Virtues ethics and a new thinking

Stanislaw Barszczak, Excellence is no act but habit,

 I am convinced that ‘virtue ethics’ by Alisdair MacIntyre, Scottish contemporary thinker, does not give clear guidance to be moral, in terms of how we work, what we should do. Character not actions, happiness depends on ourselves. The traditional ethics we gave incorrect sterilization. I would like to try to describe the genesis of this situation. This is the first impression: I am not moral. But if only I owned a such an impression. Why do good people have to be divided by politics and religion. Now nature can not be identified with deeds. Instrumental dignity. What else is the nature, the other are deeds. And our happiness depends on if you are only on ourselves, it is accepted in advance, and thus already formed (habits). And we should be asking: who am I, who should become, where I come from. For we are what- I say, we do. So, centuries ethics lost the way to an embarrassing ethics of our times. Virtue ethics the principle: be honest is do not lie. Now be honest, perfection means not work, but follow-shaped, permanent procedure. Excellence is no act but habit. We work for a happiness. It is true that we bring values by the Stagiryte, namely applying for life with people in friendship, open to the community, implementing strong values. However, these are created the embarrassing situations. Morality is based on achieving specific happiness (eudaimonia, fittingnees). Today we think of people according to the virtues or vices. We require leaders, our leaders that they were virtuous. And as politicians responsible for our current situation. Weakness of attitude reveals at this time also weakness of character. Some flaws make people great, on the basis of their flaws do they career. Another time distributed sometimes stupid opinion. In this context, also the concept of a great community (big society) portrayed by David Cameron. In a culture is spreading now programs based on the lack of virtues (cf. Big Brothers). There is criticism of precious people for their waste, for a stingness others now. Currently we are in the grip of a way of honesty and loyalty, values in our time which are taken in one way or another by no means, they ones do not help us to act morally. We do not have institutions that defend the man, from time to time just flows out some wise man on the surface of the civilization of mankind of the third millennium otherwise. Sweet exception. The Catholic Church, not to speak of others, leave us alone, placing on the shoulders of Christ the entire man and his human heritage. They are issued attitudes and other behaviors, learning environment based solely on functions (see, classroom). Let me say at this point even of genocide, the victims of terrorism, the only legal and illegal universalizations, by filling the gaps in careers, rationalization of widespread belief, till to the expansion of some close-ups and to specific issues, stimulating attitudes, the evangelization of culture. You see, John Paul II, the public career of this pope. Philosophers dissociate themselves from such moral solutions. Elizabeth Anscombe does not intend to cultivate morality as a duty, as one or another obligation. Alisdair MacIntyre, a Scottish thinker evokes in our days beliefs and choices. He draws our attention to the matter, the essence of choice, accepted standards. But the choice reveals no character, but identity. The Thinker reveals three reasons for lightening current situation: 1) take into consideration the question of whether our particular practice is indeed justified: and this in the context of obligation, duty, power, force up; 2) take into consideration our social life, it is social relations, the role of mother, father, election by fault; 3) take into account economic life choices made by entrepreneurs, etc. Today, the choice is a feature, you need to take into account relevant bonds. Life is sorted, there are sports clubs, parishes, lots of autonomy, moreover, we open to the volatility standards, the permissions for different models or patterns of thinking. Gorbachev’s perestroika was characterized by new thinking. In this context, we can tell about the time (now was the time to act so and so), by imposing penalty, lifting an abortion and other life situations, forms of public debate, in our daily interventions in the form of a permanent procedure (see, habits). The task for us: we have to be with others in their questioning. We need to help people articulate their issues. Today, we speak in the language of choice, we see people in their specific situations, in a drastic situation when, for example, they work in the crematorium. And so we have to abandon something, here are a sovereign power over them, we speak. We have to take into account the type of separation, more and more disseminated situation, there is also a corruption situation. Taking into account these various elements, the situation is called differentiation. What about people who hate. Well. I refer them to the Bible, which is the inspired (the Church says) is made in terms “used by God,” to bring us closer to each other. This book makes us contemporary with Jesus. There is the question of local friendship also. Here is “God’s plan is working, yours not.” Today a doubt is not the opposite of faith, but her element. What’s more we are able to unite faith and doubt (P. Tillich). We want to be understood. Although we have not we appropriate new thinking, we but descend from the pulpit taking- see- the next twenty years of our life to God, we are not consistent in revealing the truth. Politics, is the work of human hands, note here yet. T. Jefferson claimed, the same law, it is the same obvious. Today we shall debate on the existence of rights (ang. existence of the Rights), in the face of rights by Alan Gewirth and Scottish thinker A. MacIntyre taking their criticism. Here is where we intend to justify the universal principles, it comes particularity (membership). What could be the motivation here. Loyalty, could not. It should act according to the rules adopted in the community. I would like to clear this maxim constantly: peace is to rescue, a simple concept peace it is to save. The beauty will save the world. In this era we still have a just peace is built a new solidarity. Though, and in our days and years we have been conflicts and claims for progress,  to prevent social rebellion. Although not zoom most decisive moment. The act must be free, and purposeful. Here, a relationship is valid. There must be freedom of well-being as good one’s (freedom of well-being). This need is something other than ownership rights. Today there is a problem: whether the right exists. It is one thing: ‘have the right’ and another ‘there is the