tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87746592640929204552024-03-12T22:26:27.862-07:00VIRTU3EVERYTHING MATTERSJacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-9130295999207090122016-06-27T21:08:00.001-07:002016-06-27T21:08:50.302-07:00VIRTU3 and ChristianityThe theological structure of the Trinity makes Christianity a uniquely VIRTU3OUS religion.<br />
<br />
God the Father is the consequentialist aspect of the divine. He is the source of all creation and cares more about outcomes than intentions or actions.<br />
<br />
Jesus is the ethical aspect of God. As fully human, he is capable of engaging with all other humans on a peer-to-peer basis. We are individually free to accept or reject his teachings.<br />
<br />
The Spirit is the moral aspect of God. The Spirit is universally benevolent towards all of creation and hopeful for the redemption of even the most depraved among us.<br />
<br />
Some Christian sects try to elevate one of these aspects above the others. Father God sects focus on a prosperity gospel and divine retribution. Spirit sects focus on the social gospel and benevolent (missionary/ministry) works. Christ sects focus on a more personal gospel and redemption through grace.<br />
<br />
In attempting to live a life that pleases all three aspects of God, Christian trinitarians are encouraged to be fully VIRTU3OUS - productive, respectful and benevolent. This has led to Christendom being the most prosperous, humane and generous civilization in the world.Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-28258728056986717192015-03-15T10:13:00.000-07:002015-03-15T10:13:58.781-07:00VIRTU3 and DeathThe theory of VIRTU3 classifies human behavior using three domains: consequences, ethics and morality. I think seeing how the theory of VIRTU3 applies to death will helps to understand and apply it to life.<br />
<br />
When looking at death from a consequential point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone is dead. We can know someone is alive. We can be in the dark about whether or a person is alive or dead.<br />
<br />
When looking at death from an ethical point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone acted in a way that directly lead to someone's death. We can know nobody acted in a way that lead to the person's death. We can be unsure about whether or not anybody acted in a way that lead to somebody's death.<br />
<br />
When looking at death from an moral point of view, there are three possible options. We can know someone wanted that person dead. We can know nobody wanted that person dead. Or we can be in the dark about whether or not anybody had a death wish for that person.<br />
<br />
So the theory of VIRTU3 has 27 ways to classify any particular death status. I'll just focus on the eight fully-informed situations and leave out the consequential, ethical and moral "in the dark" possibilities for the rest of the discussion. So someone can be DEAD or ALIVE, their death can be NATURAL or ARTIFICIAL, and their death can be DESIRED or UNDESIRED.<br />
<br />
CASE 1: ALIVE, NATURAL, UNDESIRED<br />
Living. This is the status of almost all of us in our day-to-day lives. We are, in fact, alive. We aren't facing a deadly peril. Nobody hates us so much they'd be happy to hear of our deaths.<br />
<br />
CASE 2: ALIVE, NATURAL, DESIRED<br />
Hated. Someone hates the person and wants him dead. This situation would include the planning time before a murder. It would also apply if someone just hopes another person dies, but isn't taking any actions that would lead to that other person's death.<br />
<br />
CASE 3: ALIVE, ARTIFICIAL, UNDESIRED<br />
Accidental near miss. Someone acted in a way that could have killed someone out of carelessness. The person, thankfully for both the actor and the potential victim, survived.<br />
<br />
CASE 4: ALIVE, ARTIFICIAL, DESIRED<br />
Attempted murder. Someone acted in a way that could have killed someone because he wanted to kill that person. He did not succeed.<br />
<br />
CASE 5: DEAD, NATURAL, UNDESIRED<br />
Passed away. This is death by natural causes, including illness and natural phenomenon (e.g. tornadoes, floods, fires, earthquakes). It would also include situations where a causal link to another person's actions are too unclear or indirect to assign blame.<br />
<br />
CASE 6: DEAD, NATURAL, DESIRED<br />
