RoR: Forum

Ding, ding, ding!

We have a winner!

Post 181

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:49am

I like perfection and want to keep the word.

Ed

Post 182

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 11:16am

I have no dog in this fight, but I am curious; why haven't I seen anyone mention perfection in the etymological sense? It seems that it's being argued from the religious sense, meaning "without flaw or sin," but I haven't seen the concept of being "complete" mentioned here. Taking that broader approach, wouldn't the idea of Rand's, that one can "work at perfect" by correcting one's mistakes, fit with the carpenter example (as in the definition below, "bring to full development")? Thanks.

perfect (adj.)
c.1225 (implied in perfectiun), from O.Fr. parfit (11c.), from L. perfectus "completed," pp. of perficere "accomplish, finish, complete," from per- "completely" + facere "to perform" (see factitious). Often used in Eng. as an intensive (perfect stranger, etc.). The verb meaning "to bring to full development" is recorded from 1398. Perfectionist is 1657, originally theological, "one who believes moral perfection may be attained in earthly existence;" sense of "one only satisfied with the highest standards" is from 1934.

Post 183

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 6:40pm

I thought Ed did mention the etymology. Also, here is one of my first posts on this forum, in response to the "Am I Morally Perfect?" poll:

Follow the link above if you want further context.

-----

Am I morally perfect?

Poll Option #0 "It is a fact that I am morally perfect."

The Greeks said judge no man happy until he is dead.

The word "perfect" means complete (Latin PER- "through" "FACERE; FACTUS/-FECTUS "to do; done" i.e. "done through") and therefore does not apply to works in progress. Since my life (and the voluntary activity which constitutes it in a moral sense) is not yet over, to claim that "I am morally perfect" without qualification would either be hyperbole, presumption, or nonsense.

The proposition smacks either of what Rand would call "intrinsicism" or alternatively of what she would call "range-of-the-moment" thinking. If one's so-called "perfection" depends on the correctness of past actions, then "once a sinner always a sinner." But if perfection can be judged on a momentary basis then surely even Stalin was morally perfect - at least when brushing his teeth. My survivors can trouble themselves over my moral perfection, if they wish. I will trouble myself over that which is in my control: my current comportment, my aim towards future goals, my conscientious self-evaluation.

Poll Option #1) "Moral perfection is not possible."

This is either trivially true given my remarks in (A) or is a cop-out.

Poll Option #2) "Sometimes I break down, but most of the time I try to behave well."

The word "most" here is ambiguous. If it implies that some of the time I try NOT to behave well it is a red herring. If it means that I always try but sometimes fail, it is unnecessary pleading.

Is not the effort to behave well (within the context of rational self-interest) the essence of moral action? Perhaps a few analogies will suffice. If I am hale, undiseased, well nourished, and fit - but I scrape my knee - am I "perfectly" healthy? (And if my knee is unscraped, will I never die?) If I am of clear complexion, good build, virile, symmetric and unblemished - but have a receding hairline - am I not "perfectly" handsome? (Or would a toupee "perfect" me?)

This type of question reveals one of the traps of capital "O" Objectivism as practiced by some. Rand's system of rational egoism should be a means to better oneself, not to flagellate oneself or to put oneself in a better light than others. Leave that failing to the Pharisees, to the Fundamentalists and to the Imams.

Am I productive, joyful, self-aware, respectful and respected? Am I loving and loved, am at home in my skin and among my fellows, am at ease with millionaires and "illegal" aliens? Am I (momentarily) enraged by injustice but willing to forgive my debtors and to punish my enemies and am then eager to get back to enjoying life?

I am not morally anorexic. I don't stay up at night worrying about my perfection. No one who is morally perfect does.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/19, 10:03pm)

Post 184

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:57pm

Thanks Ted, and apologies for missing previous mentions.

Post 185

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 10:02pm

I don't want apologies. Nor thanks. Atlas points will do.

