December 7, 2003
-
Back to my post about honesty… I got to thinking about virtues. You know, they say patience is a virtue, etc.
The early Greek philosophers felt prudence, temperance, courage, and justice were the most important virtues. The Christians adopted some of these and added their own –prudence, temperance, justice, fortitude, charity, hope, and faith- to counter their seven deadly sins. The Romans had over forty, most of them associated with a specific deity. And there are many a modern list of virues.
In schools across the nation, students are taught ethics without virtues. They debate social issues without reflecting on personal conduct and morality. In one way, it is good to see the larger picture. Many social commentators of our times have said that we have grown technologically without matching that growth socially and ethically. People should be aware that they are part of a larger whole. They should be aware of how actions affect the world.
On the other hand, where do personal ethics come into the picture? Am I wrong in thinking that personal conduct virtually dictates social ethics? If we each held ourselves accountable for our actions, wouldn’t social ethics take care of itself? I know most people are concerned about others dictating their actions, even through something as simple as an understanding of what people consider virtuous, but should they be so paranoid that they don’t even attempt to modify their own actions? No, it seems personal gratification is at the top of most everyone’s list.
My “favorite” virtue, or rather the one that I think exemplify the others, is integrity. Integrity is something like responsibility, justice, and honesty all rolled into one. Concepts like integral and integrated come from integrity. If someone formed “integral,” a word meaning essential, from integrity, does that mean people once felt integrity was essential to human socialization? By way of the word “integrated,” did they feel it brought people into unity?
To my mind, integrity goes hand-in-hand with concepts like chivalry and honor. Well, they do say chivalry is dead. And honor… honor is what one does at a public function or awards ceremony. Apparently it’s not an aspect of every day life.
Once again I find myself most closely align to antiquated systems. The only “modern” code of conduct that is similar to mine is the nine virtues of the Asatru. That’s not really a surprise. I agree with the Asatru Rede as well. (More on the Redes next time boys and girls)
To my mind, virtues are all things that lead to respect. You must respect yourself and you must respect others. If you hold yourself to a strict code of conduct, an honor code if you will, a code of chivalry, then others will respect you as you respect them.
Its no wonder the “Age of chivalry” epitomized in the Arthurian Legends and many fantasy books still draws readers. It gives people hope and something to aspire to. Nobility is in the heart. It leads to nobility of word and deed.
What happened to that?
Comments (17)
I’m sorry, but you need to stop and think for a second. I know it may all seem good on the surface, but it’s not as nice and clear-cut as that.
First of all, you’re sounding a bit too much like a Christian. We need to teach virtues in our schools, eh? And which virtues pray tell should those be? Should they be Christian ones? Capitalist ones? Communist ones? Hell, why don’t we just teach religion in schools? Virtues are not the same everywhere. True, people may agree on certain words, but they often have very different definitions for them.
Secondly, integrity does not necessarily mean justice and honor. It simply means consistency and honesty – not changing your beliefs and not betraying your comrades. Sounds good right? If everyone followed this rule, everyone would be united, right? Well, no. The Taliban have lots of integrity – a lot more than most Americans. They have their unwavering beliefs and a commitment to them. So do the assholes who blow up abortion clinics. Are we all holding hands and singing Kumbaya yet?
Hmm…chivalry…well, ok, that is if you have a penis. By chivalric law, women were expected to be chaste and loyal and obedient to their parents, and then their husband (that is, the property of the aforementioned). So if you want true chivalry, we’ll need to roll back women’s rights and have us men joust for your attention, so you can put your pink scarf on the tip of the winner’s lance (double entendre, anyone?). As for “faith”, it’s a euphemism for “stupidity” as far as I’m concerned.
Of course, I understand what you mean. Looking around me, I can’t believe how disgusting and corrupt people are either. I wish there was some “right”, higher code of morality I could appeal to in order to give me that sense of assuredness and self-righteousness that one so desperately needs in order to forge ahead. But there isn’t, and I know that I’m not any better than the rest of them. If I claimed a higher morality, I’d be no better than the Christians. It’s not there. You can’t have your cake and eat it too: that is, you can’t reject the absolute comfort and reassurance of an all-encompassing religious morality because of its presumptuous arrogance and ignorance, and then complain that people are immoral. This is the price we pay for our freedom. This is the human condition. Proclaiming an overall morality would be a step backwards, not forwards. Nietzsche recognized this when he wrote “being ashamed of our immorality – that is one step closer on the ladder to being ashamed of our morality”. But he believed that a new, better, post-Christian morality would emerge embodied the ubermensch. It would be nice if he was right, but in the end he fell prey to the same kind of idealism that Christians did. We create systems and codes in order to make sense of things, because we can’t come to terms with the fact that the universe is completely arbitrary and indifferent. And then we believe in those. But there is no more truth to them than to anything else. There is no ultimate redemption for mankind. Such is the burden of our freedom.