Hated dead. In this situation the death was natural, so even someone who hated the dead man and was actively planning to kill him would bear no ethical responsibility for the death. It could also include situations where a causal link to another person's actions are too unclear or indirect to assign blame.<br />
<br />
CASE 7: DEAD, ARTIFICIAL, UNDESIRED<br />
Manslaughter. Anyone who dies because of another person's careless, but non-malevolent, behaviour falls into this category. There was no intent to kill, but there is still a clear and direct causal link between someone dying and the actions of another person.<br />
<br />
CASE 8: DEAD, ARTIFICIAL, DESIRED<br />
Murder. Intentional, premeditated murder.<br />
<br />
When the topic of death comes up, justice follows on its heels. The theory of VIRTU3 is about assessing human behavior, about figuring out the proper way to act given everything we know. About figuring out what type of punishment is appropriate for each situation. Clearly murderers (CASE 8) must be brought to justice. Manslaughter (CASE 7), too, should be dealt with, though less punitively than murder. The enemies of the hated dead (CASE 6) should be left in peace, though the cleverest murderers will seek to kill by sufficiently indirect methods that investigators mistake CASE 8 murders for CASE 6 deaths. As for those who die of natural causes (CASE 5), death is often more punishment than they and those they leave behind deserve.<br />
<br />
Attempted murder (CASE 4) cannot be ignored or treated much less harshly than successful murder. In non-fatal, but injurious near-miss situations (CASE 3 with harm), most people believe damages of some kind are owed to the victim. But is it ever appropriate to punish someone who hasn't harmed another person but has acted recklessly (CASE 3 without harm)? The time and energy needed to ferret out secret hate (CASE 2) makes any punishment for this situation cost-prohibitive and socially corrosive. Finally, for the living (CASE 1), life is reward and punishment enough for those of us fortunate enough to experience it.Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-9925565416909788432014-03-05T18:00:00.000-08:002014-03-20T16:32:44.770-07:00The Relativistic PlaneThe plane in VIRTU3-space that is exactly half-way between the VITRU3 and 3VIL corners is the relativistic plane. This plane is where most political and cultural battles are fought. On this plane, no position is is better or worse than any other from a fully virtuous perspective.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fXT2XPVUCeg/UvfVbqGU0vI/AAAAAAAABdg/Djge8fFIKkc/w967-h561-no/THE_RELATIVISTIC_PLANE.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fXT2XPVUCeg/UvfVbqGU0vI/AAAAAAAABdg/Djge8fFIKkc/w967-h561-no/THE_RELATIVISTIC_PLANE.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Relativistic Plane in VIRTU3-space</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yZ69QT4-yYM/Uvf2cCAtd5I/AAAAAAAABdg/feYjypskBRw/s576-no/THE_RELATIVISTIC_PLANE_TD.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-yZ69QT4-yYM/Uvf2cCAtd5I/AAAAAAAABdg/feYjypskBRw/s576-no/THE_RELATIVISTIC_PLANE_TD.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Relativistic Plane</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
From the perspective of the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-3-types-of-blindness.html">selectively blind</a> or the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-3-types-of-absolutism.html">absolutist</a>, there are huge differences between different parts of the relativistic plane. One of these six ways of looking at the world becomes dominant as you approach each of the six edges of the hexagon-shaped relativistic plane.<br />
<br />
It's easier to get people to rally around absolutism, so most political parties or social movements drift towards the red, blue or green edge.<br />
<ul>
<li>Moral absolutism tends to be associated with progressive movements</li>
<li>Ethical absolutism tends to be associated with independence movements</li>
<li>Consequential absolutism tends to be associated with conservative movements</li>
</ul>
Institutions tend towards one of the three blindnesses due to their fundamental incentive structures.<br />
<ul>
<li>Organized religious/ideological institutions grow out of particular combinations of ethical and moral beliefs. Consequential blindness comes from the tendency of these types of institutions to stick with official doctrines despite (or even because of) the destructive results of past applications of those ideas.</li>
