What ethics a 'Skeptic' has

[Camillus]

I’m sorry, I don’t skepticism is not a virtue. (forgive me but I’m about to go all literal on you.)

http://www.chronique.com/Library/Chivalry/code.htm
The list of medieval virtues. Sometimes known as the code of chivalry.
http://www.novaroma.org/via_romana/virtues.html
and the “classic” virtues both public and private that date back to the Roman Empire.

Nowhere does skepticism or “skeptical” appear. The closest one is “Humanitas: "Humanity" Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured. From the Roman personal virtues.

In fact I would submit that being skeptical for a medieval person would be thought of as sinful. Especially when a large part of their culture was dictated by the Catholic Church, questioning any of that was liable to get a person into big trouble. This is exactly congruent to the reaction many believers have with outspoken skeptics. The reaction of the medieval man to skeptics was often to put them on trial and eliminate them from society.

The virtues that are considered important (and thus make it to the lists) tend to vary through history and are socially mediated. I'm not suprised that scepticism isn't there because I suspect that the Romans would have placed scepticism (as we understand it) in the domain of prudence.

Human beings tend to deal with opponents, particularly opponents who challenge fundemental beliefs, in rather unpleasant ways. The fact that that happens doesn't stop scepticism being a virtue.

I am sure that many honest men have been put to death over the years because they spoke the truth at the wrong time. Does that mean that honesty is not a virtue?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

The virtues that are considered important (and thus make it to the lists) tend to vary through history and are socially mediated. I'm not suprised that scepticism isn't there because I suspect that the Romans would have placed scepticism (as we understand it) in the domain of prudence.

Human beings tend to deal with opponents, particularly opponents who challenge fundemental beliefs, in rather unpleasant ways. The fact that that happens doesn't stop scepticism being a virtue.

I am sure that many honest men have been put to death over the years because they spoke the truth at the wrong time. Does that mean that honesty is not a virtue?

I absolutely agree that honesty is a virtue. But honesty can only reflect a belief of what is true, and truth *can* be a variable. New information can and does change truth. In our world of almost infinite information we find truth changes very quickly. It’s important to look at all sides of a problem and reserve judgment until a preponderance of evidence suggests a conclusion. Unfortunately our culture demands that people take sides and thinks being neutral or uncommitted is something bad – weak.

The fact that some people respond to skepticism negatively is suggestive that skepticism is necessary, probably more now than ever.

 

[jmercer]

I have to say that I think this argument weak. I checked the entry in the same dictionary for “courage”, which is one of the classical virtues, and found no mention of “moral” or “ethics” there either. While it may be that modern language does not regard courage as a virtue I find this unlikely so I would conclude instead that the dictionary is producing a definition based on everyday language use rather than the special use of the term in an ethical debate. I do not think that the dictionary argument counts against my contention that scepticism is a virtue.

Disagreeing with a standard dictionary definition is poor tactic - it's simply an attempt to redefine the english language to suit your purposes. There's nothing weak about citing fundamental definitions from an recognized authoritative source to support an argument or viewpoint. (In fact, it's a hallmark of critical thinking. ) If you do not agree with the standard language definition for "virtue", then I suggest you find a word that fits your criteria... don't try to change the existing word to meet your needs.

Summarizing: "It's a weak argument because I disagree with the dictionary" or "I don't recognize a standard dictionary as authoritative in language definitions" is in itself a weak argument.

A scalpel is indeed a tool and like all tools it has a purpose. Its purpose is to cut well. All we can say about a scalpel is that is a good one when it cuts well and a poor one when it cuts badly. The use to which it is put does not affect whether it is “good” or “bad”.

Correct, and you have proven my point in this statement. Thanks.

Skepticism - a system for determining truth or probably truth of a statement or claim - is a tool just like a scalpel, and tools do not have ethics or morality, by definition. The ethics and morals lie within the intentions of the wielder, and not the tool itself.

The same is also true of human beings: we have a purpose.

Evidence?

The question then is what is that purpose?

First, you must prove that human beings have a purpose; simply claiming that it's true is just an unsupported assertion on your part. Without proving your that your base assertion is true, everything that follows is simply a house of cards based on a shaky premise.

The topic is a good one, but you need to start a new thread if you want to discuss it. This thread is about whether or not skepticism implies ethics and morals... and not about whether humans have a purpose in this life or not.

Which brings me to jmercer’s last point: that the definition of virtue that he agrees does fit scepticism as an “advantage or benefit”

I would argue that he is wrong and that this part of the definition in fact supports my contention that scepticism is a virtue. My answer above about the purpose of humans hopefully makes it clear why I would believe that.

I stand by my assertion, and have provided a reference to an authority that agrees with my definition of the usage of the word. All you have is your personal, unproven and unverifiable philosophical speculations to support your argument. In essence, you have again resorted to the weak arguments of "I disagree with the dictionary" or "I don't recognize a standard dictionary as authoritative in language definitions".

You need to do far better than that if you're going to change people's minds here.