Maximizing Moral Virtue

[brewer]

Inherit? Moral values are a learned concept based on group/tribe/community/society.

Not really. A good person will tend to behave in pro-social ways, and a bad person will tend to behave in anti-social ways. Those kids who broke into my apartment and nearly killed me (true story) didn't "learn" that behavior from anyone, they're just naturally anti-social and wicked.

Why do you think being a 'good person' is inherited/genetic?

Antisocial:
https://www.mentalhealth.gov/what-to-loo...y-disorder
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3920596/

You can wish it to be totally genetic all you want but there is no confirming evidence.

[Belacqua]

Psychopathy is a spiritual ailment. Anti-social people (psychopaths) will cause trouble at the expense of others regardless of upbringing or environment.

Largely we're just rehearsing the old "nature vs. nurture" argument here, but I think it's not that simple. 

I want to emphasize that the variables we have in upbringing and environment are pretty narrow. We live in a fish bowl and swim in the water that largely overrides whatever efforts individual educators can attempt. 

These days they say that even when we're born with a certain set of genetic dispositions, environment and culture can affect the way the genes express themselves. So it seems pretty clear that some people born with, say, less disposition for empathy, could be influenced by their upbringing and environment as to how this disposition leads them to live their lives. If they live in a kind culture, which helps us to take care of ourselves, they might not end up acting out. 

The liberal bourgeois values that dominate this forum of course believe in education as a crucial factor. Social problems are to be dealt with through setting a good example and improved education. This puts the burden on parents and other individuals, as always. It ignores the fact that there are evil harmful values baked into the system we live in. Mr. Goodguy modeling behavior for the kids has no chance against mass media propaganda and constant emphasis on certain types of getting ahead. Or on constant demonstration of the fact that problems are solved through violence. Or on blatant dishonesty from "successful" people. 

Then we have to think about the content of the education and the type of examples being set. Education is always education of something, not just an overall improving radiation. There are people here who think they're setting a good example by constantly passing judgment on others and then scolding them. But imagine someone raised in such a household -- they grow up thinking that judgment and verbal punishment are their right. If you pass judgment on someone and do your best to make him feel bad with words, or if you pass judgment on someone and shoot him, it's a difference of degree and not kind. 

Kindness is held at a very low value, in any kind of disagreement. 

So I agree with you many people have something spiritually wrong with them, if we stipulate that spiritually horrible cultures tend to create such people.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's not difficult to posit that people have more or less natural aptitude for good behavior, and bad behavior. Some people like to grab em by the pussy. Some don't.

Likewise, it's not difficult to posit that a persons upbringing or culture can effect what they consider morally acceptable behavior. Sometimes, your friends think it's okay to grab em by the pussy...and sometimes they don't.

I think the spiritually diseased might want to lay off on all this complaining about spiritual disease.

[h311inac311]

So far I really like this discussion.

     Personally my idea of an ideal moral education system is rather simple, help kids with self-reflection and introspection. After they get into a serious conflict with another student, wait for the dust to settle and have them spend about 20 minutes or so in a room by themselves to write out how they felt. They will be under no obligation to share this journal with anyone and no adult should ever make them feel uncomfortable for not wanting to share their feelings. 
       I think that in today's world we lack emotional discipline despite the fact that difficult situations, people and emotions are to be expected as a part of any person's life. So why wouldn't we try to equip our children with some meditative skills to combat anger, envy or the desire to control another person's actions?

     Teaching morality can be difficult because it is a difficult word to define, however I think that appealing to simple guidelines that most people in the room can agree upon would work; such as honesty or fairness. I think that morality needs to be taught in a more hands off way, allowing kids to sort out their own ideals and morals and encouraging them to follow their conscience and be willing to stand firm in what they believe to be right.

[The Grand Nudger]

Enforced moral standards - cultural relativism - has proven itself capable of organizing societies in vastly different circumstances to similar utilitarian ends. Do you find yourself morally satisfied with the natural state of human beings such that, absent any rigorous instruction, you'd expect the vast majority of us to turn out alright all the same? At least as good as any relativist society might produce?

In a more hands off approach, are there things that you think might need extra or specific attention? Things that might not be obvious to introspection, for example.

[h311inac311]

Enforced moral standards - cultural relativism - has proven itself capable of organizing societies in vastly different circumstances to similar utilitarian ends.  Do you find yourself morally satisfied with the natural state of human beings such that, absent any rigorous instruction, you'd expect the vast majority of us to turn out alright all the same?  At least as good as any relativist society might produce?  