<li>The core purpose of governments is to punish immoral behaviors (intentional murder/theft/etc.) and protect or reward moral behaviors (with renown/subsidies/etc.). Governments can drift towards ethical blindness unless they are vigilantly policed by powers outside of their legislative/judicial purview.</li>
<li>Markets exist as a successful set of ethical rules that allow for peaceful trade between relative strangers. Once it reaches a certain size a market becomes morally blind as participants have no way to know anything about the moral intentions of other participants.</li>
</ul>
<br />Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-50842630119841473582014-02-26T18:00:00.000-08:002014-02-26T18:00:01.287-08:00Institutional VIRTU3Most institutions grow out of a set rules for two of the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-3-domains-of-virtu3.html">three domains of VITRU3</a>. Communities depend on a set of moral and ethical standards to avoid conflicts and resolve disputes peacefully. Markets function through a set of ethical and consequential conventions that foster mutually beneficial exchanges. Governments grow out of the attempt to codify a set of moral standards that will lead to long-term positive outcomes. Each of these institutions is subject to one of the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-3-types-of-absolutism.html">three types of blindness</a>.<br/>
<br/>
The table below shows how differences in the priorities of institutions contribute to conflicts within and between societies. True VIRTU3 comes from each of these institutions compensating for the weaknesses in the others.<br/>
<br/>
<table style="text-align: center;border:1px solid black;border-collapse:collapse;" border=1>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19%"></td>
<td style="background-color:aqua" width="27%"><b>COMMUNITY</b></td>
<td style="background-color:fuchsia;color:white" width="27%"><b>GOVERNMENT</b></td>
<td style="background-color:yellow" width="27%"><b>MARKETPLACE</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>DOMAIN</b></td>
<td>Moral & Ethical</td>
<td>Moral & Consequential</td>
<td>Ethical & Consequential</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>PLUS/MINUS</b></td>
<td>Right & Good/<br/>Wrong & Bad</td>
<td>Positive & Good/<br/>Negative & Bad</td>
<td>Right & Positive/<br/>Wrong & Negative</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>CATEGORY</b></td>
<td>Theory & Beliefs</td>
<td>History & Beliefs</td>
<td>Theory & History</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>TIME</b></td>
<td>The Present & Future</td>
<td>The Past & Future</td>
<td>The Past & Present</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SPACE</b></td>
<td>Local</td>
<td>National</td>
<td>Global</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>HIGHEST<br/>VALUE</b></td>
<td>Idealized Truth</td>
<td>Idealized Authority</td>
<td>Revealed Truth</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>MEASURE OF SUCCESS</b></td>
<td>Population Growth</td>
<td>National Autonomy</td>
<td>International Influence</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>BASIS</b></td>
<td>Self-Knowledge &<br/>Human Nature</td>
<td>Self-Knowledge &<br/>Observed Results</td>
<td>Human Nature &<br/>Observed Results</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>STYLES OF<br/>REASONING</b></td>
<td>Intuitive &<br/>Deductive</td>
<td>Intuitive &<br/>Inductive</td>
<td>Deductive &<br/>Inductive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>FAILURE<br/>MODES</b></td>
<td>Self-Delusion/<br/>Logical Fallacies</td>
<td>Self-Delusion/<br/>Black Swans</td>
<td>Logical Fallacies/<br/>Black Swans</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SOURCE OF ERROR</b></td>
<td>Consequential Blindness</td>
<td>Ethical Blindness</td>
<td>Moral Blindness</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>MORAL PHILOSOPHY</b></td>
<td>Religion</td>
<td>Interventionism</td>
<td><i>Laissez-Faire</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SCIENTIFIC PRIORITY</b></td>
<td>Social Correctness</td>
<td>Social Engineering</td>
<td>Engineering</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>JUDICIAL EMPHASIS</b></td>
<td><i>Mens Rea</i> &<br/>Fault-Based Liability</td>
