Arete... Virtue Ethics v Rule Ethics

[OnionPeeler]

Arete, as it is handed down to us, it quite late and even included some bizarre homosexual rituals which I will not here repeat.

However, I believe 'arete' in its ancient form to be one of those recurring Aryan characteristics. Think of the ethics of the Illiad or Nietzsche's admiration for the Vikings (in Beyond Good and Evil). I suspect the latter form as 'excellence' is what he found disgusting.

Ancient arete is a bit of stoicism, fatalism and heroism. Courage, honor, kin devotion and honesty (combat cunning is OK though). Roman duty, Germanic heroic resolve, Knightly chivalry are later Western echoes of it. The US Marines made a motto of it "Semper fidelis". They just didn't finish the sentence.

To the Persians it was ereta and in Rig Veda R(i)ta. The constancy and duty of the Aryan is interwined between self and the cosmos.

It has been said of Nietzsche's superman that he is willing to take a chance, cast the die and accept the result - rather than being too fearful to do anything or welching and begging for a new roll. N.s superman is overflowing with barbarian 'arete.' But the barbarian is no longer the stereotype of dumb and uncivilized.

I believe that when this is brought up, it binds Aryans at a level greater than religion. It is a brotherhood of high expectation that Christians, Odinists and atheists can agree on.

[Jack]

Virtue ethics versus rule ethics - which do you hold to?

If virtue ethics, what characteristics of an individual's personality would you consider virtuous? If rule ethics, how do you mix rule ethics with your politics?

Personally, I follow virtue ethics. Kant's categorical imperetive can be twisted until it means nothing (e.g. "In this situation, I expect everyone would do this..."). Aspects I'd consider virtues: generosity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, emotional self sufficiency, courage (in contrast with fear), integrity towards one's ideals, friends and family, respect for one's enemies, and ambition.

[Scáthach]

Respect for one's enemies?
I'm not sure how that works..?

[Moody]

Virtue ethics versus rule ethics - which do you hold to?

If virtue ethics, what characteristics of an individual's personality would you consider virtuous? If rule ethics, how do you mix rule ethics with your politics?

Personally, I follow virtue ethics. Kant's categorical imperetive can be twisted until it means nothing (e.g. "In this situation, I expect everyone would do this..."). Aspects I'd consider virtues: generosity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, emotional self sufficiency, courage (in contrast with fear), integrity towards one's ideals, friends and family, respect for one's enemies, and ambition.

Moody Lawless; You are talking there of Character.
I believe that Rules foster Character [or 'virtue']; therefore the two are mutually necessary.
Take away Rules, and you spoil the character of a people.
This is my main objection to Anarchism etc.,

[Jack]

Respect for one's enemies?
I'm not sure how that works..?

Easy. I may respect and admire the courage and integrity of my enemy, but he is still my enemy. We could be great friends if we weren't opposing each other, but we are, and I might have to fight him to the death but I can still respect him.

Moody Lawless; You are talking there of Character.
I believe that Rules foster Character [or 'virtue']; therefore the two are mutually necessary.
Take away Rules, and you spoil the character of a people.
This is my main objection to Anarchism etc.,

I think your objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race.

[Ederico]

The way I understand Aloysha's first post I believe that Virtue Ethics is more important with self-created rules and directions rather than some Regimented System of Ethics. Yet Society require rules to function orderly, and Rule Ethics might play an important function there.

[Moody]

Aloysha; "I think your [i.e., Moody's] objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race".

Moody Lawless replies; You make the usual Either/Or mistake; i.e., you suggest above that one must either be an Anarchist or a Democrat when you say that I "don't seem to believe in either".

Not so, there are other positions available!

At any rate, I believe that the Rule of Law is Necessary, and that can be applied to nearly all positions, whether monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, fascism, national socialism etc., - EXCEPT Anarchy.

You then 'conclude' that I "don't think much of our race"(!)
Presumably because I would have laws in place!
A false conclusion and marred by a tendency to use ad hominems.

Advocating Law for the White Race is no 'insult' to the White Race!
Indeed, it is that Race, from its earliest Law-Givers, such as Solon and Lycurgus - right up to the Romans, who have given the world the very concept of Law.

So Law is a feature of White Culture which should be retained - it is Liberalism which seeks to undermine Law and Order.

[Jack]

Aloysha; "I think your [i.e., Moody's] objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race".

Moody Lawless replies; You make the usual Either/Or mistake; i.e., you suggest above that one must either be an Anarchist or a Democrat when you say that I "don't seem to believe in either".

Not so, there are other positions available!

I am an Anarchist. You could've asked.

At any rate, I believe that the Rule of Law is Necessary, and that can be applied to nearly all positions, whether monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, fascism, national socialism etc., - EXCEPT Anarchy.

So Law = morality? I don't think you made sense out of what I was saying. 'Rule ethics' refers to Kantian morality, which is, in a nut shell, 'Act the way you would have everyone act'. This doesn't have anything to do with legislation.

You then 'conclude' that I "don't think much of our race"(!)
Presumably because I would have laws in place!
A false conclusion and marred by a tendency to use ad hominems.

Just following in your footsteps. I assume you don't have a problem with that?

Advocating Law for the White Race is no 'insult' to the White Race!
Indeed, it is that Race, from its earliest Law-Givers, such as Solon and Lycurgus - right up to the Romans, who have given the world the very concept of Law.

Hammurabi was a semite. So was Abraham. They had laws.

So Law is a feature of White Culture which should be retained - it is Liberalism which seeks to undermine Law and Order.

Law and Order don't nessecarily go hand in hand.

[Ederico]

Aloysha, please define the terms Rule, Virtue, and Ethics and the meaning of Rule Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Agreeing on definitions is the first step in a discussion.

[Awar]

Apart from respecting your enemy being a noble and virtuous thing to do, it's also wise.

Those who disrespect regularly under-estimate their oponents, give them less credit than they deserve.

It's like a friend of mine, who's a huge muscular guy, who got beat-up by a much smaller oponent. He underestimated his enemy totally, he disrespected him, thought of his enemy as insignificant etc. which only lead to his defeat.

If you think about it, history is full of such examples, where disrespect lead to defeat, unnecessary destruction, loss of life.

I too would say that ethics of virtue are better for me, yet it seems that most men only respect the ethics of rules, or should I say ethics of 'fear of punishment'.