Seeking opinions on "Virtue Knight" project

D

DT Strain

Registered Senior Member
I have just outlined a possible project I may someday undertake, which would be a club of sorts which aims to teach and spread civic ethics and virtue. It would be open to and compatible with people just about any background or faith. Anyway, I would greatly appreciate comments if you care to read it - thanks...

http://virtueknightcode.blogspot.com/
 
Whereas I am among the first to espouse secular morality, I am forced to admit that it is unlikely that I would support such a project.

Though it may seem strange that I would come forth to contribute to your discussion only to criticise, I hope to demonstrate that your idea, if not entirely problematic, is at least difficult enough to put into practice in the theoretical form that you should consider major obstacles before you proceed.

To begin the discussion, I would like to establish that I have no doubt whatsoever that this idea works perfectly within the confines of your mind; many ideas do, and are equipped to deal with any mental eventuality that you can create in the hypothetical realm of their development. So, in our own minds, we are all heroes.

The problem with ideas, however, is often that they do not make the transition to the real world very well. I have a number of immediate objections after reading your site, but of course they are complex and not easily expressed; such is the way of my ideas - unified and elemental in my mind, multivariate and complicated in the real world.

As a result, and in keeping with the tone of the discussion as I foresee it, I will give you a choice. Would you like to discuss:

A) The Failure of Brotherhood
In brief, this describes one of the gaps between concept and execution most succinctly: that the behaviour of groups of people, even those bound in "brotherhood", is neither unified nor subject to sufficient control that they can pursue a long-term goal under their own recognizance. This is not a hard and fast rule of groups of people, of course, but rather a common result of a shift of membership that is very difficult to defend against.
We all sometimes wish that there was a brotherhood of goodness or common sense; it would be nice to know that there was an easy answer for even one of the difficult questions of our lives. However, the more common observation is that agendas fail and are replaced by others, and the most diligent do not always have the best intentions.

B) Whether Evil is Real
This choice would pursue an important question in your world view - what is "evil"? This word is one that you use to describe a person's thoughts and actions under some circumstances, but it is an imprecise term - "slippery", one might say. Before pursuing the development of this Knighthood, you should examine its central tenets very closely, and this idea of evil is too vague to be used as glibly as it is used, for instance, in the "Empathy" subsection of the "The Basis of Virtue" section.

C) The Inseperability of the Virtues
Compassion is not elemental, nor are Reason or Discipline. These qualities are deeply connected in the human mind, and are not seperable in the way that you seem to describe. To divide them thus is to put names on shifting sections of a single thing, like placing paper labels on the surface of the sea. They may float, but it is unlikely that they will stay where you put them. Unless you develop an adequate explanation of how compassion can be divorced from reason, or reason from discipline, it will be difficult to describe the Code as anything other than illogical and meaningless.

D) The Problem of Credibility
Given such internet phenomena as the MAVAV organization and the prophet of the Time Cube (and, dare I add, our own Dr. Paul W. Dixon) I am inclined to reinforce to all readers that you cannot believe everything that you read. Even the most well-intentioned appearance may hide a hoax. The Time Cube prophet is a mechanistic text generator; the MAVAV organization (which was incidentally fake) was created as part of a college psychology experiment into human behaviour.

As a result, I would like to allow DT Strain an opportunity to tell us the truth: Are this site and this discussion really what you make them out to be?

As evidence that you may not be serious, we must weight these two facts in the balance:

1) Real people always have an elaborate fantasy world that they overlay on the real one. Sometimes the fantasies, though untrue, are also mundane - a person may imagine that someone cares about them when that person does not. Other times, they are wildly out of synchronization with the real world, as the person may imagine that they are an Ewok, or perhaps a bloodsucking vampire. You may never know what their thoughts are, but we should all accept that each person sees the world differently from the other, notwithstanding certain probably similarities stemming from the laws of physics.

2) On the other hand, it should be noted that the Code of the Virtue Knight - virtueknightcode.blogspot.com - closely resembles in many ways the Virtues of the Avatar of Britannia, of which this is a brief overview:

The Three Principles

The eight virtues are derived from the three principles of Truth, Love, and Courage. All that is good, or done with good intent, derives from the three principles.


TRUTH

Truth is the truth that is inherent in all things. It is the truth that we discover when we are able to see clearly, free from other distractions.


LOVE

Love is the love that we find in our hearts for all things. Love is what drives us to do acts of kindness. To love is to see beauty and joy all around.


COURAGE

Courage is strength of spirit and determination to act for the greater good. Courage to never give up, and to face overwhelming odds bravely.

These three principles, either separately, or in combination, form the virtues:

From Truth comes Honesty

From Love comes Compassion

From Courage comes Valour

Truth and Love combined create Justice

Love and Courage combined create Sacrifice

Courage and Truth combined create Honour

From Truth, Love, and Courage comes Spirituality

Pride is caused by the absence of the Three Principles, the opposite of Pride is Humility.


The One Principle

Infinity is the One Principle from which the Three principles derive. Truth, Love, and Courage are eternal forces, therefore they derive from Infinity, from which the Three Principles, and Eight Virtues flow.
Click to expand...

This article may be found in its entirety at the following address: www.aowm60.dsl.pipex.com/virtues.html

and it should be noted that the source of this literature is a series of video games, the popular Ultima/Ultima Online series.

As a result of this similarity I must ask whether the Code of the Virtue Knights, which seems strongly influenced by these video games, is in fact a true attempt by you to impose this belief system on the world, or whether this is merely an attempt to make fun of those who join your order, and to profit from their belief by selling them small bits of jewelry and other merchandise, such as the Order rank badges.
 