<td><i>Mens Rea</i> &<br/>No-Fault Liability</td>
<td>Fault-Based Liability &<br/>No-Fault Liability</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>RELIGIOUS FOCUS</b></td>
<td>Divine Grace & Justice</td>
<td>Divine Grace & Favor</td>
<td>Divine Justice & Favor</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>ECONOMIC TOOLS</b></td>
<td>Economic Philosophy &<br/>Economic Praxeology</td>
<td>Economic Philosophy &<br/>Econometric Analysis</td>
<td>Economic Praxeology &<br/>Econometric Analysis</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL NARRATIVES</b></td>
<td>Aspirational<br/>Rationalism</td>
<td>Aspirational<br/>Pragmatism</td>
<td>Rational<br/>Pragmatism</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>AMERICAN POLITICS</b></td>
<td>Progressive<br/>Movement</td>
<td>Bipartisan<br/>Establishment</td>
<td>Conservative<br/>Movement</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL ECONOMICS</b></td>
<td>Cooperative Socialism</td>
<td>Regulatory Corporatism</td>
<td>Market Capitalism</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL HIERARCHY</b></td>
<td>Cooperative<br/>Meritocracy</td>
<td>Authoritarian<br/>Collectivism</td>
<td>Market<br/>Aristocracy</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL POWER-GROUP</b></td>
<td>Revolutionary<br/>Patriot-Insurgents</td>
<td>The Government<br/>(Civil & Military)</td>
<td>Reactionary<br/>Patriot-Insurgents</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL FAILURE MODE</b></td>
<td>Revolutionary<br/>Fragmentation</td>
<td>Military<br/>Totalitarianism</td>
<td>Reactionary<br/>Fragmentation</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-80252410471863179392014-02-19T18:00:00.000-08:002014-02-19T18:00:03.063-08:00Personal VIRTU3The <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-3-domains-of-virtu3.html">three domains of VITRU3</a> show up in many other areas of human action. The table below shows how some important conflicts and differences of opinion map back to fundamental disagreements about the nature of virtue. The columns represent the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-3-types-of-absolutism.html">three absolutist stances</a> on each of the different topics. More complex, nuanced views would apply to the <a href="http://virtu3.blogspot.com/2013/12/the-3-types-of-blindness.html">three blindnesses</a>. A full understanding of VIRTU3 comes from synthesizing these views without compromising any of them.<br/>
<br/>
<table style="text-align: center;border:1px solid black;border-collapse:collapse;" border=1>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td width="19%"></td>
<td style="background-color:blue;color:white" width="27%"><b>INTENTIONS</b></td>
<td style="background-color:lime" width="27%"><b>ACTIONS</b></td>
<td style="background-color:red;color:white" width="27%"><b>RESULTS</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>DOMAIN</b></td>
<td>Moral</td>
<td>Ethical</td>
<td>Consequential</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>PLUS/MINUS</b></td>
<td>Good/Bad</td>
<td>Right/Wrong</td>
<td>Positive/Negative</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>CATEGORY</b></td>
<td>Belief</td>
<td>Theory</td>
<td>History</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>TIME</b></td>
<td>The Future</td>
<td>The Present</td>
<td>The Past</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SPACE</b></td>
<td>Hearts and Minds</td>
<td>The World of Forms</td>
<td>The Real World</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>HIGHEST<br/>VALUE</b></td>
<td>Ideals</td>
<td>Truth</td>
<td>Experience</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>MEASURE OF SUCCESS</b></td>
<td>Popularity</td>
<td>Wisdom</td>
<td>Prosperity</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>BASIS</b></td>
<td>Self-Knowledge</td>
<td>Human Nature</td>
<td>Observed Results</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>STYLE OF<br/>REASONING</b></td>
<td>Intuitive</td>
<td>Deductive</td>
<td>Inductive</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>FAILURE<br/>MODE</b></td>
<td>Self-Delusion</td>
<td>Logical Fallacies</td>
<td>Black Swans</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SOURCE OF<br/>ERROR</b></td>
<td>Belief ≠ Reality</td>
<td>Theory ≠ Reality</td>
<td>Data ≠ Reality</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>MORAL<br/>PHILOSOPHY</b></td>
