|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
|This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.
lets talk prudence
I added some sections based on this book: http://www.amazon.com/Four-Cardinal-Virtues-Josef-Pieper/dp/0268001030
Four Cardinal Virtues: Theology (Paperback)
by Josef Pieper (Author)
Publisher: University of Notre Dame Press (March 31, 1990)
--Nino Gonzales 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
We should write about the "Four Modes of Imprudence." According to Pieper, there are four specific means to imprudence: thoughtlessness, irresoluteness, cunning, and covetness. Thoughtlessness is acting without thinking, whereas irresoluteness is thinking without acting. Cunning is a mode where your own best interests (compared to simplicity of expression), and covetness is self preservation to insure your own importance and status. --AngrySci (talk) 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The section Prudence#Prudence in economics and finance should link to a 'Main' article on Precautionary saving. But the Precautionary saving article does not yet exist. Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Needs a philosophy student
Maya Angelou said Courage is the most important virtue (by enabling reliable virtuosity), so I thought I'd look up the virtues.
Imprudence is easy to identify eventually (bad results). Prudence, as stated in the article, is too easy to argue against; foresight is knowing the future. Since the future is uncertain, prudence seems to be good-gambling. If an action is supremely reasonable, but somehow turns out badly, this article says it was imprudent. Prudence seems to require omniscience. Random chance, even with reasonable estimation, is not a virtue. Avoiding imprudent action would be doing practically nothing, and apparent prudence would be fortune-telling until tested.
If the article frames prudence correctly, it needs some more philosophical arguments. Like Abelard who argued moral actions should be judged by intent, not results ("I try to be good, therefore I am good"). Maybe some physics theories, determinism (current states bringing the inevitable, or maybe fate) and quantum uncertainty. Or a section on why it's problematic. Gimme somewhere to take the idea of prudence.18.104.22.168 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)