Alonzo Fyfe

Hmmm. So, let's try it this way.

Agent is a good role model if and only if Agent exhibits those character traits that a person ought to exhibit.

A statement to the effect that "character trait C makes Agent a good role model," and, at the same time, "There is absolutely no (other) reason that for Agent to have character trait C."

So, we have a trait C. Nothing whatsoever can be said in its favor, except that having C makes one a good role model. How in heck can character trait C be a component of being a good role model unless there exists some (other) reason to recommend character trait C?

"Son, you should be like Agent."

"Why?" asks son.

"Oh, no reason, There's nothing particularly special in being like Agent. But, still, you should be like Agent."

I sense a problem with this.

So, for trait C to be a component of being a good role model, there must be SOMETHING (independent of being a good role model) to be said for recommending C. For all C that are traits indicative of being a good role model, there must be some reason R, independent of being a good role model, recommending C.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I were to say, not that everybody has an obligation to be a good role model, but that everybody has role-model independent reasons to do those things that, it just so happens, would make one a good role model. Either this is true, or the hypothetical conversation between father and son given above makes sense. The hypothetical conversation makes no sense. Therefore, this is true.

Bad Kitty

I'm gonna need some REALLY good pot before this makes any sense to me.

Pyrrho

I was with you until the following sentence:

"Perhaps it would be clearer if I were to say, not that everybody has an obligation to be a good role model, but that everybody has role-model independent reasons to do those things that, it just so happens [emphasis added], would make one a good role model."

No, it is no a coincidence at all (nor do I think you really believe that, even though that is more or less what you stated) that one has an obligation to do those things that make one a good role model. I think it might be useful to define a good role model:

A good role model is one who does what one is obligated to do, and refrains from doing what one is obligated to refrain from doing. A perfect role model does all that one is obligated to do, and refrains from everything one is obligated to refrain from doing.

Thus, one should be a good role model, but not simply for the sake of being a good role model, but because one should do what one is obligated to do, and refrain from what one is obligated to refrain from doing.

Alonzo Fyfe

Pyrrho: I accept your terms as a friendly amendment.

Pyrrho

That is good, as that is the way it was intended.

From reading several of your posts in various threads, you make a lot more sense than most people who post here.

long winded fool

If you wish to be a hermit in Alaska making pinecone statues and inciting squirrels to riot, you have an obligation to be a "good role model" crazy hermit. The obligation to be a good role model is an obligation to do what you think is right at all times to the best of your ability. Thus, though the crime lord is not "considered" a good role model by the public, he still has an obligation to be the best crime lord he can be and to do what he feels is "right." We can disagree with his idea of "right," but that only affects whether he is considered a good role model. As long as he is pursuing his idea of right to the best of his ability, he is fulfilling the obligation that all humans have to society. When he does what he knows is wrong, he is failing his obligation to be a "good role model." Good role models don't purposely do "wrong" things.

That said, one could then make an argument that, though Hitler is subjectively considered an evil man by the majority, he may have been a "good role model." Maybe not for everyone else, but in his own eyes and the eyes of those who shared his beliefs he was the model human being. (assuming) Therefore, Hitler fulfilled his obligation to be a good role model. He didn't have an obligation to be considered a good role model by everyone, and neither does the crazy Alaskan hermit. The best Nazi is a good role model for other Nazis, and the crazy hermit is a good role model for anyone else who wants to be a crazy hermit. If this is truly their respective beliefs, they are obliged to act in absolute accordance with them. When they fail to do so, they are failing to be a good role model and are acting immorally.

Pyrrho

I disagree completely. A "crime lord" has no obligation to be "the best crime lord he can be" (perhaps you mean by that phrase the most effective at being a crime lord?), as one cannot have an obligation to be bad. The "crime lord" has an obligation to not be a crime lord. Very probably, the "crime lord" knows that he does wrong, but prefers to do wrong because of the monetary gains he can thusly obtain. If he doesn't know this, then he is "criminally insane".

long winded fool

If this were the case, then we would be operating from the "majority rules" assumption that whatever the majority thinks is good, is good. (From a legal standpoint this is fine, but from a philosphical one I must disagree.) A crime lord may not be at all bad in his own eyes. He's bad in everyone else's eyes. Everyone else may have an obligation (or at least a strong compulsion) to convince him otherwise, however, he has an obligation to be "good" at all times, however he defines it. If the majority can change his definition, then he will become a good role model and also be considered a good role model by others. If I happen decide that the majority is mistaken and calling something that is actually bad, good, I have an obligation to do what I think is good, not what they tell me is good, and by doing so would be being a good role model regardless of majority opinion. As it is with the crime lord. If he knows he is wrong, he is not a good role model. If he knows he is right, then he disagrees with the majority and has an obligation to do what he feels is right and thus BE a good role model. (Despite the fact that we may not CONSIDER him a good role model.) We can call him "criminally insane" and forcibly re-educate him, but he still has an obligation to do what he thinks is the right thing to do to the best of his ability at all times.

Perhaps "crime lord" was an unwise analogy. The point is, by doing what I feel is right regardless of what "they" feel is right, I am being a good role model. If what I feel is right is what they feel is wrong, then I am being a good role model without being considered a good role model. If we both agree, I can be both. I only have an obligation to be the first, however.

Alonzo Fyfe

False dichotomy. There are more options other than "believed good to the person who is making the judgment" and "believed good to the majority of society."

There is, for example, the distinction between "believed good for X" and "good for X", in the sense that the person who refuses to eat because he believes that it causes cancer still can not deny the proposition that eating is good for him.

In addition, the "the individual" and "the majority" represent only two of a virtually infinite number of ways to divide up a group of people -- if, indeed, they are to be divided up at all. There is also, for example, "the super-majority" or "those with purpose hair" or those who can roll their tongue." To say that the options must either be "the individual" or "the majority" is to pick two arbitrary members of the collection of "subsets of all people."

Now, the "subset" that I think works best is "good for everybody, all things considered." This is quite distinct from "liked by everybody" or even "believed to be good for everybody," where those beliefs are based on incorrect data such as "eating causes cancer." The question concerns, "what is good for everybody in fact."

The character traits of a good drug lord are not character traits that are "good for everybody, all things considered." Which is why crime lords are not good role models. A good role model is a person who has those characteristics that are "good for everybody, all things considered" and is lacking those character traits that are "bad for everybody, all things considered."

Vandrare

so is the argument now getting to the idea that - each person has an obligation to be the best person they can be (perhaps according to their own beliefs as LWF states or based on the best evidence at the time of whats best for them)? this is then irrespective of any role model issues because we're talking about everybody's lives as a matter of course not their influence on others. am i understanding this correctly?