Why should we be virtuous?

[MysterionMuffles]

If being evil is more profitable and virtue does not guarantee happiness at our current state as a species, why should one be virtuous?

 

(I'm not saying that I'd want to turn to the dark side because it's easier, with the progress I've made, I think it'd be much more difficult to be evil. Just curious.)

[luxfelix]

Evil is more profitable... in the moment; long-term, however, virtue is much more profitable.

[J. D. Stembal]

The evil can only be profitable when it is being subsidized involuntarily by everyone else.

[entropyanndroid]

By some definitions, virtue is its own reward. In the case of egoistic consideration, one might say it is an expression of sincere Ownness, and as such reinforces the phenomenon of self-ownership subjectively. Consequentially, virtue in oneself reinforces and encourages the virtue of others, by demonstrating the rewards endemic to it. This relationship can be extended further if you're into Idealism or other schools prone to Universal/Absolute thought. The real question is not why one should be virtuous, but how best to be. This requires a coherent theory of virtue: its origin, role and evolution. I myself primarily abide by an Aristotelian understanding of virtue. Each human being is predisposed to strength in some areas of virtue, while being predisposed to weakness in others. The cultivation of any particular virtue at the expense of others invariably leads to the inversion of the virtue thus cultivated. In other words, there can be an excess of particular virtues in particular individuals, which necessarily expresses itself in imbalance in society and other conduct external to the individual.

[MysterionMuffles]

Evil is more profitable... in the moment; long-term, however, virtue is much more profitable.

 

how is vritue more profitable in long term?

 

 

The evil can only be profitable when it is being subsidized involuntarily by everyone else.

good point. Does it make other people evil by enabling the evil, or do are they exempt from the term, but still need to be held accountible for their lack of integrity?

[WasatchMan]

"Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course." Ayn Rand

[luxfelix]

how is vritue more profitable in long term?

 

Overhead costs such as theft insurances, physical securities, and binding contracts are indeces of the scarcity of virtues such as trustworthiness. If virtue were more prevalent, these costs would be at least limited, allowing for higher profits.

 

For example, if a cat burglar steals from a jewelry boutique, the jeweler will likely invest in security to prevent further thefts; this makes future heists riskier for the burglar so they, in turn, invest in counter-security gadgets and gizmos. 

 

The profit, in this case within the value of selling the jewelry, is now lessened between both parties with increased overhead costs in fighting. 

 

Probably a better example is between two entrepreneurs: if they are both trustworthy to one another, they don't need to use teams of lawyers and lengthy contracts for every business endeavor they enter together. 

[Carl Green]

Don't 'shoulds' only work when there's an 'if'?

 

You should be virtuous if you want to have virtuous people around you. As an example.

 

(act like you want, and pay for it)

[MRW]

Another good reason is that individuals cannot love or be loved without virtue. I also do not think that the financial aspect, mentioned earlier, is a very good argument either way because there is no correlation. You can find lots of examples of people benefitting greatly from evil and greatly from virtue. Thus, virtue is something that the individual must choose for himself or herself, consciously or unconsciously. I'd add that it is not possible to be perfectly virtuous in this political and social system but it is something to strive for if the individual desires happiness and pride.

[Pepin]

I think it is a false dichotomy to oppose evil and virtue. A man in a coma is not evil, but neither is he virtuous. One question to ask is "why should an individual choose not to be evil?". A completely different question to ask is "why should an individual choose to be virtuous?":

 

I would say that virtue is a category which contains behaviors that are preferred according to a rational belief system. All this means is that we determine whether a behavior is preferable or not by putting it through the test of rationality.

 

The rational belief system is what attempts to make it universal, so that everyone does not have their own subjective idea of what virtue is. Another way to put that is that people with a rational belief system will prefer these behaviors upon hearing the argument.

 

Given that the above makes sense, people would listen to an argument about why a particular behavior is preferable, weigh the argument against reason and evidence, and if they accept the argument that it is preferable, then they will also by consequence prefer that behavior.

 

Of course that would leave a huge grey area as there are plenty of topics where skepticism is needed regardless of reason and evidence. But as far as well established research and facts, the above holds up.

 

This argument would need a lot of work and filling in the gaps to be fully realized, but as a basic outline without any examples, I think it works.

[MysterionMuffles]

I personally think we should be virtuous so we could have a clear conscience. Consciously choosing evil for an extended period of time tends to wear on you, you need to come up with expo facto justifications for your actions, but those usually include double think. And of course a lot of self convincing when it's really self manipulation. It also robs you of agency. For instance, if I was a kleptomaniac, I'd have to reason myself into believing I have every right to steal everything I have. "The world has stolen from me," "it's hard to find a job," "my job doesn't pay enough." etc. Making excuses for yourself, especially when it comes to enacting evil robs you of rationally and sanity with your conscience.