Thanks for your input BigBlue. No this has nothing to do with video games. Virtue is a real concept with real importance to the world. The use of "knights" as a format is simply to make the teaching and spreading of virtue fun, especially for kids - much in the same way the scouts use the format of quasi-military/outdoorsman imagery.

And no pins will ever be sold, nor any money made from this. If we decided to sell cups or tshirts or something to help promote the program, such would be done at cost.

I think you have some excellent topics that we could discuss about the program, but if you really think this is some sort of scam, then there's not much point. Let me know if you want to discuss any of your numbered items and I'll be happy to consider any of them. Thanks :)
 
Tiberius: It is not that I "think that this is a scam", but rather, my experience tells me from past hoaxes that - barring waiting to see what happens - there is no simple way to tell whether this is a hoax or not. As a moneymaking venture, selling virtue-related paraphernalia to Ultima Dragons and other such interested people would be greatly advanced by an organization like this. As a result, though it may not be a scam, it would probably make a good one nonetheless, and I will have to wait out the result before I know the truth. However, life is fraught with peril, and I am perfectly willing to discuss the possibilities of an attempt at social reform which, for all I know, may be legitimate.

Also, I should emphasize that the reason why I would not join such a brotherhood is not because of my fears that it is a profiteering venture, so much as that it represents an ideological mistake that is at odds with my instincts of social reform. At your leisure we can also discuss the minor points:

E) Some doctrines are created in the belief that those who follow them are lesser in wisdom than those that created them, and are designed to compensate for this fact. This could be called the "agenda" of a doctrine, as opposed to its apparent content.

F) By pursuing the form of a church, as in the idea of an order of knights, one may fall afoul of the problems of the church even while avoiding religion altogether. This relates to the failure of brotherhood in point (A), however, so it ranks as a subtopic at best. See The Brights, both because they may interest you and because they represent this problem to a certain extent. (Being a non-profit organization, they have also decided to maintain their infrastructure by selling merchandise such as t-shirts and hats.) Here is their site: www.the-brights.net

In any case, let us start with point (B), whether evil is real. Before we continue, I would like to hear a definition of evil, hopefully seperate ones from yourself and from DT Strain.
 
You've brought up a good number of issues BigBlue, so I'll see if I can address three of them for now to some degree...

D) Credibility: Yes you are right that there often isn't a way to know of something is just a scam, money-making venture, etc. I suppose when someone started D.A.R.E., the scouts, the first Karate Dojo, etc. that this could have been a scam too for all anyone knew at the time. Those who are suspicious will likely wait and see, and I'm sure there will be some like that.

But there are some indications that I would offer. For one, as I said, rank pins would never be sold (even at cost). These would be paid for by myself or from a pot that people could make donations to if they like. Secondly, although this idea has been placed on the internet, this is not an internet venture. As indicated in the section called "Virtue Knighthood", this would be a learning program to be held in person locally. People would not normally be able to become Virtue Knights over the internet. This would be a casual and public study program for people to send their kids or themselves to (like soccer practice or karate). If (and I stress "if") the program were ever to grow too large for me to handle, then I would see about getting other mentors. And if demand seemed to be present in other cities, then I might consider teaching only one interested person per city until they were able to be a mentor and start their own local order. That would be the only remote access to the program and that's very limited. And again, they wouldn't have to pay anything to enter or to get pins or other items. If I ever charge for rank pins or offer entry for a "low low price of only..." then you can freely put up a site all about how I'm a scam artist :)

B) Evil:
I expect, having their own particular religious views, that different Virtue Knights would have different concepts of what evil is and whether it's "real" or not. When I use the word in the Virtue Knight Code, I simply mean a casual understanding as most would interpret it (people who willfully harm others for nefarious purposes). Regardless of whether evil as an "entity" is real or not, and regardless of what its nature is, the thing that Virtue Knights would agree on (and which most people agree on) is that there are some behaviors that are to be encouraged and some which are to be discouraged. This is a granted if one is to promote the common civic virtues. Surely, there will be some who think that any behavior is just as good as another and ethics is just a silly subjective game with no meaning whatsoever. These people would find nothing of interest in the Virtue Knight program, and that's understood.

F) While we use the word "knight" as a fun descriptor, this is only in the form of the popularized adventurous version of the knight image. The Virtue Knight program would not take the form of a church at all. It's form would probably more closely resemble a cub scout group or a karate class. I don't really know anything about the brights (or any other of the links you've provided) but I'll take a look.
 
Oh by the way, you may wonder why my screen name is different. A long time ago when I first got on this board I used the screenname Tiberius1701 as many people will tend to do. But I decided when starting this project that I would use my real name from here on out (DT Strain). So, I simply need to log on more consistently :)
 
To begin with, I shall consider point (D) closed with respect to any intention on your part since, as you say, only time will tell.

To address point (B), I have a question that may be important.

First, a secular reading of "evil" would tend to give it the status of a term for an arrangement of the world, that is, characterizing a conflict of some kind. However, as you allow for tolerance of other views in the Code, this leaves the door open for a number of belief systems which assign evil its own objective existence, perhaps even as an intelligent being.

If this is the case, it may become necessary to address the fact that this concept of "evil" could be highly detrimental to the Code's common-sense idea of virtue; certainly, the diabolistic concepts that various sects of Christianity espouse in modern times have led to the injury of some of their adherents. In these days, when the civil law in many countries is strong enough to oppose the worst excesses of religious fervor, accounts of people being tortured and killed for religious reasons have decreased, but they still exist.