Post 186

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:48am

Steve wrote,

I know of no reason to keep the concept of "moral perfection" - but I'm open to hearing of any purpose it might serve or value it could have. I can't find any fact of reality that is identified by that phrase - to me it always smacks of religious discussions - like what would constitute perfect worship of God.

Moral breeches and the possibility of repairing ones moral status are of obvious value. But unless someone has an explanation of moral perfection that makes more sense than what I've seen, I say "ditch it."

The question is, what is desirable? Moral perfection or moral imperfection? If you say, "moral imperfection," then you're saying that some immorality is morally desirable, which is a contradiction in terms. So, the goal has to be moral perfection, even if one sometimes fails to achieve it. In other words, one should strive always to do the right thing and to maintain one's moral integrity.

Nevertheless, Ted asks,

What is the point of moral perfection? Is it happiness? Or is it having lived perhaps a miserable life, but being able to say - at least I held to my explicitly stated code of conduct?

Well, of course, it's happiness. If adhering perfectly to your code of conduct makes you miserable, the answer is not to jettison the concept of moral perfection, while retaining your code of conduct; it is to adopt a new code of conduct that does lead to happiness, while retaining the concept of moral perfection.

The obvious answer is that morality is not some external code with which one achieves perfection by approaching perfect compliance. Morality is a tool.

Yes, but if the tool is in fact a means to happiness, then perfect compliance will enable one to achieve happiness, in which case, deviating from it will subvert the pursuit of happiness. It makes no sense to say that the tool is a means to happiness, if it doesn't serve that purpose -- if faithful adherence to it doesn't achieve that goal.

A "compass" if I can make up that analogy from scratch. And, no, the perfect mariner is not the one who most closely adheres to a perfect compass setting. The perfect mariner is the one who arrives in port. He may find that he has veered off course. He does not pretend that the compass reading is not important. He does not deny that he is off course. He corrects what needs to be corrected - including perhaps checking the accuracy of the compass. The port is the goal. Happiness is the proof.

You are muddying the waters with your mariner example. Either the compass is a reliable means to navigation whose setting is accurate, or it isn't. If it is, then you stand the best chance of reaching your goal by adhering to it. If it isn't, then it is not a reliable instrument, in which case, perfect adherence to it is no longer a valid analogy to moral perfection.

- Bill

Post 187

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:46am

Bill,

From my perspective, you are begging the question when you say, "The question is, what is desirable? Moral perfection or moral imperfection?" After all, what I asked for was an explanation of what is moral perfection. It hasn't been defined yet - what is the fact of reality it represents. The word "perfect" has so many meanings as to make the this discussion less than fruitful.

When you mention that "...one can attain moral perfection if one "corrects" one's flaws..." it actually destroys the meaning of perfection which in this case would be attaining that same perfect end but without having mistakes that needed correction. And notice that the end state is what is the subject of measurement in this example, not the behaviors that might be moral or immoral. Sorry, but this fuzzy concept, which I think is just a floating abstraction, seems to me like a large can of worms and of no worth.

Post 188

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 10:53am

Steve wrote,

From my perspective, you are begging the question when you say, "The question is, what is desirable? Moral perfection or moral imperfection?" After all, what I asked for was an explanation of what is moral perfection. It hasn't been defined yet - what is the fact of reality it represents. The word "perfect" has so many meanings as to make the this discussion less than fruitful.

Moral perfection is never deliberately choosing an evil action.

When you mention that "...one can attain moral perfection if one "corrects" one's flaws..." it actually destroys the meaning of perfection which in this case would be attaining that same perfect end but without having mistakes that needed correction. And notice that the end state is what is the subject of measurement in this example, not the behaviors that might be moral or immoral. Sorry, but this fuzzy concept, which I think is just a floating abstraction, seems to me like a large can of worms and of no worth.

Look, suppose you cheat on your wife. To that extent, you're not morally perfect. But you can resolve to become morally perfect from that point on by (among other things) never cheating on her again.

