What is the highest form of virtue?

A hierarchy that varies depending on the situation is exactly the same as no hierarchy.

Hierarchy is arrangement of things in regards to relative importance.

No hierarchy means all are equal in importance. Which is not what this is. Are you being obtuse on purpose or is this a some mental gymnastic?

I understand what the word means, fuck you very much. And a hierarchy that changes depending on the situation is not a hierarchy at all, but rather what I suggested in the first place ie that you decide on a case-by-vase basis what virtue(s) to pursue in a given situation.

Its hierarchy. There is no requirement for hierarchy to be static.

But as suggested earlier, while many people believe virtues' importance changes depending on situation, there are still some people that believe one virtue to be the most important of them all.

>But as suggested earlier, while many people believe virtues' importance changes depending on situation, there are still some people that believe one virtue to be the most important of them all.

And such people are mistaken. There is always a situation where a given "virtue" would be the wrong course of action, morally speaking.

Highest virtue is to be found in a state of sublime unification with the over-mind or world-self. You literally cease to be an isolated subject partitioned from the Thing in Itself ( Kant's Das Ding an Sich) inside a closed tunnel vision of phenomenology.

Matter of fact what happens is just like the Dao in eastern philosophy one becomes harmonized with 'the way' and issues actions from an effortless state of naturalness. One no longer is faced with Schopenhauer's Principium Individuationis in which the act of consciousness divides self from other. Rather life is experienced from the point of view of the world itself.

This matter was settled long ago. Putting virtues on a hierarchy actually means putting certain actions over others. Unfortunately, real-life isn't that simple. Go read Aristotle for the classical take on virtue ethics, Martha Nusbaum for the modern interpretation.

Action-based ethics are fun to discuss in a classroom (preferably after hours, while joking with friends about some dank trolley memes), but in both serious thought and real life, they're essentially useless without serious work.

selflessness in any form imo

What socialization? What exactly was I supposed to be?

>Loyalty is a virtue.... unless you're in the SS.
wow you are so dumb

Pursuit of Truth is the highest

with truth you can get all the rest of the virtues easily, and without it you can think you have the other virtues while not really having them at all

>thinking your happy when people control you
>thinking you have friends when they don't care of you/you don't care of them
>honor in doing savage and amoral actions
>pride when one has nothing to be proud about
>acting kind when doing actions to harm others/oneself

ignorance trivializes all other virtues to the point they might as well not be

Do you value truth in the case of familial bonding?

What of friendship and your own happiness?

Etc. Virtues can easily come into conflict with social peers and when that happens people will choose which virtues they value more

Ataraxia.

Fulfillment

Good point.

Loyalty to an evil cause is not virtuous.

there is nothing evil in nazism according to any nazi, try to have empathy and understand people's logic instead of dwelling in your autism

Non Aggression Principle, stemming from property rights of self ownership. The foundation of a self-contained consciousness-entity-of-self. With big-stick theory (argumentum ad baculum) however words are a pissing game to self gratifying entertainment at will. Morality holds no consistency beyond the notion that one is King and King do what King wants. Divine Right, from God (spit spill and piss whatever you want to another, self IS god, change your word adaption/understanding if you can't understand it).

Life Is a Gift from God
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G003
Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

1/2

What Is Law?
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

2/2

bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G003

Learning how to die.