How will you deal with the fact that many other belief systems which superficially agree with the Code will nonetheless be set at odds with it in the long term? It may be that the Code is only intended to exist under the umbrella of a strong civil Law, and to supplement that Law; were this the case, the idea of evil would already be mostly circumscribed by pre-existing legislation, leaving the Code to concern itself largely with conflict in minor, day-to-day interactions. Still, it seems necessary that the Code should take some position on these ideological conflicts, for those cases where the Law is not present to decide.

To address point (F), I believe that - whatever the spirit of the term "knight" is superficially intended to be, it still carries with it the concept of feudal hierarchy. Before you use either the cub scouts or the martial arts class to characterize your organization, I would like you to recognize that these systems also appeal strongly to the concept of a power hierarchy. The cub scouts were originally developed by Baden-Powell as a youth recruitment organization for the British Army, if I recall correctly. The martial arts have their own rituals and power structure - sensei, shidoshi, shihan - and this is little different from any other, despite attempts to mystify these relationships.

A church can operate without a god to prop it up; if all the people of the world are to be believed, then no more than one church can possibly be correct in their religious assertions. However, thousands of churches exist that are (by the religious logic) necessarily dedicated to false gods; still they survive. It is, then, no stretch of the imagination, to picture that a church may be dedicated to an avowedly non-existent entity, such as a concept, or to a mundane one, such as violin music. The martial arts, which in some cases carry with them a high degree of self-delusion, fit this image fairly well. The adherents of a church dedicated to the mundane need be no less fanatical than the followers of a god. To demonstrate, consider this: the football player and the boxer injure themselves for money, or the promise of money, and that the condition of their lives might be improved. The martial artists, in our modern society, often injure themselves for no such practical reason - indeed, often for reasons nearly incomprehensible to people not in their state of mind.

When you aspire to create a hierarchical organization dedicated to the worship of a concept, this problem needs to be considered as a legitimate and practical difficulty; many will follow, not out of any overarching interest in becoming virtuous, but out of a desire to become powerful - for the higher you climb in the organization, the more people hear your voice.

The Brights are a secular humanist organization and dedicated theoretically to the spreading of those values. However, when one listens to the rhetoric of the organization, something becomes terribly clear.

The Brights, you see, have looked at organizations like the Catholic Church, and seen what an individual can see of it: that the Church is like a giant stone wheel waiting to be nudged in a direction, to roll along and righteously crush everything in its path. Every member of that church will follow, all rolling in unison; together they make a weight that brooks no argument, and their advancing tread can shatter empires.

Rather than recognizing WHY this is dangerous, the Brights have sought to emulate the church. They dispense with the god, because their interest is not so much in a scriptural excuse as in a duplication of the crushing weight of membership. They want to be another juggernaut, seeing this as their only defense. As long as the call of secular humanism will keep them together, the Brights will be safe, hidden within the weapon that they have made of themselves.

How do you think wars happen?

Before going too far into organizing this Order of Virtue Knights, you should consider two things:

1) Why are you making it? Is it truly to promote the development of social mores? And, is it possible to seperate that idea from the idea of seeking the high ground of numerical superiority?

2) What would happen if someone else wrested control of it from you? No leader of an organization ever lasts; Richard Garriott left Origin, and people yet play Ultima. Lenin emancipated the Russians from their royal family just long enough to place them in the hands of Josef Stalin. Since all organizations, insofar as they represent political power, attract people who would use that power to their own ends, can you defend against this effect?
 
BigBlueHead said:
To address point (B), I have a question that may be important.

First, a secular reading of "evil" would tend to give it the status of a term for an arrangement of the world, that is, characterizing a conflict of some kind. However, as you allow for tolerance of other views in the Code, this leaves the door open for a number of belief systems which assign evil its own objective existence, perhaps even as an intelligent being.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say the VKC is a "secular reading" of evil, but rather a reading of evil that it is, at the least, secular. This means that it has a secular component in that it eventually deals with human behavior and effects of that behavior in our world. But it also leaves open the door to the fact that there may be other dimensions to evil. However these dimensions would not be part of the territory covered by the Virtue Knight code or project.

If this is the case, it may become necessary to address the fact that this concept of "evil" could be highly detrimental to the Code's common-sense idea of virtue; certainly, the diabolistic concepts that various sects of Christianity espouse in modern times have led to the injury of some of their adherents. In these days, when the civil law in many countries is strong enough to oppose the worst excesses of religious fervor, accounts of people being tortured and killed for religious reasons have decreased, but they still exist.

How will you deal with the fact that many other belief systems which superficially agree with the Code will nonetheless be set at odds with it in the long term? It may be that the Code is only intended to exist under the umbrella of a strong civil Law, and to supplement that Law; were this the case, the idea of evil would already be mostly circumscribed by pre-existing legislation, leaving the Code to concern itself largely with conflict in minor, day-to-day interactions. Still, it seems necessary that the Code should take some position on these ideological conflicts, for those cases where the Law is not present to decide.
Click to expand...

I have bolded the portion of the above which I think is the central part of your question. True, there will be many religions and individuals who claim to follow the code but do not in practice. That is a danger with any organization. But those particular individuals who take a liking to the Virtue Knight program would tend to be more likely to really appreciate those values. Hypocrisy would be dealt with as best we could, just as any group strives for.

