Indolent and Feckless

[RWStanding]

Indolent and Feckless
In the binary view of ethics to be indolent and feckless is far from a virtue. But this oversimplifies.
In a multi-dimensional ethic a person like that has minimal contribution to society. Making this a universal quality undermines the whole of society so that survival is a question. It is on the side or axis of Chaos something our world is heading for through human lack of knowledge and competence.
However, this does not signify that industry and competence is ‘good’ in any particular way. An industrious person, and even everyone with this virtue, must be acting for a purpose. It is that purpose or ‘end’ that denotes what kind of society is created. In the basic two dimensions of working societies, it may create a tyranny or at least authoritarian society; anarchistic society based on personal autonomy; or altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit. We have a choice or by our existing nature we ‘know’ which of these is ‘good’.

[Walker]

In this scheme of things, are these qualities contagious, if not in the viral way, then in the way that frolicsome and fancy free, can be?

[RCSaunders]

... altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit.

Democracy, alturistic or otherwise, is not, "mutually beneficial," it is only beneficial to the majority at the expense of the minority. It is institutionalize slavery.

[Sculptor]

... altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit.

Democracy, alturistic or otherwise, is not, "mutually beneficial," it is only beneficial to the majority at the expense of the minority. It is institutionalize slavery.

Not really true.
It only operates whilst it stays of benefit to a minority, who control the majority at the expense of powerless minorities and/or outsiders.

[RCSaunders]

... altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit.

Democracy, alturistic or otherwise, is not, "mutually beneficial," it is only beneficial to the majority at the expense of the minority. It is institutionalize slavery.

Not really true.
It only operates whilst it stays of benefit to a minority, who control the majority at the expense of powerless minorities and/or outsiders.

To stay in power in a democracy, the rulers must be seen by the majority of voters as their benefactors. Of course no one ultimate benefits from the destructive power of politics which produces nothing of value and must confiscate whatever it provides from those who actually produce it. So it's a lie, all the way around. There is no way to make democracy benevolent.

[Iwannaplato]

Indolent and Feckless
In the binary view of ethics to be indolent and feckless is far from a virtue. But this oversimplifies.
In a multi-dimensional ethic a person like that has minimal contribution to society. Making this a universal quality undermines the whole of society so that survival is a question. It is on the side or axis of Chaos something our world is heading for through human lack of knowledge and competence.
However, this does not signify that industry and competence is ‘good’ in any particular way. An industrious person, and even everyone with this virtue, must be acting for a purpose. It is that purpose or ‘end’ that denotes what kind of society is created. In the basic two dimensions of working societies, it may create a tyranny or at least authoritarian society; anarchistic society based on personal autonomy; or altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit. We have a choice or by our existing nature we ‘know’ which of these is ‘good’.

One could be an industrious Nazi and find oneself positively compared to someone in preww2 Germany who hates the society but finds, so far, no great way to be industrious there. Or is shocked at the way things are going and feels hopeless and this, temporarily or long term, leads to their fecklessness and indolance. Whatever one's moral system, I think, there will be examples where people who are indolent and feckless have more virtue than there industrious peers.

Sure, some underground rebel, helping Jews get into Switzerland or whatever might score higher, but the feckless might land, understandibly in the face of overwhelming power, in the middle of the spectrum of virtue.

And if you are pro-nazi, well, you can find an example where the industrious of a moral system you don't approve of are causing more problems, according to your value system, than the feckless.

Most of our greatest problems are not created by the feckless.

[RCSaunders]

Most of our greatest problems are not created by the feckless.

I have no idea who, "our," is, but if you want to own others' problems, that's your business. What is certain is, with rare exception, their is only one cause for any individual's problems--their own choices and actions. No one's problems are anyone or anything else's fault. If you have problems, its your fault. (I'm not suggesting you do.)

If the feckless are satisfied with their shallow meaningless lives, it's no one else's business.

[Sculptor]

Democracy, alturistic or otherwise, is not, "mutually beneficial," it is only beneficial to the majority at the expense of the minority. It is institutionalize slavery.

Not really true.
It only operates whilst it stays of benefit to a minority, who control the majority at the expense of powerless minorities and/or outsiders.

To stay in power in a democracy, the rulers must be seen by the majority of voters as their benefactors. Of course no one ultimate benefits from the destructive power of politics which produces nothing of value and must confiscate whatever it provides from those who actually produce it. So it's a lie, all the way around. There is no way to make democracy benevolent.

In the UK its pretty much Rupert Murdoch who has been in control of who says what and who does what.
I do think there are alternatives to this, and the Internet once had the potential to be that change. Now that is controlled by algorithms written in secret rooms.

[Impenitent]

will the government give a feck for the feckless?

-Imp

[vegetariantaxidermy]

... altruistic democracy based on mutual benefit.

Democracy, alturistic or otherwise, is not, "mutually beneficial," it is only beneficial to the majority at the expense of the minority. It is institutionalize slavery.

Not really true.
It only operates whilst it stays of benefit to a minority, who control the majority at the expense of powerless minorities and/or outsiders.

Woke garbage. There is no such thing as a 'powerless minority' in a democracy. Any INDIVIDUAL can (and does) get voted into power!
How many non-Chinese have been in power in China? I bet THAT doesn't bother your tiny woke brain one little bit.