<td>Intentionalism</td>
<td>Natural Law</td>
<td>Utilitarianism</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>SCIENTIFIC<br/>PRIORITY</b></td>
<td>Social<br/>Advancement</td>
<td>Procedural<br/>Correctness</td>
<td>Practical<br/>Utility</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>JUDICIAL<br/>EMPHASIS</b></td>
<td><i>Mens Rea</i></td>
<td>Fault-Based<br/>Liability</td>
<td>No-Fault<br/>Liability</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>RELIGIOUS<br/>FOCUS</b></td>
<td>Divine<br/>Grace</td>
<td>Divine<br/>Justice</td>
<td>Divine<br/>Favor</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>ECONOMIC<br/>TOOLS</b></td>
<td>Economic<br/>Philosophy</td>
<td>Economic<br/>Praxeology</td>
<td>Econometric<br/>Analysis</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL<br/>NARRATIVES</b></td>
<td>Aspirational</td>
<td>Rational</td>
<td>Pragmatic</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>AMERICAN<br/>POLITICS</b></td>
<td>Democratic<br/>Party</td>
<td>Liberty<br/>Movement</td>
<td>Republican<br/>Party</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL<br/>ECONOMICS</b></td>
<td>Socialism</td>
<td>Voluntaryism</td>
<td>Capitalism</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL<br/>HIERARCHY</b></td>
<td>Progressive<br/>Meritocracy</td>
<td>Associative<br/>Individualism</td>
<td>Traditional<br/>Aristocracy</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL<br/>POWER-GROUP</b></td>
<td>Scientific-Technical<br/>Elite</td>
<td>Guerilla<br/>Patriot-Terrorists</td>
<td>Military-Industrial<br/>Complex</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td style="background-color:gray;color:white"><b>POLITICAL<br/>FAILURE MODE</b></td>
<td>Totalitarian<br/>Communism</td>
<td>Feudal<br/>Anarchy</td>
<td>Totalitarian<br/>Fascism</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-5809056656369689702014-02-12T18:00:00.000-08:002014-02-12T18:00:01.252-08:00The 10 Commandments of VIRTU3<ol>
<li>Live virtuously at all times.</li>
<li>Act only with good intentions towards yourself and others.</li>
<li>Act only in accordance with the rights of yourself and others.</li>
<li>Act only in ways that will yield positive results for yourself and others.</li>
<li>Do not act with bad intentions towards yourself or others.</li>
<li>Do not wrong yourself or others by your actions.</li>
<li>Do not act in ways that will yield negative results for yourself or others.</li>
<li>Do not use good intentions to justify wrong actions or negative results.</li>
<li>Do not use right actions to justify bad intentions or negative results.</li>
<li>Do not use positive results to justify bad intentions or wrong actions.</li>
</ol>
Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-72879893002032474552014-02-05T18:00:00.000-08:002014-03-20T16:33:30.539-07:00The 3 Types of BlindnessSome people believe that one of the three domains of virtue is completely irrelevant. Because of this belief, they voluntarily blind themselves to the full view of VIRTU3-space.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Moral Blindness</h4>
Those who believe that morality is irrelevant are susceptible to moral blindness. For the morally blind, ethics and consequences are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the moral intentions that led to the behavior. Immoral behavior is justified and wholly excused by correct ethics and positive outcomes. Moral blindness is associated with sayings like "fake it 'til you make it" and totally rejects personal morality as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how the morally blind orient VIRTU3-space. The yellow and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The blue and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either ethical or constructive, but not both.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-f48BW2jqR6Q/UrNbmSIr18I/AAAAAAAABdg/t-f6BYxnjKA/w1168-h678-no/MORAL_BLINDNESS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-f48BW2jqR6Q/UrNbmSIr18I/AAAAAAAABdg/t-f6BYxnjKA/w1168-h678-no/MORAL_BLINDNESS.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<h4>
Ethical Blindness</h4>