On a secondary note, you are right when you say that we're talking mainly of minor day-to-day interactions. This is not meant to be the foundation for some new world order or something. This is merely an after-school or weekend program to help teach and spread good citizenship and civic virtues. Your questions are interesting, but your general approach seems a little overly grandiose in that respect. :)

To address point (F), I believe that - whatever the spirit of the term "knight" is superficially intended to be, it still carries with it the concept of feudal hierarchy. Before you use either the cub scouts or the martial arts class to characterize your organization, I would like you to recognize that these systems also appeal strongly to the concept of a power hierarchy. The cub scouts were originally developed by Baden-Powell as a youth recruitment organization for the British Army, if I recall correctly. The martial arts have their own rituals and power structure - sensei, shidoshi, shihan - and this is little different from any other, despite attempts to mystify these relationships.
Click to expand...

But this doesn't change the fact that for most people today, the scouts and karate are mainly a place to send their kids to do fun activities, get a little exercise, and learn some discipline. It is this modern aspect of these organizations that I draw a parallel to in attempting to give you a picture of the structure we're going for in the Virtue Knight program. Historic medieval knights also had a lot of dubious things going on, but the fact is today that they have a simplistic adventurous image and so what we're talking about is not much deeper than the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride at Disney Land. I don't think Disney is trying to glorify the brutal history of pirates. In other words, I think you're taking things a bit too literally and overly-analytical. But this is the philosophy forum, after all, so I'm having fun! :)

A church can operate without a god to prop it up; if all the people of the world are to be believed, then no more than one church can possibly be correct in their religious assertions. However, thousands of churches exist that are (by the religious logic) necessarily dedicated to false gods; still they survive. It is, then, no stretch of the imagination, to picture that a church may be dedicated to an avowedly non-existent entity, such as a concept, or to a mundane one, such as violin music. The martial arts, which in some cases carry with them a high degree of self-delusion, fit this image fairly well. The adherents of a church dedicated to the mundane need be no less fanatical than the followers of a god. To demonstrate, consider this: the football player and the boxer injure themselves for money, or the promise of money, and that the condition of their lives might be improved. The martial artists, in our modern society, often injure themselves for no such practical reason - indeed, often for reasons nearly incomprehensible to people not in their state of mind.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that I have "removed god" from an equation because I'm under some impression that this would remove the propensity for fanaticism and dogmatism. I don't think this at all.

When you aspire to create a hierarchical organization dedicated to the worship of a concept, this problem needs to be considered as a legitimate and practical difficulty; many will follow, not out of any overarching interest in becoming virtuous, but out of a desire to become powerful - for the higher you climb in the organization, the more people hear your voice.
Click to expand...

True. And as with all organizations, those that do not really work towards the ideal of the organization, we would attempt to shun and discourage. In details of structure this would be taken into account, and your point is a good one, but I'm not sure what you're suggesting otherwise.

And, on a secondary note, we're talking about a couple of volunteers acting out of a gym or public library space on loan on the weekend. So, I think our fears of powermongering might be jumping the gun a little.

The Brights are a secular humanist organization and dedicated theoretically to the spreading of those values. However, when one listens to the rhetoric of the organization, something becomes terribly clear.

The Brights, you see, have looked at organizations like the Catholic Church, and seen what an individual can see of it: that the Church is like a giant stone wheel waiting to be nudged in a direction, to roll along and righteously crush everything in its path. Every member of that church will follow, all rolling in unison; together they make a weight that brooks no argument, and their advancing tread can shatter empires.

Rather than recognizing WHY this is dangerous, the Brights have sought to emulate the church. They dispense with the god, because their interest is not so much in a scriptural excuse as in a duplication of the crushing weight of membership. They want to be another juggernaut, seeing this as their only defense. As long as the call of secular humanism will keep them together, the Brights will be safe, hidden within the weapon that they have made of themselves.

How do you think wars happen?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I still haven't had a chance to check out the Brights but that sounds bad to me too. Again, I'm not sure what you're suggesting.

Before going too far into organizing this Order of Virtue Knights, you should consider two things:

1) Why are you making it? Is it truly to promote the development of social mores? And, is it possible to seperate that idea from the idea of seeking the high ground of numerical superiority?
Click to expand...

Yes. Yes. and non applicable. I'm not concerned with numbers, just with helping a few folks in my local area. If the program ever took off and other volunteers wanted to helpspread it that would be great, but I see no reason for numerical superiority other than the fact that more people could further the causes of the group to a greater extent. However, these things will grow according to the interest level. I'm not worried about that, just whatever I can contribute.

2) What would happen if someone else wrested control of it from you? No leader of an organization ever lasts; Richard Garriott left Origin, and people yet play Ultima. Lenin emancipated the Russians from their royal family just long enough to place them in the hands of Josef Stalin. Since all organizations, insofar as they represent political power, attract people who would use that power to their own ends, can you defend against this effect?
Click to expand...

If someone wrested control from a non paying position to volunteer their personal time to teach others ethics? More power to them. My goal is that ethics is spread. The reason I'm doing this is because its something that needs to be done that isn't, or at least we could use more of it. If others did it then that's great. If others did it and were corrupt, then I would do my own thing as I am now. I think you're thinking of this as far more heirchial and structured than it is.

Maybe if the Virtue Knight thing ever really took off and became this huge organization then we'd have to think more about these structural issues. But if that time ever came, I'd probably hand it off to someone with more experience running very large nonprofit organizations or something.

All in all, you bring up valid concerns, but your general approach I find defeatist and paralyzing (and therefore impractical and and inefficient). In other words, any of these dangers can be brought up for any human endeavor, but we have to push forward and try to do what we can in the world. If people were consumed with these fears then nothing would ever get done. Surely, the things you mention should be considered as we move forward, but there comes a time when nay-saying has to turn into constructive suggestions of affirmative steps.

Do you have any suggestions for ways to help avoid some of the dangers you bring up that would not include inaction?
 
