4chan archive /lit/ (index)
2012-09-24 05:42 3003909 Anonymous (ykE43.jpg 592x600 125kB)
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

2 min later 3003914 Anonymous
self curiosity bump

4 min later 3003915 Anonymous
I have no idea, I guess it's sort of a balancing act that's my best guess

22 min later 3003952 Anonymous
Use this wiki page as a jumping-off point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_%28philosophy%29

46 min later 3003997 Anonymous
Call bullshit because it's subjective and relative.

1 hours later 3004028 Anonymous
>>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

1 hours later 3004127 Anonymous
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.

9 hours later 3004596 Anonymous (image39.gif 580x387 3kB)
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)

9 hours later 3004611 Anonymous
Read Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. The idea comes from there.

9 hours later 3004639 Anonymous (1338822484733.jpg 406x391 119kB)
(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

9 hours later 3004666 Anonymous
>>3004639 On morality not being subjective because one is not "subjected" to it. That's not how that word is used.

2.389 0.050