Those who believe that ethics are irrelevant are susceptible to ethical blindness. For the ethically blind, morals and consequences are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the ethical nature of the behavior. Unethical behavior is justified and wholly excused by correct morals and positive outcomes. Ethical blindness is associated with sayings like "you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs" and totally rejects ethical rights as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how the ethically blind orient VIRTU3-space. The purple and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The green and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either moral or constructive, but not both.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6XITHmDdPug/UrNbmtTvqPI/AAAAAAAABdg/MT9e1zskWY8/w1190-h685-no/ETHICAL_BLINDNESS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-6XITHmDdPug/UrNbmtTvqPI/AAAAAAAABdg/MT9e1zskWY8/w1190-h685-no/ETHICAL_BLINDNESS.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<h4>
Consequential Blindness</h4>
Those who believe that results are irrelevant are susceptible to consequential blindness. For the consequentially blind, morals and ethics are the only standards of virtue. An action can be judged as wholly good without any consideration of the real or predictable outcomes of a given behavior. Destructive behavior is justified and wholly excused by personal morality and correct ethics. Consequential blindness is associated with sayings like "do what's right, come what may" and totally rejects real-world results as having any weight, even as a secondary or side constraint.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how the consequentially blind orient VIRTU3-space. The aqua and white corners are considered equally virtuous. The red and black corners are considered equally vicious. The other four corners are mixed, since they are either moral or ethical, but not both.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-q0muuZM31MU/UrNbmsC7bOI/AAAAAAAABdg/c7MpH70Le0k/w1278-h680-no/CONSEQUENTIAL_BLINDNESS.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-q0muuZM31MU/UrNbmsC7bOI/AAAAAAAABdg/c7MpH70Le0k/w1278-h680-no/CONSEQUENTIAL_BLINDNESS.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-80166457929075105422014-01-29T18:00:00.000-08:002014-03-20T16:33:56.142-07:00Centered VIRTU3Doubt reigns in the center of VIRTU3-space. There are many circumstances where there just isn't enough information to make any judgments about a particular behavior. We might not know what someone intended, so it's hard/impossible to make a determination about their morality. We might not know who has what rights based on the full history of interactions, so ethical judgments might be conflicted or uncertain. It might be unclear what the full long-term results of any particular action are, so it can be unclear if the action is creative, destructive or somewhere in between.<br />
<br />
The center is, in my opinion, where all of us are born. Each of us may, based on in-born temperament, be more attracted to some part of VIRTU3-space. Temperament aside, most of us are ready and able to learn and follow the particular morals, ethics and expectations of our societies. A free society is one where a wider variety of temperaments can find full expression. A restrictive society is one where little or no accommodation for personal temperament is made.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UmwIB3SIRuI/UrM0ptws46I/AAAAAAAABdg/Rn_birmiDPk/w1163-h685-no/CENTERED_VIRTU3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UmwIB3SIRuI/UrM0ptws46I/AAAAAAAABdg/Rn_birmiDPk/w1163-h685-no/CENTERED_VIRTU3.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Centered VIRTU3 Framework</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-31160599623579339362014-01-22T18:00:00.000-08:002014-03-20T16:34:25.697-07:00Simple VIRTU3Three independent axes in geometry form 3D-space. Similarly, the three independent domains create a VIRTU3-space. Unlike 3D-space, VIRTU3-space is finite. A self-aware, omniscient being has the capacity to be perfectly moral, ethical and creative. That same self-aware, omniscient being has an equal capacity to be perfectly immoral, unethical and destructive. These two points are opposite corners of the Simple VIRTU3 framework. All of the corners are listed in the table below. Any and every judgement about intentions, actions or results fits into this framework.<br />
<br />
<table style="text-align: center; width: 100%;">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td style="background-color: blue; color: white;" width="20%"><b>Morality</b></td>