Rather than any attempt at nay-saying, I am truly interested in how you will try to deal with these problems. The reason why I entered this discussion is largely because I have already witnessed some of the problems I mention hereabove.

The fact that an organization is small, volunteer, or non-profit in structure will not prevent internal rivalry; some of the most bitter infighting that I have ever seen was at a Star Trek convention (O power of the ages...), and the worst political schism I have personally witnessed occured in a martial arts club with a membership of thirty people. Neither represented a great deal of political power or monetary gain, but there are those who will battle tirelessly to seize any position of authority, no matter how small.

Tho' I agree that the original intent of your organization is to spread common-sense virtue, once a network of any kind has been established and is maintained, the organization will represent a small amount of political power. If you have not witnessed this before, I would suggest that you spend some time with another small volunteer organization before (or at least, while) starting your own, as the experience will be very helpful both in understanding how these operations are organized and run, and in how they can go wrong in strange and subtle ways.

For instance, you plan to have a charter or constitution of sorts, in the form of the Code itself. Many organizations operate in a similar manner, setting down both a mission and the terms of operation. Now, in the case of a small volunteer group there are many things which may be left unsaid - for instance, the answers to these questions:
1) Under what terms can the Code be changed? Is it owned by a particular person, or does it (and changes to it) become a seperate copy under the ownership of whoever decides to take it up?
2) Is the organization (if not the Code) owned by a single person? Is it intended to remain under the purview of that single person until passed on to another? (By the organization I mean the infrastructure of your group; for instance, website maintenance.)
3) What happens if the membership becomes too large for one person to reasonably administer to? (By this I mean, too large to meet at the library, or too large to keep up reasonable communication. Many organizations, like Sciforums, require a significant effort from several people to keep them running.)

Sometimes the answers to these sorts of questions are explicit and sometimes they are implied; when they are implied, you might decide whether the organization should maintain some idea of what the answer will be if you are ever asked. (You may note that, when a corporation is created, they are required by law to have a corporate charter setting out certain aspects of their organization.)

Many stories can be found on the Web of people whose plans grew faster than they expected - the Web is a particularly good source of such stories because gaining "mindshare" can literally drive a free website out of business, and so success sometimes has to be dealt with quickly if the succeeder does not want to suffer from it. However, the scenario of an idea growing out of the originator's control is neither rare nor confined to the Web.

It may not be good enough to leave your answers unsaid.
 
BigBlueHead said:
Rather than any attempt at nay-saying, I am truly interested in how you will try to deal with these problems. The reason why I entered this discussion is largely because I have already witnessed some of the problems I mention hereabove.

The fact that an organization is small, volunteer, or non-profit in structure will not prevent internal rivalry; some of the most bitter infighting that I have ever seen was at a Star Trek convention (O power of the ages...), and the worst political schism I have personally witnessed occured in a martial arts club with a membership of thirty people. Neither represented a great deal of political power or monetary gain, but there are those who will battle tirelessly to seize any position of authority, no matter how small.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I see what you mean. You are correct and I definitely think you are offering good points. I have founded and run a different kind of nonprofit educational organization several years ago, and served as Chair for about two years. It was quite a bit larger than what I'm envisioning now and I had to design it from the ground up to account for such issues. We held public events and charitable operations and such, as well as handled financial issues, and had about seven departments, and I'd say that although it didn't grow to huge proportions, I'd call it a rewarding success. So, I have enough experience to say that I definitely know what you mean.

Fortunately, I was able to avoid much rivalry and other conflicts by making sure that structure and rules were laid out specifically and fairly for how the organization would operate. I'm certain that if I noticed the program growing to any extent I would outline a similarly clear and functional structure.

But, just to give you an idea of what I'm picturing here a little more, I'm thinking that, while working a separate job, I would start up a program like this on my own, with perhaps a handful of local participants. We would do various activities as we learned about ethics and virtue. I would create a sort of structure through which the apprentices could rise through the ranks and eventually be "knighted" so it would all be in a very fun context.

Then, let's suppose that someone became a Knight and wanted to continue participating, taking on students of their own. One of the things a Squire would be trained on is rules under which others are trained. If a Knight wants to become a Mentor, then I would decide whether or not to allow the Knight to become one as part of the Virtue Knight program. If so, then the both of us would take on apprentices, with the understanding that I was head of the program (at that point I would technically go from a Virtue Mentor to a Virtue Paladin, since I would be the head of an Order). Then, other Knights might continue to choose to become Mentors over time. All of this would be the growth of one order, being identified by the city.

Now, if we had 2-3 Mentors in the program with their own groups of apprentices and squires, then I would probably stop taking on students myself and start to do very select training of interested individuals, one at a time, in other cities. This would be the only time that training would happen remotely, over the internet, and I would only do this with one active person per city, who is planning on growing a local Order. After that, it would be up to them to grow their local order in person, just as I did.

Now, up to this point, I would pretty much be in control of the "Code", the curriculum, and the program, albeit listening to the advice and input of the other Mentors. I think a degree of benevolent dictatorship is necessary in the beginning. If others had squabbles or something and decided to leave then there would be no hard feelings. They could even start up their own programs under other names and means and the worst that would mean is that others elsewhere are being encouraged to think about ethics. Perhaps even their different take on things would be healthy. But in any case, I would run the show up to this point when it comes to the Virtue Knight program.

However, if there ever came a time where there were perhaps 2-3 or more Orders in other cities, I would then move to a Council system, starting out with clear procedures of how it operates and what it does. The Virtue Knight program would eventually be run by a Virtue Council, which would be made up of representatives from each Order. The Council would vote on various matters, including any changes of the Code. They would also be the only body capable of authorizing and running remote training in cities where there are no Orders.