In a more hands off approach, are there things that you think might need extra or specific attention?  Things that might not be obvious to introspection, for example.

I feel like the question of weather or not we should just allow people to follow their own human nature is a difficult one to answer. It seems to me that when people lose confidence in the authorities appointed over them chaos tends to follow, at least for a short while until a new power takes over. More recently we saw this with the Jan 6 protest, but we're also seeing a lot of rioting and looting spread across the U.S. as a whole, mostly due to our dis-satisfaction with politics and justice.

On the one hand I feel like if kids are given some form of proper guidance then it is highly likely that they will turn out decent, even if they do have to rebel for about a decade or so after turning 13. My basic idea is simple: 

     Good leaders > anarchy > bad leaders. 

Any authoritarian structure can become corrupted, any household can be divided by strife. In the end I feel like it all depends on our own strength of will as well as our ability to go against the grain if it means doing what we genuinely believe to be good, not just for ourselves but for our community.

[arewethereyet]

Enforced moral standards - cultural relativism - has proven itself capable of organizing societies in vastly different circumstances to similar utilitarian ends.  Do you find yourself morally satisfied with the natural state of human beings such that, absent any rigorous instruction, you'd expect the vast majority of us to turn out alright all the same?  At least as good as any relativist society might produce?  

In a more hands off approach, are there things that you think might need extra or specific attention?  Things that might not be obvious to introspection, for example.

I feel like the question of weather or not we should just allow people to follow their own human nature is a difficult one to answer. It seems to me that when people lose confidence in the authorities appointed over them chaos tends to follow, at least for a short while until a new power takes over. More recently we saw this with the Jan 6 protest, but we're also seeing a lot of rioting and looting spread across the U.S. as a whole, mostly due to our dis-satisfaction with politics and justice.

On the one hand I feel like if kids are given some form of proper guidance then it is highly likely that they will turn out decent, even if they do have to rebel for about a decade or so after turning 13. My basic idea is simple: 

     Good leaders > anarchy > bad leaders. 

Any authoritarian structure can become corrupted, any household can be divided by strife. In the end I feel like it all depends on our own strength of will as well as our ability to go against the grain if it means doing what we genuinely believe to be good, not just for ourselves but for our community.

Do you have children?

Have you met children?

What is it that makes you some sort of authority on how to raise kids?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Enforced moral standards - cultural relativism - has proven itself capable of organizing societies in vastly different circumstances to similar utilitarian ends.  Do you find yourself morally satisfied with the natural state of human beings such that, absent any rigorous instruction, you'd expect the vast majority of us to turn out alright all the same?  At least as good as any relativist society might produce?  

In a more hands off approach, are there things that you think might need extra or specific attention?  Things that might not be obvious to introspection, for example.

I feel like the question of weather or not we should just allow people to follow their own human nature is a difficult one to answer. It seems to me that when people lose confidence in the authorities appointed over them chaos tends to follow, at least for a short while until a new power takes over. More recently we saw this with the Jan 6 protest, but we're also seeing a lot of rioting and looting spread across the U.S. as a whole, mostly due to our dis-satisfaction with politics and justice.

On the one hand I feel like if kids are given some form of proper guidance then it is highly likely that they will turn out decent, even if they do have to rebel for about a decade or so after turning 13. My basic idea is simple: 

     Good leaders > anarchy > bad leaders. 

Any authoritarian structure can become corrupted, any household can be divided by strife. In the end I feel like it all depends on our own strength of will as well as our ability to go against the grain if it means doing what we genuinely believe to be good, not just for ourselves but for our community.

The trouble with your conclusion is that there are significant differences in what people ‘genuinely believe to be good’. I haven’t a shred of doubt that the January insurrectionists believed sincerely that they were doing good. Same for the recent Buffalo shooter.

And who decides what ‘proper guidance’ is for children? Are you to be the arbiter of that? Your church? Your particular interpretation of your particular holy book?

Boru

[Neo-Scholastic]

Obviously, everyone being of the same morality would be an aspect of an ideal society.

Unless its a shitty morality based on slavery and cannabalism. Just sayin'

[vulcanlogician]

Leaving aside for now the thorny question of what constitutes ‘good moral values’, I think probably the best method of ensuring that your children have the values you want them to have is to lead by example.

I like the "thorny" question better than the question asked in the OP. I feel like if you could give a good answer to the thorny question, the answer to the OP question would follow naturally and effortlessly. Also, you agreed with Aristotle in your post. That doesn't happen very often, so I thought I'd point it out.