zlacker

> I fully agree that continually denying yourself something that makes you happy isn't a virtue.

Murder? Mayhem? Destruction? Greed?

I agree homosexuality is a fine thing, but your comment is altogether far tooo broad.

Societal morals are often about denying ourselves things we want to do: often because our actions affect others or offend others, but also often for no strong reason at all. Virtue is almost defined by holding ourselves back from unvirtuous actions: can virtue exist in the world if we can all do whatever we will?

>>roboca+(OP)
As a vegetarian for ethical reasons who grew up enjoying eating dead animals, I think we're on the same page actually. But strictly speaking, the virtue (perhaps a loaded word) I think you're alluding to is a willingness to pursue policies which maximize utility function which sums over agents other than oneself, not self-denial per se. Greed is perhaps the most illustrative "vice" on your list; satisfying one's personal greed only sometimes will cause any harm to others, and sometimes will be appropriate to pursue.

>>roboca+(OP)
> > I fully agree that continually denying yourself something that makes you happy isn't a virtue.

> Murder? Mayhem? Destruction? Greed?

The bar is so low you consider not being a dangerous sociopath a virtue?

>>Joreng+bc
You think a dangerous sociopath is not virtuous if, for moral reasons, they hold back from acting upon their antisocial base desires?

>>roboca+Zt
A dangerous sociopath with functioning moral compass? That sounds like an oxymoron, don't you think?

And no, fulfilling the very bare minimum is not virtuous. When virtuous person stops being virtuous, they fall to "average", not to the lowest possible.

>>roboca+Zt
You think they hold back from acting upon their desires because of god?

>>Joreng+wz
You introduced the term sociopath, not me. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_portrayals_of_psychopat...