If it ever got to that stage, then perhaps the Virtue Knights would be fairly well known in their communities and people would recognize those pins when they saw them. That's a nice thought to think of so many people doing positive things in their community, but of course, all of this is assuming a very optimistic take, and is also subject to change based on lessons learned and new ideas, but that's the general structural concept right now.

However, over the next few years, I'll just be organizing and thinking about how I'm going to structure my individual lessons, activities, and Virtue Knight program with a few members in my spare time, once I'm ready to begin the program. If it turns out that it's just me doing something on the weekend for a few years, then I'll be happy enough with that.

One thing I've learned about nonprofits is that you can't push for growth like you do with a company. It has to come from the heart and if people are enthusiastic then it will grow as it grows, no more, no less. That's why, as an individual, I'm just going to do what I think is right and what is fulfilling for its own sake, and whatever happens from there I'll go with.
 
DT Strain,

An admirable idea. I applaud your recognition of the need for a more virtuous approach to contemporary living, and the site looks good as well. The big problem I forsee here is the same one all organized religions suffer from: they're organized. More often than not, the message becomes obscured by the dressings one foists upon it.
Perhaps a more secular, humanist type approach would be more apropos?
 
Glaucon,

Thanks for taking a look and for your input! I know what you mean about the dangers of organization (the tendency toward dogmatism). But there are different "levels" of organization and so this problem will vary from one to the other. One thing that should help is the very notion of freethought and anti-dogmatism is embedded into the Code itself. Many of its values are actually quite humanistic.

Also, when you suggest that a more "secular" approach might be better, it leads me to think you may have an idea about the nature of the project which is different than it is. The content of the Code is entirely secular, and the structure of the program is not "church-like" at all. It's more activity and discussion based. In that respect, its gatherings would be much more similar to the humanist or other meeting and events than to a worship service, by any stretch.
 
Given your recent addenda to the site of the Virtue Knights, I find that (as often happens) I have not explained myself entirely clearly; this is no great surprise to me, as the same often happens in conversation. The only recourse, usually, is to revisit the topic in question.

The concern I expressed before regarding the ways in which religion would relate to your Code was twofold, and I believe that you have one sense of the question, but not the other.

With respect to religious tolerance between members (which I think is a very important point), I believe that you have a practical medium-term solution. I have some concerns that religious tolerance, in the final analysis, is unethical - largely because it is an implicit acceptance that truth is relative to the individual, which (as an atheist) I am unwilling to accept. This is a minor point, however, and tolerance is more acceptable than any other option when you are not asking people to change their world-view (or at least, not very much). As such, we can consider this point adequately addressed.

However, the other sense of how religion relates to your Code - the imagery that you use - is more important perhaps than you realize at the moment. Interestingly, you have yourself supplied some examples to support my efforts to explain this; I shall not fail to make use of them as fairly as I can.

You have recognized how Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer has become deeply entrenched in popular culture, despite the relatively short time that this particular icon has existed. I submit to you that the image of the Knight contains more cultural bias than you necessarily give it credit for.

Now, when you use the image of the Knight, I understand that your intent is to evoke the recent, cheerful image of the knight-errant that we see in many stories and games. The presentation of this character is largely secular (although some aura of sacred imagery generally hangs about them still) and most people do not think that the image owes anything immediately to the Christian church. This character inhabits an environment where life and even violent conflict are simple and rewarding, and success and failure can be linked directly to strength of character (a popular idea). There are several simplifications that lead to this idea, most of them literary:

1) The knight is generally removed from ethical concerns. When he engages in violent conflict, it is generally either with unreformably evil characters (like our old friend Mordred) or with fantastic creatures like dragons, whose malignance puts killing them beyond reproach. Even conflict between knights is only in a context of equal footing, where both participate to prove the strength of their character. Tests of willpower and determination are common, but difficult decisions are rare. Also, consequences are rarely if ever mentioned; it is not addressed that, if the Black Knight has a family, they are treated as if they are implicitly part of his evil schemes and deserve to be fatherless in an uncaring world.

2) The knight, if he is ever injured, either dies cleanly or is only injured superficially. In the real world a broken leg - even with proper medical care - often will never again be as good as new. The knight, however, will not ever receive an injury that is permanent. Any non-mortal wound only requires a certain amount of bed-rest after which he will spring up, good as new. Also, disease is unheard of in this context; knights do not get diseases.

The result of this imagery is that, although no god is specifically mentioned, we must nonetheless accept that the world caters to the good of the knight in some way, in exchange for his disciplined lifestyle. The real world, particularly the natural world of physics and chemistry and biology, does not pay any attention to your intent or strength of character.

Now, you are using this image explicitly to ask people to be something - that is, see themselves as a knight. As such you will need to address the fact that, even as you use this popular image to characterize how a person should comport themselves, the very image of the knight will undermine your real intent.

The study of ethics itself is the study of how to deal with difficult decisions and the unfair nature of our everyday life. Too often we see that fortune goes to the foolish and lazy, that the dishonest person is more successful than the honest one, and that terrible things happen to people with no reason or sense, but only by happenstance. The truth is that our world is not the world of the knight in shining armour, with his implied deity looking out for him, and this is why the study of ethics is so important.

Ethics is about the hard questions that the knight-errant was never required to answer in those old stories: Can we hold all people equally responsible for their actions when some are deluded or mentally ill and others are not? Can uninformed consent really be considered consent? Does the fact that a person thanks you for hurting them negate your wrong action?

