Also, morals heavily do vary

for example

I can't really, y'know

Own a person right now.

@Alice Redacted Aristotelian virtue isn't a list of rules, it's a list of qualities that a person has. In my view you teach children qualities like wisdom and courage - you don't for the most part tell them exactly what to think.

Slavery, as generally agreed upon, is bad

Today

what's wise? What's courageous?

@Alice Redacted I thought that's fluid and relative?

Wisdom to one might be foolish to another

A few hundred years ago its pretty much universally accepted

Courage to one might be idiocy to another

no a specific action might be courageous to one and idiotic to another

that's what I'm saying

the abstract concept of courage is agreed upon to be good

It's too abstract and has no applicable use

the question is how to apply that fact specifically

kind of like "virtue"

Don't confuse not being able to explain how bread is ultimately constituted with an inability to bake bread

Virtue is too vague of a term to have any real meaning

Also, why should we teach said subjects?

You can build virtue without having an atomic understanding of it in the way you suggest

What are you teaching then?

It seems to me as if you're merely just teaching a word

Praising a word

You teach virtue not through words, but by showing people how to muster their emotions to be disciplined

"muster their emotions to be disciplined"?

It's like strength training, there is a knowledge component in terms of skill, but they build that skill and they build their strength through practice

Are you implying that emotions must be cracked down upon?

That the very thing which separates man from beast must be destroyed

Animals most certainly have emotions

Oh, of course

they're certainly more fleshed out in humans, and we're able to express them to a greater degree

I'm talking in a more abstract sense, though

I suppose "beasts" or "monsters" would have been a more apt word

perhaps "machines", whatever word you care to use

Cracking down on emotions is a road to cruelty, to inexcusable behavior, not befitting of humankind

If you cannot control your emotions, you cannot keep promises, because you will only keep your promises until they become difficult and you no longer "feel" like it

I contend

That if one can "control" their emotions, they'd be more willing to break promises and oaths, as they'd feel no regret, no remorse, and no pity for having broken said agreement

Arguably, emotions reinforce oaths of loyalty and such