- Bill

Post 189

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:31am

Bill, as best as I can tell, moral perfection is that state of grace one enters in the instant that they seriously resolve to remain moral from then on.

It does save the sinner from having to seek out a confessional and priest, they just make an honest resolve and they instantly become morally unburdened.

Yet it is confusing that you still use the phrase "to become" with the phrase "morally perfect" when you said, "Look, suppose you cheat on your wife. To that extent, you're not morally perfect. But you can resolve to become morally perfect from that point on..." Doesn't that resolve, if it is serious and deeply felt enough do the trick? Isn't the instance of that act of resolve the instant of, and cause of, once again entering this state of moral perfection? Shouldn't you have said, "resolve to be morally perfect"? If you say "become" then there must be more that must happen - if so, what?

Post 190

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:55am

Bill, as best as I can tell, moral perfection is that state of grace one enters in the instant that they seriously resolve to remain moral from then on.

No, resolution is not enough. You have to make the necessary choices.

It does save the sinner from having to seek out a confessional and priest, they just make an honest resolve and they instantly become morally unburdened.

I don't know what you mean by "morally unburdened." If you commit a moral wrong, it's a moral wrong. There's no way to erase it. The best you can do is not repeat it.

Yet it is confusing that you still use the phrase "to become" with the phrase "morally perfect" when you said, "Look, suppose you cheat on your wife. To that extent, you're not morally perfect. But you can resolve to become morally perfect from that point on..." Doesn't that resolve, if it is serious and deeply felt enough do the trick? Isn't the instance of that act of resolve the instant of, and cause of, once again entering this state of moral perfection? Shouldn't you have said, "resolve to be morally perfect"? If you say "become" then there must be more that must happen - if so, what?

You have to choose the right actions. Resolution simply refers to good intent. You have to follow through.

- Bill

Post 191

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:01pm

It occurs to me that what is being described is not a moral state, but rather a psychological state. Self-esteem is strongly boosted by living according to ones beliefs - i.e., integrity. This often requires a degree of assertiveness, another pillar of self-esteem. And it requires living consciously - again, another pillar of self-esteem.

Even Hitler, to the degree that he followed his evil and immoral beliefs, would find his self-esteem increasing, but one would never say he was experiencing moral perfection.

Post 192

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:13pm

Steve, you're being obtuse. No one here is endorsing Nazism.

Post 193

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:56pm

Bill,

One man strives toward committing no breaches of his moral code and commits no breaches.

Another man strives toward committing no breaches of his moral code and commits many breaches, breaches which he acknowledges and does his best about.

Now, if we like �perfection� as a concept in ethics, to which man should we apply it first? The former one certainly, yes?

Now, if we say that the latter man is perfect, too, it looks like an outrage if you�re the former man. And it makes no sense. Glaring MORAL differences exist between the two men.

If you want to hold to using �perfection� in the sense of what we see from the latter man, then don�t we need yet another term to describe the former man? Perhaps �Premium Perfection Deluxe�?

Post 194

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:20pm

Another problem is �how many�?

If our once-a-cheater husband does it again, and again resolves �never again� is he still on the moral perfection highway?

If not, why not? Why is one cheat recoverable, but not two, three, sixteen?

If yes, then how about if he does it third time, or if doesn�t do it a third time, but lies to a business partner? And then accepts credit for some achievement not totally his own? And then� If he keeps doing his best to makes these breaches right and keeps resolving not to breach his moral code again, is he still steady on the perfection highway?

If you would switch away from �moral perfection� in describing this man at some point where enough infractions have accrued, then why not ditch �moral perfection� upon the very first breach?

Post 195

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:24pm

Bill,

Please! I'm not being obtuse. And I'm not endorsing Nazism or saying anyone else is. I'm pointing out a problem with defining moral perfection as acting in accordance with ones beliefs.

You said, "You have to choose the right actions. Resolution simply refers to good intent. You have to follow through."