The world is full of complex and difficult questions. Many on this board ask whether all people can be considered equal when they feel that there are salient differences between certain kinds of people. Whereas a normal person will consider racism to be wrong, they will still accept many other divisions - between adults and children, between successful and unsuccessful, between healthy and sick. Choosing which divisions are reasonable - or useful - and which are not is an extremely difficult problem, and almost any system of ethics is destined to be unfair in certain situations.

As such, I do not take issue with the fact that the historical knight was a Christian. Rather, my concern is that the common image of the knight still retains a halo of implicit holiness, and that the actions of some undisclosed agency work within his life to ensure that his conflicts are solely in terms of skill and willpower, and that all decisions he must make have only two answers - a right one and a wrong one. It seems unwise to me to use this image, with all of its spiritual weight, to characterise an organization whose purpose is to study and improve common-sense ethics.

The implication is that by taking on this position as a Virtue Knight, one will make one's life easier - not because knowledge will be imparted that will make one more informed, but rather because one is now a knight and knights need only answer easy questions and only fall into struggles which require nothing but pure willpower and strength of character to win through.

What if a person of "evil" intent nonetheless has greater strength of character than you do? Nothing prevents this. A person who fights for their own self-interest can fight just as hard, and use the same techniques, as a person who fights for a greater good.

As I have been somewhat unclear in the past, I shall clarify here. It is not that one should not struggle to improve one's ethics, but rather that couching the struggle in an image that implies easy answers may be detrimental - or attract people for the wrong reason.
 
Glaucon: Being a secular humanist organization in no way abrogates the problems inherent in organization. Imagine if a religious group was burning your house down, an army under the banner of their god. Now, replace the banner of their god with a banner of a trombone, or a mathematical equation. Does that help? Not really. I shall not reiterate my thoughts on this issue as they are represented above, but all organizations are subject to the same problems.
 
BBH: It was not my intention to imply asmuch. Moreover, a banner held aloft by adherents of a belief is somehow always more dangerous than one held by those who support a theory .
 
Very true.

But, when people support a theory without understanding it, then it is a belief.
 
I've read through your site.
I've picked out some points that I find problematic; whereby this choice is not complete:

All quoted passages from http://virtueknightcode.blogspot.com/


What does it mean to craft a modern way of life? The way of the Virtue Knight must be, first and foremost, ethical. It must embody all of the best things about humanity. It must be a guide for virtuous living. In this way, it becomes useful to the world.
Click to expand...

BigBlueHead addressed many problems here and I agree with his viewpoints. I'll only add some other things I find upsetting:

What is ethical? Usually, in practical everyday life, the most ethical is to break the rules that have become too narrow for the current situation. What is ethical cannot be prescribed in advance.

What are the best things about humanity? I am sure valid counterarguments can be found to anything anyone would venture to answer to this question.


Third, it cannot over step its bounds and infringe on individual personal beliefs. It must not make unwarranted claims to the favor of any one religious model and must instead not tread in this area.
Click to expand...

This is impossible.
Even if Virtue Knights would be such people to whom the above applies -- your intent is that Virtue Knights act in a social environment, and in this social environment, there is plenty of people who feel that the Virtue Knight's action has infringed on their beliefs, even though the Virtue Knights may not think so.

Who is to judge then if an act of a Virtue Knight was indeed useful? What good is an act if the recipient of it does not think it useful?


You know, "Superman, thank you for saving me, but did you really have to enter through the wall? Have you any idea how much it will cost to fix that?! Why didn't you enter at the door?"


It must give room for Knights of differing opinions on specific matters of conscience.
Click to expand...

In this case, you can forget about the Virtue Knights forming a viable organization.
In a social organization like a tribe, people can have differing opinions, but it still works out for them as they are a tribe not by their own choice.

As soon you have a social organization based on choice, it loses the obligating character of a tribe, and with it, that genuine sense of feeling like a member.


Sixth, it must embody many of the best lessons of philosophy, history, and spiritual traditions, and bring them together into a new holistic understanding with all of these other elements.
Click to expand...

Seeing that you use "must" so often, I will spare you with criticism.
You can say "it *must* embody many of the best lessons of philosophy, history, and spiritual traditions, and bring them together into a new holistic understanding with all of these other elements" -- but not that this *can* actually be done.


The Virtue Knight makes it known to the world that he or she is a person who strives for ethical conduct, good citizenship, and who respects and tolerates diversity and democracy - even while having more specific beliefs which they may or may not share with other Virtue Knights. Therefore, the Virtue Knight Code is both ethical, individualist, and pragmatic.
Click to expand...

... and out comes political correctness. Sorry, but it's true.


In all of these instances, human beings are striving for goodness and decency.
Click to expand...

But don't forget that what is decency to one, may be indecency to another.


These many gods, rituals, traditions, beliefs, and philosophies are the embodiment of the human struggle for truth, compassion, and goodness. Whether or not a particular tradition is on the proper path toward goodness or true enlightenment can be debated, but the fact is that all human societies attempt to find a path.
Click to expand...

This is so general that it is useless.


Through the will of focus, a Virtue Knight takes note of those things which he or she has and what he or she can work with.
Click to expand...

He/she. *She* is a Virtue Knight?! A knight, traditionally only a male, with the whole historical apparatus bound to males -- this term is now also to be used for women? In order to masculinize them, or something?

The suggested term may work in English. But your idea is to go cross borders, right? What about languages that know gender in nouns, and in which the word for "knight" is masculine. New words would have to be invented in those languages -- which is easy when it comes to modern, popular words. But take an old traditional word like "knight" -- you can't do much with it anymore. In German, for example, do you propose a female knight is to be "die Ritterin"?
A word, so heavily laden with historic connotation to be something specifically male -- now a word for women? No way.


