Why Be Virtuous?
 

Why be virtuous? Why do good things instead of bad things? The following five statements aren't direct quotes, but they are accurate summaries of five philosophers, and how they answered the question of why we should be virtuous.

“The best reason to be virtuous is because of the nature of the human soul - virtue is the proper function of the human nature, and we do damage to our own nature, our own souls, if we deceive others and act with cruelty.” (Plato)

“The best reason to be virtuous is because of God’s decree - He commands us to do certain things and not to do certain other things, and out of either love or fear, we ought to obey his commands.” (William of Ockham)

"The best reason to be virtuous is because it is the most rational state of affairs - rationality is the cardinal human endeavor, and virtue is the highest expression of reason." (Immanuel Kant)

“The best reason to be virtuous is increased personal well-being in the midst of social pressure - if you are dishonest and cruel to others, society will shun you, and your capacity to enjoy life will be diminished.” (Ayn Rand)

“The best reason to be virtuous is to increase the total happiness (or flourishing) of sentient beings - the cumulative total of well-being is increased better off when people are honest and compassionate toward one another.” (Peter Singer)

Why? Because I want my children to be virtuous. How do I coach them along what I believe to be the path of virtue if it is plainly clear that I am not on the same path?

Why?

Doesn't any answer you give to that question devolve back to one of the justifications sm gave?

not really. i'm just cheap and if they are virtuous there is a much smaller chance of me having to bail them out of jail.;)

Rational self-interest. 1 pt Rand

I'll go with Plato. Doing things which are not virtuous is self destroying.

People are virtuous because they want other people to like them. That's all.

If other people like you, you have power. The more people that like you, the more power you have.

If society valued something else, there'd be power in being that thing instead of virtuous.

Reciprocity. The foundation of all human cultures.

There are a great many powerful people who are not very likable and who have done many unlikable things.

Well, I'm talking about on a day to day level with normal people.

Most of the unlikeable people in power got there via unscrupulous means and they're still in power because everyone else is too 'virtuous' to take them down.

If virtue is nothing more than a tool for social power, then we should admire and emulate those who are "unscrupulous" and powerful, since they were able to achieve the beneficial outcome (power) without the personal constraint (virtue).

If it's true that social power is the only real benefit of virtue, then the powerful and immoral person has the most praiseworthy life.

yes but society doesn't value immoral and unscrupulous people. Only virtuous.

We are after all just animals living out our life. I suppose one of the things that sets us apart from other animals is virtue however, that may or may not be a good thing.

I guess it all depends on your perspective.

First, I would like to claim that I, and many others I know, find happiness in virtue. I try to be virtuous because it brings me happiness. Helping others bring me happiness.

I think the connection of virtue and happiness comes across through evolution and the growth of living and interacting in a community.

For one, humans are very community based animals, and for this we can not look at modern society because we have not evolved to live in a society like ours today, but a more nomadic and communal society. So the question has to change too, why would it be advantageous for me to help someone in my community?

The answer seems pretty simple. In that time, it would be better for my survival to watch out for the interests of the community instead of my own because a strong community will better insure the passing of my genes than watching my individual interests. If I lived a million years ago by myself, there is a good chance I would be quickly killed because even though humans are smart, it is not easy to kill predators, find food, and build shelters by oneself. So, instead I become more altruistic and watch out for the interests of the community because if the community strengthens, so does my chance of passing on my genes. Basically, if I watch your back, you watch mine, and we both have a better chance of survival and people that showed the trait of being virtuous and watching out for the community survived while the selfish did not.

That is my guess.

To be, or act virtuous is better then to not be, or not act virtuous. It doesn't matter why.

The why matters a great deal. The why is not simple a motivation, but a definition. Each of the statements above indicates a different meaning of what virtue actually is. Defining virtue through one of the above statements will lead a person to different moral choices when confronted with an ethical dilemma.

Take heroic self-sacrifice (woman falls on grenade to save the lives of strangers). Plato, Ockham, and Kant would all say that this is a virtuous act. Rand would say it's an immoral act, since any act that ends one's own life is the ultimate abdication of self-interest. Singer would say that it's not necessarily virtuous - it depends on the degree of greater benefit that flows out of the survival of those several strangers rather than the survival of that one heroic self-sacrificer.

The question of why be virtuous is essential to the question of how to be virtuous.

Good point, virtue is defined as living a moral life or living up to moral excellency and since morally is subjective, it makes a virtuous life subjective as well.

My version of moral excellency is doing what is best in the bigger picture, which reflects on to my example.

one persons version of morality is almost always different to anothers. There has been a lengthy discussion about that very subject not so long ago in this forum.

Without a clear definition of "virtuous," anything we say here will have little meaning. Would anyone care to attempt to define what they mean by virtuous? The more I read here, the less I'm sure that you are all talking about the same thing.

It does not matter so much for me what all these philosophers and thinkers have to say on the issue. At one time I did. I wanted to be a philosopher. I found that studying philosophers work, and then calling myself a philosopher, was like studying artists work, and then calling myself an artist. It did not improve my stick figure drawings at all.

