Posted on

THE MEANING OF LIFE – CATEGORIES OF VIRTUE

“The superior man thinks of virtue; the small man thinks of comfort.” – Confucius

 

 

Having distinguished ethics, virtue, and morality last time, today we address the categories of virtue. Of course there are many traditions of ethics each with its own categories of virtue, but I will address the four most influential systems: Confucian, Buddhist, Classical (Greco-Roman), and Christian.

Confucius identifies three critical virtues that identify the superior man: Jen, benevolence to other men, Li, rules of propriety and socially acceptable behavior (including etiquette), and Hsiao, filial piety which includes not only respect for one’s parents and teachers, but also the law and order of society. He also teaches that the superior man places virtue above venal self-interest.

Buddha’s eightfold path encompasses his categories of virtue: Right Views (Buddha’s teachings), Right Thoughts (aspiration to purity and charity), Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Livelihood, Right Effort (avoid lapses and frailty), Right Mindfulness (awareness of the truth of the doctrine), and Right Concentration (spiritual exercises leading to awakening).

More familiar to Western readers are the Classical moral virtues – courage, justice, temperance, and prudence.* Socrates sees these as distilling down to knowledge or wisdom. Aristotle sees the first three as the mean between two vices (for example courage is the middle course between recklessness and cowardice). Throughout this tradition courage is at times reworked as fortitude, and by the Romans even more bluntly as strength. Prudence is likewise often renamed practical wisdom.

The three famous Christian virtues as stated by St. Paul are faith, hope, and charity (love of others). Aquinas merges these with the four classical virtues into the seven cardinal virtues. An eighth Christian virtue worth mentioning, because of its critical importance, is humility. Christianity is more exacting than other traditions in asserting seven vices: envy, gluttony, greed (avarice), lust, pride, sloth, and wrath.

A virtuous life seems unlikely unless one adopts at least one of these traditional approaches or follows the tenets of another established tradition. However it seems to me that combining these four assures one the greatest likelihood of a level of virtue compatible with a meaningful life and eventual happiness even if that sets the bar quite high. In that case, comprehensive (secular) virtue includes: (1) benevolence to others or charity, (2) propriety and etiquette, (3) respect of others and social institutions, (4) aspirations to purity, (5) disciplined speech, (6) ethical livelihood, (7) mindfulness, (8) courage or fortitude, (9) justice, (10) temperance, (11) prudence or practical wisdom, and (12) humility. I intend to apply these twelve categories in delineating a virtuous life as we evaluate the multiple levels of ethics.

———————————————–

* Aristotle distinguishes these from the intellectual virtues: scientific knowledge (episteme), artistic or technical knowledge (techne), intuitive reason (nous), and philosophical wisdom (sophia).

Posted on

THE MEANING OF LIFE – VIRTUE- DEFINITIONS AND DISTINCTIONS

“Blessedness is not the reword of virtue, but is virtue itself.” – Baruch Spinoza

In the course of doing philosophy, invariably one comes to the tedious issue of defining terms and trying to parse out differences in meaning or connotation as a preface to a serious discussion, and now we take on this thorny task for ethics, virtue, and morality.

Ethics, according to Dagobert Runes, is the discipline concerning judgment of approval and disapproval, rightness or wrongness, good or bad, virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of actions. It can be based on a psychological or sociological analysis of judgment or an attempt to establish courses of action (guidance).1 So Ethics refers to the general discipline and theories of judgments involved in human action – what I prefer to designate as the philosophy of human conduct.

According to Runes, virtue is a more limited term. Following Aristotle, he sees virtue or arete as the state of a thing which constitutes its particular excellence and enables it to perform its function well. For Aristotle, man’s function is reason and rationally ordered habits. But Runes notes that virtue can in theory vary by considerations of human function; for instance the Romans see virility and strength of character as that function while Machiavelli emphasizes prudence.2 In this section I will align with the ancient Greeks – that is, virtue will refer to excellence in human conduct as opposed to mere strength or intellectual prowess.

The word ‘morals’ is sometimes used as equivalent to ‘ethics,’ but among philosophers is more often more circumscribed. It refers to codes of conduct and customs of individuals or of a group. It is a more relative word and seems to involve traditional and legal expectations of human behavior. It is equal to the ancient Greek ethos and the Latin mores. 3 Therefore I will use the word morality selectively in our discussion to mean society-approved modes of conduct.

So to summarize: (1) Ethics is a general term referring to the theoretical discipline or philosophy of human conduct, (2) Virtue is specific as excellence in human conduct, and (3) Morality is subjective or relative as modes or rules of conduct approved by a group or society. As an example, with regard to truthfulness, ethics examines what honesty is and how decisions in its use are made in general, virtue is prudence in the appropriate speaking or withholding of truth, and morality is compliance with societal expectations which may permit “white lies” yet requiring truthfulness under oath in legal matters.

—————————————-

1Runes, Dagobert D., Dictionary of Philosophy. Philosophical Library, New York, 1960, p.98.

2Ibid, page 332.

3Ibid, page 202.