The Virtue Knight makes an active effort every day to appreciate that which is good while it lasts.
Click to expand...

What, are you suggesting that a Virtue Knight is to think in terms of "while it lasts"? This is a perspective the apathic take, people who think they have no control over things, who think that they cannot really influence them.
Not to say we can have full control.

But from a motivational perspective, saying "appreciate that which is good while it lasts" is negative, rendering the person who conceptualizes reality this way rather helpless.

Imagine saying that soccer is a game based on the principle of mistakes. This is not a wrong observation. But motivationally, it is not good to think this way. You try to go and play soccer, always having in your mind "I must not make a mistake, I must watch out for the opponent to make a mistake" -- it will paralyze you!

The same, if you keep telling yourself "appreciate that which is good while it lasts" while watching a sunset, for example, will disable you to enjoy it.


Each of these lines of thought are presented in the order for which most human beings will usually develop understanding. They progress from most primitive to most morally mature or enlightened.
/.../
This is how we would measure the progress of a member of the Virtue Academy. Offering a system of achievement would give members something to strive for and be proud of in their pursuit of ethical excellence. The ranks would also help give structure and organization to the Virtue Knight program.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to *plan* ethical development?!
Of yourself, of other people?
As if ethical development is some sort of business?

Do you really believe that virtue can be gained/achieved directly, by nominally striving to gain/achieve that virtue?

Do you really believe that one can become, say, compassionate, by explicity striving for compassion?
 
Gaucon,
Yes, it is mentioned in there that it is not conclusions which are held to, but a process of reaching conclusions.

Big Blue,
The "hard questions" you bring up are precisely the sort of issues that will be dealt with in ethical deliberation and discussion. It is not my aim to teach specific conclusions for every specific instance, but rather to get the person thinking in ethical terms about those issues, to review some of the many arguments for general ethical principles, and then to encourage further investigation of these issues on their own, in their faiths, and so on. It is fully expected that Virtue Knights would often engage in vigorous debate between one another on the more specific matters of how these general principles apply and manifest themselves in action. This may be second nature to we, who are into philosophy, but to many this sort of spirit is still not awakened, and could be.

As for thinking that this format implies "simple answers" I am not a fan of authoritarian ethical commandments. Again, I think you are taking too much account of historical knights. And, while those who are sensitive to any sort of Christian influences and also very knowledgeable about historical knighthood may make similar false conclusions, I really doubt this will have any detectable effect on the whole. I think what you're worried about here is like being afraid that people might collect illegal weaponry and form a resistance movement in the Salvation Army because they use the word "army".

Water,
Thanks much for reading and for your comments. Your points are certainly well thought out, but I think you are looking at every slight wording as a philosophy professor critiquing a paper that claims to make philosophic statements of truth. This is not the intent of the site, which aims only to give a general outline of the sort of approach we're going for.

In a sense, this sort of approach emphasizes the very problem with much of philosophy today. It is so paralyzed by continual agonizingly picky analysis that it has become a completely detached and useless endeavor, taught only for the sake of teaching it to others, as an intellectual game, with no useful application in real life. In other words, philosophy did this to itself.

It is true that literally any statement can be picked to pieces and there will be questions about their accuracy (and exploring those issues can be fun). However, at some point people have to be able to actually do something useful. The fact is that, even with such questions regarding the ultimate nature of ethics, truth, good, and logistical and structural issues, it does make very much sense for people of different faiths to work together in areas that overlap, for which there are many. It also makes perfect sense to want to spread attention to ethical conduct in society and, no, it is not imperitive that every possible question as to what "ethical conduct" means be answered conclusively before the endeavor of highlighting ethics is helpful to society. There have also been other multi-faith activities that have been beneficial and have proven wrong the fact that such types of things "can't work".

It is a nice form of entertainment to question definitions, pick apart sentence structure, and question logical arguments. But I'm looking for issues which can realistically have something useful to offer in terms of practical changes to the program that would help its mandate. I'm not looking for all the reasons why it "could never work", how it will bring about the next holocaust, and why it's better to sit on my couch and do nothing.
 
BigBlueHead said:
Very true.

But, when people support a theory without understanding it, then it is a belief.
Click to expand...

I fully concur. Which is why it's scary today how science has become a religion....
 
DT Strain said:
Thanks much for reading and for your comments. Your points are certainly well thought out, but I think you are looking at every slight wording as a philosophy professor critiquing a paper that claims to make philosophic statements of truth. This is not the intent of the site, which aims only to give a general outline of the sort of approach we're going for.
/.../
It is true that literally any statement can be picked to pieces and there will be questions about their accuracy (and exploring those issues can be fun).
/.../
It is a nice form of entertainment to question definitions, pick apart sentence structure, and question logical arguments. But I'm looking for issues which can realistically have something useful to offer in terms of practical changes to the program that would help its mandate.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something: If I were to join your Academy, you would certainly want to kick me out -- for I have proven that my approach is not compatible with yours. But on what grounds would you kick me out? What real reasons would you give me -- other than that you don't like me?
It seems to me that my idea of virtue is vastly different than yours. But you do want your Academy to be all multi-culti! How is that ever going to work, if there are people like me? It will work only for those who need a guru and who wish to see you as a guru.


DT Strain said:
I'm not looking for all the reasons why it "could never work", how it will bring about the next holocaust, and why it's better to sit on my couch and do nothing.
Click to expand...

This is a false either-or. It is not like the only two choices in the world are
1. joining the Virtue Knights Academy
2. sit on one's couch and do nothing.

Some people have friends with whom they can do fun and useful things.

* * *
I asked you some questions in my previous post, and you haven't answered them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top