<td style="background-color: lime;" width="20%"><b>Ethics</b></td>
<td style="background-color: red; color: white;" width="20%"><b>Results</b></td>
<td width="20%"><b>Coordinates</b></td>
<td width="20%"><b>Color</b></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Moral</td>
<td>Ethical</td>
<td>Creative</td>
<td>(1,1,1)</td>
<td style="background-color: white; color: black;">White</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Moral</td>
<td>Ethical</td>
<td>Destructive</td>
<td>(1,1,-1)</td>
<td style="background-color: cyan; color: black;">Aqua</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Moral</td>
<td>Unethical</td>
<td>Creative</td>
<td>(1,-1,1)</td>
<td style="background-color: magenta; color: white;">Purple</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Immoral</td>
<td>Ethical</td>
<td>Creative</td>
<td>(-1,1,1)</td>
<td style="background-color: yellow; color: black;">Yellow</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Moral</td>
<td>Unethical</td>
<td>Destructive</td>
<td>(1,-1,-1)</td>
<td style="background-color: blue; color: white;">Blue</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Immoral</td>
<td>Ethical</td>
<td>Destructive</td>
<td>(-1,1,-1)</td>
<td style="background-color: lime; color: black;">Green</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Immoral</td>
<td>Unethical</td>
<td>Creative</td>
<td>(-1,-1,1)</td>
<td style="background-color: red; color: white;">Red</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Immoral</td>
<td>Unethical</td>
<td>Destructive</td>
<td>(-1,-1,-1)</td>
<td style="background-color: black; color: white;">Black</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9SqXqt1Gp5g/UrMti1t7LjI/AAAAAAAABdg/-phToRaLx8w/w1160-h685-no/SIMPLE_VIRTU3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="235" src="https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-9SqXqt1Gp5g/UrMti1t7LjI/AAAAAAAABdg/-phToRaLx8w/w1160-h685-no/SIMPLE_VIRTU3.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">The Simple VIRTU3 Framework</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-48748521097223043882014-01-15T18:00:00.000-08:002014-03-04T17:21:11.992-08:00The 3 Types of AbsolutismSome people believe that one of the three domains of virtue is the only one that matters.<br />
<br />
<h4>
Moral Absolutism</h4>
Those who believe that morality is all that matters are moral absolutists. For a moral absolutist, ethics and consequences are both irrelevant. An action can be judged as wholly good as long as the intentions that led to the behavior are good. Destructive or unethical behavior is justified and wholly excused by good intentions. Moral absolutists totally reject ethical egoism and consequential utilitarianism as having any weight, even as secondary or side constraints.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how a moral absolutist orients VIRTU3-space. Any of the four corners on the top are considered good by a moral absolutist. All four corners on the bottom would be viewed as bad.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QdRIg9FTKCs/UrNTs2jjEoI/AAAAAAAABdg/LeSmc1HU3R4/w1159-h569-no/MORAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="313" src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-QdRIg9FTKCs/UrNTs2jjEoI/AAAAAAAABdg/LeSmc1HU3R4/w1159-h569-no/MORAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Moral Absolutism</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h4>
Ethical Absolutism</h4>
Those who believe that ethics is all that matters are ethical absolutists. For an ethical absolutist, morals and consequences are both irrelevant. An action can be judged as wholly good as long as the behavior did not violate the ethical rights of anyone. Immoral or destructive behavior is justified and wholly excused by proper ethics. Ethical absolutists totally reject personal morality and consequential utilitarianism as having any weight, even as secondary or side constraints.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how a ethical absolutist orients VIRTU3-space. Any of the four corners on the top are considered right by an ethical absolutist. All four corners on the bottom would be viewed as wrong.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9CSh9_E4-kc/UrNP5epN_CI/AAAAAAAABdg/ERJZhJEhias/w1170-h552-no/ETHICAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="301" src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-9CSh9_E4-kc/UrNP5epN_CI/AAAAAAAABdg/ERJZhJEhias/w1170-h552-no/ETHICAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Ethical Absolutism</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<h4>