It's good to look at their work. At the end of the day, or my life, it's my work that has the most impact on me. Perhaps more importantly on the people around me.

Some people are motivated by self, are not virtuous by nature. They may behave in a way that appears virtuous, it is only to reach a selfish end. In my opinion this is not virtue. Just because it appears virtuous to the outside observer.

Virtue: 1. conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright: Lead a virtuous life.

Moral: 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

Ethical: 1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Do these work for definitions?

These definitions, when run through the grinder, all come down to right conduct. That's where, for me, the problem lies, because we are all free to choose what we mean by right conduct.

What's virtuous to the fox might not be virtuous to the hen.

[quote=Aliantha;422731]one persons version of morality is almost always different to anothers. QUOTE]

Agreed. That's what makes us so interesting. But in society todsay, there are many people who, going back to a previous post, are unscrupulous. Those in power and those who are not. And, they get places by walking over those of us who are virtuous.

Eh, I said why we favor virtue, not answered why should we be.

We should be virtuous because it is best for society and the greater good.

For the greater good vs For the good of the whole?
:)
lol!!!

The definition of selfishness was changed in the 50's. Doing for one's self didn't used to be at the exclusion of others by definition. It was actually a positive until "spin" came around to say "selfish bad"- "altruism good". Now everyone comes down on selfishness like it's a terrible quality...but in the larger picture it is a good quality to have as a virtue in varying degrees. (Doing for one's self is not always that black and white, and at the exclusion of all others) This is one of the few points that I agree with Ayn Rand.
@Regular.
G'day. Back to the salt mines for me.

A "side effect" of virtue is power. It's the virtue that should be admired. And the power is a "leading by example" type of power, not a "pushing people around" type of power. Power in and of itself is not necessarily admirable, and power through fear or intimidation is despicable.

Thank you smoothmoniker for asking such a stimulating question.

I like the recent turn of the conversation. What is virtue? What is good? What is ethical? What is moral?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions.

I think the answers will NOT be pat, hard edged, easily quantifiable, whatever they turn out to be. I think that circumstances and context and perspectiv matter a great deal, sometimes even as much as the action itself.

I don't know if it's easier, or clearer, but my thoughts on the matter run along this line. Is an action *effective*? Effective at what? Effective at progressing toward or achieving some goal. What goal? Is that goal compatible with my other goals? With the goals of others? Is it important? How important is it relative to the other aspects of my life?

All these questions bear on my actions, and how virtuous they are.

I'm sorry I've sidestepped entirely your question of why be virtuous with what is virtuous.

That's not an accurate summary of Ayn Rand's view. She believed that one requires virtue even on a desert island -- ESPECIALLY on a desert island. The reason to act virtuously, she would say, is that your continued existence and happiness require it. Failing to act virtuously leads to a lessened enjoyment of life and, if you acted contrary to virtue consistently, you'd soon be dead.

This makes more sense if you understand what Ayn Rand held to be major virtues. It's certainly not things like helping others, sacrificing, being humble, etc. She wrote that:

You can find out more here:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ism_essentials

Each person will almost certainly have a different view of what "virtuous" means, but their opinion will reflect what they view to be desirable behavior. If that person behaves differently than their concience or reason dictates they would likely experience some level of emotional discomfort. Thus, satisfying this desire will prevent as much dissatisfaction as possible and make their impact on the world positive in their eyes.

*throws a water balloon at Phage and runs away*

You want to ask why be virtuous? Ok, I ask why not be the ultimate jerk? Let's lift up every skirt and fondle under the shirt of women that passes us by. Let's walk right in front of cars that have the green light (could be fatal on some streets). Let's go into a grocery store and house some snacks, paying optional. Oh, yeah! Let's go out just to drink. It seems to work for some.

I've struggled with this thread a bit because I resist the notion that virtue is imposed from outside, from a god, peer pressure, or other societal constructs. Like most things in my life, I give a big FU to other people's notions of how to behave.

When I act virtuously, it's because I want to live with myself and the consequences of my own actions.

What about when you don't? No matter how much you resist peer pressure, can you ever completely discard its influences? Aren't those who rebel against society's constructs affected by the existence of those constructs just as much as those who conform to them?

no, I cannot completely discard society's influences. and when I don't act virtuously, I still have to live with myself.

I mean, that's why I've struggled with this thread. It's obviously naive, not to mention impossible, to act like you are not a part of society.

To me, the least convincing reasons to be virtuous are based on the so-called supernatural. I like a clear, logical reason.

I am, for instance, not dazzled by the fact that Jesus "rose from the dead" etc. but I do think he made a straightforward case for good behavior. I am quite certain that his message was either (or both) #1 intended to be convincing to a specific group of monotheists, with their own belief systems already intact, or #2 was misinterpreted by those specific monotheists that wrote it down. I lean towards the scenario where they could only hear and understand things in a certain framework, and that's how it got recorded. But I think there is also an element to it of Jesus playing to his audience.