RE: virus: New virian virtue

From: Kalkor (kalkor@kalkor.com)
Date: Wed Nov 12 2003 - 20:04:26 MST

  • Next message: Blunderov: "RE: virus: New virian virtue"

    [Metahuman]
    <snip>
    The knight is a hypocrite for he has sworn allegiance to his lord yet has
    gone against his will. However, the knight is honorable (integrity) because
    he remains adherent to the Code of Chivalry which was esteemed far higher
    than allegiance to a particular lord.

    [Kalkor]
    So what you're saying, in effect, is:
    1) The knight esteems the Code of Chivalry higher that allegiance to his
    lord.
    2) When faced with a dilemma between the two (obeying the code of chivalry
    or obeying the lord), the knight choses the one he esteems more.

    That is internal consistency. Whichever way he choses, he lacks integrity
    (unless he can obey both, as promised - integrity). But if he choses the
    lord, he's chosing the code that he esteems LESS, which is hypocrisy. Lack
    of internal consistency.

    [Metahuman]
    I suppose by Kalkor's logic the soldier who enlists in the Marines and
    enters a warzone, saves the lives of his fellow soldiers against the orders
    of his commander is a man of little integrity. ::) Silly logic, Kalkor.

    [Kalkor]
    Your analogy fails to take into account point #1, which paraphrases you,
    above. Your inability to construct analogy does not constitute "silliness"
    on my part. Try again.

    [Metahuman]
    <snip>
    Back to Kalkor's logic now that I have thought about this a bit more...
    Kalkor assumes that consistency and integrity are different enough to
    dilineate. They are not. Although according to simul, integrity is the
    opposite of hypocrisy which would make Kalkor right, however, simul's
    definition of integrity lacks correctness meaning that Kalkor's assertion is
    based on the false assumpton that simul's definition is correct.
    <snip>

    [Kalkor]
    Ahhhhh. I assume, eh? In fact, they are surely different enough to
    delineate. They have separate entries in all the dictionaries I've checked.
    I even checked a thesaurus. The closest those two words came to each other
    were as synonyms for "coherence" (as in "structural integrity").
    http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=consistency
    http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=integrity

    "...according to simul, integrity is the opposite of hypocrisy..."
    "...Kalkor's assertion is based on the false assumpton that simul's
    definition is correct."

    And how exactly do you explain the fact that I've been arguing that
    integrity is NOT the opposite of hypocrisy?

    Now, your problem with my "assumption" about consistency, above, probably
    comes about from your not reading EVERY word in the sentence. "Internal
    Consistency" is what I said, not just "consistency.” Or, as the CoV puts it:

    http://virus.lucifer.com/sins.html
    and
    http://virus.lucifer.com/wiki/hypocrisy
    “When our actions reflect inconsistent beliefs we are guilty of hypocrisy.”

    In the example, inconsistent beliefs can be as simple as professing a belief
    that animal testing of beauty products is bad, but then using beauty
    products that are developed with animal testing.

    Or holding a Code of Chivalry higher than Allegiance to Lord, but then
    chosing to follow the path of Allegience to Lord instead of the Code of
    Chivalry.

    Having two conflicting obligations and then chosing one... while this is not
    hypocricy as long as the one chosen is the one believed to be more important
    or good or right or whatever... this IS however lack of integrity because an
    obligation is broken. A promise made and then not fulfilled shows a lack of
    integrity. Not hypocrisy.

    Kalkor

    ---
    To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 12 2003 - 20:04:07 MST