One e-prop for bringing up the issue though.
WOW Heavy post and reply. However, at the end of the night what keeps you warm? What keeps you going? Unfortunately, I disagree with AutumnAsh84 regarding the comment:
” . . . because we can’t come to terms with the fact that the universe is completely arbitrary and indifferent.”
For me, the Universe and all that is in it is governed by certain laws (i.e. gravity, cause & effect). This could not make things “completely arbitrary.” Especially regarding the latter example of cause & effect. Yes, I agree that there is a certain amount of “randomess” and chaos within our souls and within the universe. The butterfly effect in chaos theory is an example of sensitive dependence upon initial conditions. In other words a small change in intial condition can result in a long-term behavior change whether in a person or a system. Chaos is usually couched within non-chaotic systems. i.e. a heartbeat. Yet it would seem going from this logic that chaos, inherent in all things, needs non-chaos to be illuminated. Therefor, without virtue or some system of “being” would chaos exist?
OKAY way too deep thought! Where are my jujubes!
Silver
Pshaw, AutumnAsh. Virtue is no more Christian than apple pie is American. Ever hear of the Golden Rule… that is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you? That was “invented” by the Babylonians and reinvented ever since. It may be very simplistic and has very obvious faults (what if you’re a masochist, etc), but it is a virtuous thought and not Christian.
I have no fear of the Christian Hell for disobedience to rules handed down by Men (note, not Women) interpreting the words of their god. I know fear of retribution does not control the actions of all Christians, but a significant number refrain from what their holy book terms evil simply out of fear and another portion abstains in hope of a Heavenly reward. I suppose the remainder would be the mythical “meek” slated to inherit the Earth.
I have no such compulsion. I act in an “honorable” fashion because it is in my nature to do so. I do not believe virtue to be dictated by religion any more than expressions of affection are dictated by talk shows. Religious ”virtues” are a convenient example, nothing more. As for chivalry being a Man’s code, now you’re just making fun of me. How many male activities are now uni-sex? You are obviously following the letter and not the spirit of the code.
Unlike the Christian commandments which have been banned from public display (whether for good or bad I will not comment), virtue is not a reward/punishment issue. It is not a “thou shalt not” or you will “suffer most righteously in the fires of Hell” type of system. Most psychologists will agree that reward/punishment conditioning is not an effective means of controlling a subject unless you want to make him/her neurotic (example- religious extremists who kill innocent people to get to Heaven).
Virtues, as I indicated, are simply a breaking down of ethical and social conduct on an individual basis. Perhaps if such ideas of what makes a person respected and respectable were taught in school at an early age, children would grow into responsible adults rather than drug addicts, thieves, murderers, rapists, and corrupt officials. I would hope this would also lead to less singling out of people who are “different” and more acceptance of differences.
Or maybe not.
But in any event, it’s an issue of respect for yourself and for your peers. It’s not an issue of religion nor religious teachings. Obviously, religion, or at least the oh so glorified “World Religions” have failed at this. Maybe it’s time to take the teaching of ethical conduct out of their hands and put it into those of the philosophers.
But my point was that precisely BECAUSE virtues are determined on an individual basis, you can’t teach them in schools. Which of your peers should you respect? All, unconditionally, even the ones who beat you up because you’re different? Should you respect your peers more than you respect yourself, or vice versa? What about when the two are in obvious conflict? And what way should you behave in order to deem yourself respectable? Or should you just unconditionally “love yourself” as Oprah and Dr. Phil will tell us and manipulate everything around you in order to achieve that warm, fuzzy feeling? Any overarching universal rule that you apply is going to have major exceptions, like the masochist example that you have saved me the trouble of pointing out. Yes, virtue is not solely Christian or religious, but any sort of absolute system of moral values is inherently religious to some degree, because at some point someone is going to ask you “why” and you will either say “because” or if you’re less of an ass, “because that’s what I believe”. And I don’t believe in answers, only in questions. And that’s all I have to keep me warm at the end of the night. It’s not much and in fact I’m usually freezing, but I’d rather be that than warm and deluded. And I suppose that thought gives me some kind of warmth in its own way. As for what keeps me going, it’s mainly the fear of death and an aversion to pain of the physical sort (I rather relish the emotional kind).
Furthermore, when I said arbitrary, I wasn’t talking about gravity or cause and effect. Sure, these things are constant (as far as we know), but what do they have to do with virtue or morality? You can’t apply a formula like Hank’s virtue = (gratitude + integrity)/greed. Doesn’t work. Everything is subjective and there are no absolutes (and if you say “isn’t that also subjective,” I’ll stab you).
Sorry I’m taking up your comments section but I just thought of something else.
“Perhaps if such ideas of what makes a person respected and respectable were taught in school at an early age, children would grow into responsible adults rather than drug addicts, thieves, murderers, rapists, and corrupt officials.”