Consequential Absolutism</h4>
Those who believe that results are all that matters are consequential absolutists. For a consequential absolutist, morals and ethics are both irrelevant. An action can be judged as wholly good as long as outcomes are productive. Immoral or unethical behavior is justified and wholly excused by good results. Consequential absolutists totally reject personal morality and ethical egoism as having any weight, even as secondary or side constraints.<br />
<br />
This figure shows how a consequential absolutist orients VIRTU3-space. Any of the four corners on the top are considered constructive by a consequential absolutist. All four corners on the bottom would be viewed as destructive.<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UnN6OtpsCfM/UrNP5bUhiXI/AAAAAAAABdg/w82nMt_m7I4/w1278-h569-no/CONSEQUENTIAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="284" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-UnN6OtpsCfM/UrNP5bUhiXI/AAAAAAAABdg/w82nMt_m7I4/w1278-h569-no/CONSEQUENTIAL_ABSOLUTISM.png" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Consequential Absolutism</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-23010552618539749572014-01-08T18:00:00.000-08:002014-01-08T18:00:04.806-08:00The 3 Domains of VIRTU3Human behaviors may be judged from three separate and equally valid domains. These domains are categorically distinct and each must be considered to get a full picture of the virtue/vice of a given behavior.<br />
<br />
<h3>The Moral Domain</h3>
Moral behaviors are motivated by good intentions. The most basic example of moral intentions is wanting yourself and others to find lasting happiness.<br />
<br />
Immoral behaviors are motivated by bad intentions. The most basic example of immoral intentions is wanting yourself or others to find existential despair.<br />
<br />
Moral judgments precede behavior. They are applicable only to what's going on in the mind of a specific individual. Moral judgments focus on the intentions that lead to human behaviors. They are future-oriented, idealistic judgments.<br />
<br />
<h3>The Ethical Domain</h3>
Ethical behaviors conform to the code of conduct appropriate to mindful selves. The most basic example of ethical action is the act of argumentation. Each participant respects, at a bare minimum, the right of all other participants to agree to disagree.<br />
<br />
Unethical behaviors violate the code of conduct appropriate to mindful selves. The most basic example of immoral action is enslavement. One person is willing to use force up to and including summary execution to induce another person to obey.<br />
<br />
Ethical judgments are made of behavior as it occurs. They are applicable only to specific actions of specific individuals. Ethical judgments focus on the procedural norms for human behavior. They are present-oriented, rational judgments.<br />
<br />
<h3>The Consequential Domain</h3>
Creative behaviors yield positive results. The most basic example of creative outcomes is expanding the supply of basic necessities (food/water/shelter) for yourself and others.<br />
<br />
Destructive behaviors yield negative results. The most basic example of destructive outcomes is wastefully reducing the supply of basic necessities (food/water/shelter) for yourself or others.<br />
<br />
Consequential judgments are made of outcomes after the fact. They are applicable to the results of the actions of one or more individuals. Consequential judgments focus on the observed results of human behavior. They are past-oriented, utilitarian judgments.<br />
<br />Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8774659264092920455.post-16545923582942125352014-01-01T18:00:00.000-08:002014-01-02T15:45:25.884-08:00The 3 QuestionsHow do you know if some behavior is virtuous? Just ask these three questions:<br />
<ol>
<li>Is it done with good intentions?</li>
<li>Is it done with respect for the rights of everyone involved?</li>
<li>Is it is it likely to yield positive results?</li>
</ol>
If you can answer yes to all three, then it's virtuous.Jacob Asplundhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12435456198259507503noreply@blogger.com0