My OP clarified the connotations of prudence that are important to the distinction I’m making. Other versions of the distinction are perfectly possible. In my own version, which is pretty traditional, prudence plays a supporting role relative to morality. So prudence is distinguished from both morality and self-serving behavior. These are just conceptual tools – that’s all they are. I have no confusion about this at all, and my OP and the comments of others here are very straightforward. I haven’t studied their posts in order to know if they make the exact same distinction as I do – it doesn’t matter. We make useful distinctions of whatever sort (though none are idiosyncratic) – and you come along and claim these distinctions, necessarily, can have no use. This is extreme hubris and you have made a name for yourself here by infinitely repeating yourself and saying nothing in the process - all with a whole lot of swearing and swagger and jumping up and down thrown into the mix for effect.
Yes, this thread is two (three, now) pages long. I haven’t spotted a single bad consequence stated, that would likely follow from making a distinction between morality and prudence. Please, point out one instance of such a statement. My OP points out a number of bad consequences from not making the distinction that I make. Obviously, the distinction can be made using any words you want – the distinction stands either way. You can call my “prudence”, an aspect of “morality” if you want. It doesn’t matter. If you understand the distinction, if you are referring to something that can be distinguished, then they are not “the same thing”. Your argument is ridiculous.
If you’ve got some unstated reason to abhor the distinction (and you must abhor it, you’re obviously obsessed with it), then you should make that known. Like maybe you think aliens will land and take over if we maintain that such a distinction is an obvious and useful one to make.
Seriously?
An example that is moral, but has nothing to do with prudence, is an example showing there’s a distinction between the two.
You’ve not hammered anything, or even addressed my point. Having sex with a sheep makes you feel good and assuming the sheep doesn’t undergo serious pain, there are no bad consequences if no-one finds out. I call having sex with sheep immoral. I’ve said why.
I’ve done this in three posts and you still haven’t understood this or addressed the argument. All you’ve done is brag and provoke.
a) No it’s not; if prudence is the same as morality, it’s the same. Practically, almost no-one is a pure act consequentialist; similarly, almost no-one (besides maybe Kant) believes that consequences have no bearing on morality.
b) I’ve repeatedly explained the difference in conceptions (as I see it), and you’ve repeatedly failed to address it. I won’t bother responding to any further posts until you read, understand and address, as I’m not convinced you’re reading any further than you need to to type a brag in reply.
Why not? If you have the foresight to see no-one gets hurt, what’s wrong with taking advantage of people, using them for your own pleasure? Nothing?
I just said, right up there, in the post you’re replying to. There.
So for you, “have sex with as many sheep as you like, as long as you don’t get caught” is sound moral advice?
Since you don’t think taking advantage of people is immoral, I can see why you would have to ask.
It’s terrible practice. Me behaving in that way conveys a message that I think the behavior is acceptable. That might lead to me or my family being taken advantage of. Plus, foresight isn’t perfect and I think it prudent to consider a child’s lack of foresight. I have no idea what an experience like that would do to a child’s development.
So for you, “have sex with as many children as you like, so long as you get your rocks off” is sound moral advice?
I said why else—as in aside from the reason we’ve already discussed. But, no, I wouldn’t think that is good advice, and I already told you why.
I’m not exactly taking advantage of her if she is perfectly happy too. Plus, who’s to say I’d necessarily be dishonest about my feelings? And, of course, the aggregate benefit needs to outweigh the cost—not just benefit to me.
Ohh, you are arguing that having sex with a (i cant say it), or a sheep, is prudent!!! I had no idea…
Well, obviously it’s not. And if you need me to explain to you why engaging in any number of behaviors that you ought not have, even if you won’t get caught, is imprudent, then make your case for why it’s prudent first. Frankly, I hope you won’t even try. You are claiming something that is patently ridiculous, and you should have to build the case for it—since it’s your claim. Your examples are of something both immoral, and imprudent. Wake up, and stop intentionally missing the point.
I don’t know if having sex with a sheep makes you feel good… I’ll take your word for it. But I doubt it, especially because sheep can bite and back-kick. It strikes me that having sex with a sheep would be incredibly dangerous and imprudent. Do you have anything more to say about it? Side note about your moral case: you never need consent (for a Kantian) from a being non-rational and incapable of giving consent, or the guardian of one. So there goes your moral case. You’d think building such a case would have been simpler, for you.
You’ve given two examples, fucking sheep and fucking… They are both bad examples, and I’ve explained why. I’ve also explained why the example of marrying for money is a bad one. You’ve let that one go to cling to the former two. Fine. To accuse me of not reading your posts just is what is insulting. It’s not me, it’s you.
The term is from the ancient Greek word, ‘phronesis’. That’s the important term—from the history of philosophy.
One bad consequence is that you are deeply confused, and careless enough to be ignorant of your confusion. For once, just try answering the question: “Why be moral?”. Honestly, how many times do I have to ask?
Good distinctions make for clarity. Bad distinctions cause confusion.