Well I can’t really argue about the last four, but what makes a responsible adult? Is it someone who works hard 5-9 instead of chasing that stupid dream of being a painter? And what about drug addicts? Some of the greatest minds in the world were drug addicts, and many owed their amazing creativity directly to drugs.
Anyway, I am just really appalled at the thought of putting things like the instruction of morality and virtue into the hands of the state. Haven’t you ever read Clockwork Orange? Or 1984? Or Anthem? The ability to freely choose between good and evil (or to create operational definitions of such notions for ourselves) is what makes us human. And what should happen to those awful kiddies who don’t pass their morality class?
No, you miss my point entirely. If the children were taught the definitions of these “virtues” at an early age, peer abuse might never occur. It’s not so much that they need to be taught ethics told to behave in a certain manner, but that they need to be made aware of the option.
Very few people are self-reflective enough to sit down and think about who they are and who they want to be. I think a defining of virtuous thought and action would help children understand themselves and grow into well-balanced, respectful individuals instead of arrogant, confused, and self-destructive adult A$$es.
If everyone understood and acted in a respectful way toward others, there would be no reason to respect someone who puts you down for the clothes you wear or your music, etc, because there would be no one putting you down at all.
Maybe I’m just overly idealistic, but a person who is raised to be respectful to their fellow human being is going to grow into a responsible and “virtuous” person. This is not the kind of person who is going to mock someone else for having piercings or green hair, even if they personally would not care to have piercings and green hair.
I’m neither advocating a graded class nor something which only supports the ideals of the government. Heck, I’m more of a socialist than anything else.
I am only suggesting that one of the reasons “today’s youth” is growing up so screwed up is because mommy and daddy work, the schools only teach academics, most organized religions are a joke, tv only amuses (barely), and nothing is filling the void left by the lack of adult supervision and interest. Children don’t know how to act because they are currently raising themselves. They know what they want (respect), but they don’t know how to get it (by giving it).
Ooh, debate. *rubs hands together*
I am divided. On the one hand, I agree that we can’t teach virtues in schools. I do not belive you can get people to teach other people even the most basic ethics without getting flaws in the system, as is the case with everthing that involves people (who, as I’m sure you’ve noticed, happen to be inherently flawed).
On the other hand, this: “Yes, virtue is not solely Christian or religious, but any sort of absolute system of moral values is inherently religious to some degree…” I disagree with because if somebody asks you why, you can also say, -because if everyone is always only looking out for themselves, then it’s going to be a miserable existance, and so by ___(supply example here, ie: giving a homeless person money, telling the truth, etc)____, I hope to teach others that if they, too, ___(give money, tell truth)___ that it will make the world a desireable place to live, which might be a good idea since we’re not going anywhere else.-
SO… that’s my little rant. Nice post and comments. I would be more eloquent, only it’s @#$%ing early.
that’s some debate you got there
Look, no matter what, the only purpose of the state is to have a monopoly on violence and to ensure the smooth running of society while protecting individual rights. Again, read Clockwork Orange. The state has the right to punish behavior that is disruptive to society. It does not have the right to try to alter individuals so that they fit into society better. If you believe that there is some sort of transcendent moral order that the state should try to mold society into, guess what, you’re a conservative and an essentialist (don’t you just love labels?). Maybe if instead of bitching about people’s immorality, we improved state programs like rehab and welfare and unemployment and public education to at least give poor people viable alternatives to becoming drug dealers, and maybe if we stopped companies from exploiting their workers so that they would have more time to spend with their families, and maybe if instead of trying to ban abortion we improved public health services and birth control provisions so that less neglected impoverished children would be born into families already too large to sustain them, then maybe you’d be surprised at how much more “moral” things would be. In a country where corruption runs rampant at the highest levels, and competition, ignorance, and greedy consumerism are considered virtues, do you really want this state to dictate morals?
Actually, I think the cause of the world’s problems and the reasons people are growing up so fucked up is stupidity. It is because first graders are learning how to watch Barney and to sing songs instead of learning how to read, and colleges care more about whether or not you can run with a fucking ball and jump on other guys than if you’ve ever even opened a book instead of reading Spark Notes. I came to America when I was 7 (second grade) and later on I remember laughing out loud when I heard of some big government initiative to have everyone reading by third grade. What schools need is not moral instruction, but just better instruction in general. I’m sure there are plenty of redneck right wing Christian schools that give lots of the former and not enough of the latter, and although people coming out of those probably won’t be drug addicts, they’re even worse because they grow up to be people like Dubya. In fact, everything in society, from popular media to political speeches is geared towards the lowest common denominator. Watch football, wave your flag, have a beer, listen to some songs about trivial crap, and keep quiet. Maybe if society promoted intelligence instead of ignorance, things would be a lot better as well.