Okay, if a person has to follow through on their resolution to never act immorally, for how long would they have to do so, to reach moral perfection? Four hours, 10 days, 8 years, 3 decades, or until till they die? You are attempting to define a state where you can't ever tell when it starts.

I'd suggest going back to basics. Morality applies to actions. If you mark out some portion of some person's life you could say they were perfectly moral (or not) during that part of their life. But it is only a reference to the sum of their actions in that period. To make up this "state" of moral perfection makes no sense to me (what are the conceptual units being subsumed?).

It does make sense to me to talk about it in terms of self-esteem, but that's a different issue. I could understand it if someone said, "I am living in a state of moral perfection - it is a spiritual state that gives me a heightened sense of enjoying life and I understand that it comes from certain self-esteem mechanisms whereby I consciously choose to act strictly in accordance with my moral beliefs. It began the very instant I so resolved and it continues as long as I follow through. But it is a personal, subjective, emotional thing."

Post 196

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 2:02pm

What a silly low this discussion has sunk to. Steve makes a clear analogy, using Hitler as a vivid illustration. Bill makes a total non-sequitur in response, inventing a strawman of the most ridiculously obvious invalidity, and says Steve is obtuse (a gratuitous insult) and "no one here is endorsing Nazism"! (Thank god Bill made that clear?)

That's bad enough.

But someone sanctions Bill for it! If this is meant as ironic humour, and the sanction was some sort of post-modern gag, then forgive me. But I fear that this was meant in all earnestness.

I have to wonder what is going on on this list when you get such petty and contextless niggling. It reminds me of the absurdly and arrogantly ignorant debate over my use of the word "immediate" in the Bomb Iran poll. I asked if we should bomb Iran immediately - using the with-no-intermediate-condition sense of immediate. I could understand if some people were not familiar with that meaning of the term, and thought that immediate only means "this very second." But after I explain myself and state the valid derivation of the term, I still get people quoting the dictionary at me as if this were the seventh grade without them even realizing that they have also quoted my exact sense of the term. And had I meant "this very moment" when I used the term "immediate" in the poll, what were the fault-finders thinking the "immediate" option could mean after a week had passed since the poll was submitted? That "immediate" now meant a week ago, and therefore I felt the time for action had passed?

The point is that very few posters here are unknown quantities. And most posters here will clarify themselves if asked. There is no excuse, other than the fact that this forum is unmoderated, and that people are obviously not morally perfect - so they sometimes act out of pique or a bad mood or the like - for such petty, unphilosophical semantic jabs at straw men.

Bill is usually the last sort of person to engage in this. He usually assumes good will too much - see his generous exchanges with what seem to me obvious fools in the dissent forum. I am sure this most minor of course deviations will be easily corrected.

I suggest that if things have gotten to the point where Bill is treating Steve like some unknown quantity, and interpreting his words in the most perverse way possible, there may be others, including ourselves, doing the same. The point of the forum is not to score points by looking for the worst (and usually most obviously false) possible interpretation of what the other person is saying. We know each other well enough to extend the courtesy of willingly trying to understand what the person wants to convey. Anyone who is willing to type more than one sentence at a time here obviously has a point he wants understood. Let's try to understand people's points rather than trying to score points against people.

Post 197

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 2:12pm

I'd sanction Ted's post #196 if I didn't think that everything he accurately identifies as a problem in improperly interpreting others views didn't apply in spades to himself in relation to how he treats my posts on this forum. Oh well!

Regards,
--
Jeff

Post 198

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 2:53pm

Jeff, I haved never once disputed the meaning of your words. I am not opposing actual substantial philosophical agreement. Please link to any instance of my playing semantics with you. You are a pacifist and an abstainer, which you do not deny. I have stated my opinion of those facts - when you bring them up. That you don't like me identifying the moral implications of views which you do not deny you that hold bothers you is your problem.

Congratulations on once again, scoring a point, rather than making a point, and hence proving my point.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 12/20, 4:26pm)

Post 199

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 4:41pm