Posted on

THE MEANING OF LIFE – VIRTUE- INTRODUCTION

“The happiness of mankind is the end of virtue, and truth is the knowledge of the means.” – Samuel Taylor Coleridge.

 

 

Virtue is the first of the four fundamental prerequisites of happiness and the meaningful life. Some ancient philosophers, such as the Stoics equate virtue and happiness, and although this seems too simplistic, nearly all philosophers of every era agree happiness and a meaningful life are elusive in the absence of virtue.

The next series of posts will examine virtue in some detail as an essential element of human flourishing following this outline:

[1]  Definitions and distinctions

[2]  Categories of virtue

[3]  Virtue and the self

[4]  Virtue and others

[5]  Societal virtue

[6]  Cosmic and ultimate virtue

[7]  Supererogatory duty and virtue

[8]  Virtue at different stages of life

[9]  Historical paradigms

[10]  Apotheosis

[11]  Summary

For observant readers this may appear to repeat the earlier discussion of Ethics,1 and there is significant overlap, but the focus now is on practical aspects of ethical conduct which must be addressed in a similar fashion, although this time interwoven with concepts of good and evil discussed in that special section.2

I will begin with clarification of various terms that make up the field of ethics at which time the difference in denotation of virtue and ethics will be addressed. Then I will move to traditional categories of virtue and suggestions for modifications or additions. This will be followed by discussion on the five levels of virtue where is found the reason for discrepancy among philosophers on the nature of virtue – that is,  virtue manifests differently at the various levels of reality and in different contexts. I will propose that a hierarchy of obligations solves the equation of how to act in complex situations.

Next we will see that the pursuit of virtue varies over our lifetime even if the basic tenets are fixed. Then we will turn to the historian for distinguished models of flourishing lives. From this progression we will be ready to attempt to establish the defining features of moral apotheosis. Finally  I will close with a summary from which we can begin to assemble an integrated system with the other three components of a meaningful life: contentment, purpose, and relationship to the ultimate.

—————————————-

1See posts on this website category Ethics dated 12/5/18 – 12/12/18 and 12/17/18 – 1/4/19.

2 See posts on this website category Good and Evil dated 1/6/19 – 2/16/19.

Posted on

CURRENT READING – HAPPINESS AND MEANING (CONTINUED)

Last time we saw how Susan Wolf considers a meaningful life as one that includes enthusiastic involvement in objectively worthwhile projects though she drops the word ‘project’ in her slogan: “Meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness.” Her examples include creating, promoting or protecting things of value, helping others, achieving a skill, even “communing with or actively appreciating what is there to be appreciated.”2

She proposes and responds to likely objections to her thesis. First is the question of philosophical justification of the designation ‘worthwhile.’ Her response is that no proof is possible, but clearly most of us believe in varying worth of projects or activities – for example counting blades of grass versus seeking a cure for cancer. Second she responds to the existential objections of human mortality, lack of divine origin of morality, and cosmic indifference. She thinks these positions represents an irrational obsession with permanence and grand significance. She admits assumption as her basis for worthwhile, but notes most skeptics concede there are better and worse ways to live, and the difference between their positions and hers may be primarily semantic. Third she responds to Richard Taylor’s description of subjectivity of self-interest raised in Good and Evil, where he suggests the subjective account of meaning is just that a meaningful life is one perceived by the individual as meaningful. Wolf does not like the circularity this entails so proposes an alternate account of subjectivity; the sense of ‘fulfillment’ as a particular kind of pleasure that confirms meaning via objectively worthwhile “cognitive content,’ even when not “best for me.”3

Wolf also concedes she is unable to prove that self-interest includes belief in the meaningfulness of one’s life through worthwhile activities, but contends most people intuitively agree once it is explained to them. In fact, Wolf claims the desire for meaningfulness is a defining feature of humanity vis-a-vis the brutes. It may even be considered self-evident.

Still meaningfulness, in her opinion, is not an instrumental good or merely the path to fulfillment, rather fulfillment is the confirmation of the meaningfulness of an activity. In her deconstruction of self-interest she crystalizes her position: much of what we do is neither out of duty nor fun, but instead meaningfulness. Nonetheless from a practical standpoint, meaning is inexact; we cannot and need not aspire to finding activities of the “greatest” meaning. At the end of the day meaningfulness often trumps self-interest.

I find Wolf’s thesis intriguing, first because I see few philosophers who challenge Aristotle’s belief that all human motivation distills down to the quest for happiness, and second because her method involves less logical proof and more intuition, consensus, reasonable argument, and human experience – the very building blocks of practical philosophy. But most importantly I detect in her theory of self-interest an affirmation that summum bonum for us is happiness and meaning.

—————————————

1Bonjour, Laurence and Baker, Ann (Editors), Philosophical Problems. Pearson Education, Inc., New York, 2005. ISBN 0-321-23659-9, pages 834-848.

2It seems this is operative in the case of relationship to ultimate reality, whether cosmic or divine.

3I discussed a comparable thesis in the post The Meaning of Life- Non-Physical Pleasure, on 9/14/20.

—————————————–

Having trouble leaving a question or comment?  E-mail me at gregoryciliberti@gmail.com