But this wouldn’t solve everything, and yes, you are being too idealistic. No one is ever going to love and respect all human beings unconditionally. Hell, I know I won’t. There will always be conflict, there will always be strife, and the best we can do is at least try to elevate the level of discourse.
seems as though many virtues are tied to others though. For instance, one can say honor is made of integrity, responsbility, justice, and honesty.
AutumnAsh, I think we only really differ in timing of these benefits to society. While I feel that the best possibility for improving society starts with the children, you seem to base most of your programs after the damage is done (rehab, unemployment, welfare, etc). While I think they could be instituted together, feeding the minds of the next generation while keeping their parents afloat till the next generation is old enough to make things better, I still see programs designed to improve the mental view of children to be the best hope for a better future.
I would be the first to agree that our (American) school systems are in need of a lot of improvement. I was reading Tolkien by first grade, but I had a mother who read to me and encouraged me to learn. I can’t imagine people not loving books, though I know that some people do not. The school system failed me and the only reason I consider myself so well educated and open-minded is because I spent every free period in the library and at present belong to eight public libraries, work in a bookstore, and do copious amounts of research on any subjects which strike my fancy.
But that is the problem right there. I could technically be considered self-educated because the schools were so substandard to my needs. As you said, the establishment appeals to the lowest common denominator. Children with above average intelligence are often ignored in favor of the children struggling with the itinerary. On the one hand, children in need of help should be helped, but the other children should be encouraged to always excel. That is one of the reasons why I quit school when I turned 17, got my GED, and went to college ahead of my class. (The other reason is that I was physically and mentally abused by the other students and was afraid I might suicide before I made it out.) Too bad college was a joke too, or at least the community college I could afford.
I would like the schools not to fail other children. I suppose I equate an ethical class with caring. If this class existed in elementary schools, then I would assume that the teachers were making an effort also in other areas because that would be the ethical way to act (very idealistic of me, I know). I know teachers are not paid as they should be (though it’s quite a bit more than I make so I am not as sympathetic as I might be) and classes are too large for them to focus on individuals.
However AutumnAsh, you are assuming that I want to force children to be ethical and moral through such a class. Really, I just want them to be made aware of the possiblity. I want them to be given examples of what these ideas mean. I want them to see ethics and virtue at work. I want historical examples so there can be no mistake of what we are refering to. I want them to learn to be idealists too. Exposure to these ideas would do them more good than forcing them to act in such a manner when they are already grown. So long as they are given the choice, if they choose to be ethical/moral/virtuous, then their resolve will be greater for it. The earlier they are exposed to such ideas, the more these ideas will become intrisic to their emotional and social system of thought.
I want them to have the benefit of the same education I provided myself in the libraries of four public schools, one college library, eight public libraries, and numerous bookstores throughout my life.
Oh, and given my high level of literacy, do you really think I haven’t read Clockwork Orange, 1984, and a host of other political/social commentary thinly veiled as fiction? Just because I’m idealistic, doesn’t mean I haven’t read the counter-propaganda. I have simply arrived at different conclusions.
Good point (all of them). But I’m pretty sure stuff like caring and tolerance and whatnot is already being taught in kindergarten and the early grades. Although, I dunno, you were probably in school when Reagan was president, so maybe it wasn’t. But in 1-4th grade we always read all these stories about understanding people who are different and other cultures and caring and stuff, and unfortunately, that doesn’t translate to real life – people just learned it in a cursory superficial way but didn’t bother to make connections to their lives later on. Just because people are aware of the opportunity doesn’t mean they’ll take it.
You guys are in agreement and just don’t know it…haha!
its the right opportunity (the right sort and done appropriately) that will be held as most effective (what you wish, ash, to be a higher level of discourse and what you take harm, to be a higher value on promoting ethics/the virtuous life) Non-coincidentally chaps, one is the other- as a higher level of discourse will indeed necessitate discussions of human flourishing (the virtuous life) and so will, and this is more obvious, the implementation of virtues (if done effectively) will invariably require thoughtful and productive discourse…. and that kids is the continuous program I wish to air…
ooooh, im guna tell on you!
well, if i have to feed you something you whiny bastard it would be this…
dammit i put the word *forcibly* in brackets at the end of my last post (concerning how id like to air my kids-show!) and it just disappeared(like the covert ousting of some potential rebel leader!!), its as if this numb nation-state knew I was trying to challenge its capitalistic/consumer agenda(that you can purchase/participate in at any local wal-mart)… shutup you nerd.. okay.
I do agree with AutumnAsh on his points about improving societal conditions, but only in the sense that all our social and ethical programs need to be completely revamped. Big corporations and municipalities have become the new individuals while people have become ephemeral cells which duly die off and are easily replaced.
We are slaves. A sense of honor or ethics or morals might help put the power back in the people as it were because more ethical choices would be made in their favor.