right’. These situations as the need for free speech and the need for water. Friedrich Nietzsche said that the beginning of good and evil is a bad conscience, will of power. We create a master morality and slave morality. The first is based on a system, more capable is to be proud; the last growing resentment, it is the increase of hidden feelings, often envy and hatred. Christianity evokes the morality of duty (see, in duty). This is a solution whose the example made Jesus. But you have to open faithful to this new morality (cf.. Parable of the ten lepers), which is constantly looking for sources of the Second Vatican Council in resolutions of the last century. In this context, it seems a bad conscience is a lack of a generational good, I ponder, and his retraction to the margins of social life. We need to see it. So we agree on the fact that today you have rights and stabilize them. I last secret for you dear readers of my blog on the internet. I would like to tell you about my speech, of language. So, we know that religious language is symbolic, it can not be taken literally, it is something more than sticking to specific words. Who does not want to hear has to speak, Elfriede Jelinek, Nobel Prize winner had spoken. I’m not heeded. “I am a father, who is the mother of my tongue,” she said. I operate in speaking my beloved Polish language, and not only one’s, because I also had painstakingly learned a few modern languages ​​of the world. But I’m lost for words, E. Jelinek said. Because often what I said, it’s unbelievable. I say what is forgotten from the beginning. Speech, speaking – I do not do it! My mind is hazy, like a lantern that … can not help anyone. Is too late to rescue. Millions allow close to it, but not me, says E. Jelinek. My speech was infancy, as I met her. And it has now become a big. With me growing small, I serve life. I am a prisoner of my speech. A sort of the sidelines, here there is a situation as the principle of ‘burnt’ in the game of football. I am a prisoner, but I stay, my place outside. I’m disheveled, my situation before hairstyles. Here’s something life stopped. And that’s why it can be described. But I do not have time to curb speech, stop her (in German, Sprache). Breath louder. Breath on the ground without a foundation. Speaking as a protector, she “intends to bite me.” Language is turning against me. And it is not arbitrary way. Language walks away from me, screaming in the night, always busy, screaming in my solitude. I’m staying. You have become a language that went away from me, tell Elfriede Jelinek. And this is not the way! When I’m on the side (called. Sidelined), the language is without land. My speaking! E. Jelinek throws mooring ropes on the glory of my speech, which had found on the unpleasant way. As a hit, it became unclear. Here futility, vacuum, emptiness. Meaninglessness is the way now. I remain on the sidelines right now. A pity. (Cf. Nobel lecture by E. Jelinek). Respect for the language, speech, is also respect for my country. Dear language defends my patriotism. But I have a problem with patriotism. Here I recall this problem in connection the selection of a kind of morality with. Obviously, it is important and the content and nature of moral behavior. But in the face of Christian morality we put the problem now or alternative liberal morality! The Liberal sticks to his own addiction; Here lack of relevant sources, counts single-own dedication. The Patriot notes further the interests, opens up on what personal. When adapts to the particular community, but detached from the life of this community, I do not have reason for being moral. A prerequisite for morality – a belonging to the community. Liberalism opens on loss of social relationships. It is claimed morality is very important. But the morality of some ideal conditions must be taken into account. Morality teaches the application of moral principles become genuine when liberate themselves from the particularity and accept non-personal position. To act morally, is to act in accordance with these impersonal courts. The moral position requires neutrality. Liberalism says: patriotism is not a virtue. Examples of liberal theories: deontology (the study of duty), utilitarianism and consequentialism, contractionalism (theory of contract, Rawls). To judge from the position of morality, is to judge impersonally (impartially), regardless of my interests and affects social position. Liberal operates detached from its interests- and it is a necessary condition for moral freedom- he says. My interests detached from me. Liberal morality allows for unlimited social critique of the status quo, even in terms of rejection of the current government. And by the way I will say that the presidential elections in Poland, 2015 showed controversial, because half the battle of democracy. Selected candidates, they received nearly in half the votes, I do not remember such a situation in our days. If this is the victory controversial, this is already a victory to measure eras. I continue my question. But otherwise it is in patriotism. Patriotism is act personally. The patriotism exhibited at individual devotion and self-sacrifice. A good soldier can not be a liberal. Embarrassing ethics A. MacIntyre, his virtue ethics is not a clear guidance to morality, no clearly teaches how to act. Although it evokes righteous judgments by Stagiryte and Aquinate. You have to open up to finality of Christ in a pluralistic society. Jesus- the word of God made flesh. Man found peace at last. I would observe women asking now: to death, what is your relationship? We tell ourselves about it yet. God is perfect good. “You have to be good to be a slave.” A living relationship with Jesus, is a gift. God the Father we find when we walk with Jesus in the Holy Spirit. And it is in this relationship becomes free. However, there are concerns epochal, man is faced with anguish (cf. F. Dostoyevsky), it is possible to have a personal integration to reconcile with each other, be all in solidarity (old Zossima in The Brothers Karamazov). Do we believe that something is true? At this point, dishonesty is undesirable. The identification with the suffering mystically revealed character of God. Accept suffering, achieve atonement. It’s not so much about accepting the truth, how much of that is true now. What about people who were not righteous in due time, before Christ. We accept the time of Christ. The truth applied to the whole world, best applicable to. That’s what we said, this is a great dramaturgy of civilization beginning of the new millennium. God was not selected to the people they were alone, but to learn to accept each other and infinitely to love neighbor. Dear readers, this is my best time I spent with you.

Leave a comment