 

To be virtuous means to accept and respect UPB, and of course enact certain virtues such as honesty, compassion and consistency. Consistency might be the most important factor in why we should be virtuous, because only a virtuous person has consistency with their beliefs, thoughts, and actions, as opposed to all the self deception required to uphold an evil lifestyle. 

 

Having done evil consistently without recognizing your wrongdoings and having the inability to admit fault wears on your conscience to the point of straining your interactions with other people. Despite of whatever evil people have done, whether recent, or further back into past and no longer enacting anymore at present--I think without the self knowledge it requires to explore the root causes of your actions and self justifications, would cause you to always be on guard. So even if you've stopped taking evil actions, without having addressed the reality of it, you might come across virtuous people who would want to reach out to you, but you can't reach back because your conscience holds too much guilt and remorse you're failing to acknowledge.

 

I think we should be virtuous because in the long run it really is more profitable. In order to succeed in life and relationships, we require consistency, not with just our habits and actions, but with our own consciences. Being virtuous and attracting virtuous relationships require a healthy conscience.

 

We should be virtuous if we want to be happy.

 

Yeah sure, there are evil people out there who are very successful and have a lot of connections, and of course they enjoy themselves to a certain degree, but I don't think one could be evil AND happy. They are evil because they are unhappy. Or vice versa.

 

If we accept that reason = virtue = happiness, evil people have horrible reasoning for their actions and behaviours.

[Drew.]

At least in my own perspective, to use the word "should" is to imply a moral argument. In essence, it is attempting to make a moral argument about why one should be moral.

 

As far as effects go, my argument is this: no matter what you do in life, you're going to suffer and struggle. You can either choose to struggle, face reality, and have a shot at real, lasting happiness, or you can fight it all and take solace in illusions. To me, it seems like doing the more difficult thing in the moment is the far easier path in the long run.

[MysterionMuffles]

At least in my own perspective, to use the word "should" is to imply a moral argument. In essence, it is attempting to make a moral argument about why one should be moral.

 

As far as effects go, my argument is this: no matter what you do in life, you're going to suffer and struggle. You can either choose to struggle, face reality, and have a shot at real, lasting happiness, or you can fight it all and take solace in illusions. To me, it seems like doing the more difficult thing in the moment is the far easier path in the long run.

 

Then would delaying gratification count as a virtue?

 

Also what do you think of my argument about morality's effect on one's conscience?

[Drew.]

Sure, I'll offer my views on your argument. Might I ask, why would you like to know?

 

I think that our arguments are pretty similar. Your argument, you specify that the conscience will cause difficulties for the person. Personally, I think that reality corrects--bad people are surrounded by other bad people who do bad things to each other--itself. I think it's hard to say whether everyone has a conscience, and it certainly seems as though some people act as though they don't. The conscience would be an inner voice attempting to address the reality of the situation, though. So I believe that what you gave was a more specific example than mine.

 

If you really want me to critique your argument, I would be willing to do so. My first question would be, what is virtue, and what actions are virtuous? I say that because UPB doesn't define virtue, it can only define what is evil not what is good. The criteria for moral good is that you can use violence to enforce it. If someone is not being courageous or prudent or honest or curious or vulnerable or whatever trait then using UPB's definition you could use violence to make the person be that way. Of course, that would break down, and so those virtues would fall in the category of aesthetics--which doesn't have the same impact and meaning as moral does.

 

I would also say that reason ≠ virtue ≠ happiness. Reason can lead to virtue which can lead to happiness. Happiness, in my experience, comes from internal exploration, grieving childhood trauma, and reparenting oneself. My perspective is that the people who focus on the rational arguments--and avoid the self-work--aren't very happy people.

 

Is delaying gratification a virtue? I don't know, man. I see that it can be a valuable trait to have--although sometimes (rarely) the exact opposite is more appropriate.

 

The final part of my critique would be, why are you arguing this in the first place? What goal do you have in mind? What do you want to come from your arguments?

But I'll just add this, you certainly do not have to answer my questions nor respond to my post. To do so, I believe would to show a level of vulnerability over a internet forum in which most anyone can access and may have painful results.
 

[MysterionMuffles]

Since there are similarities, knowing the differences between our views would help bridge the gap if there are any significant differences that might need work.

 

 

 

The final part of my critique would be, why are you arguing this in the first place? What goal do you have in mind? What do you want to come from your arguments?

But I'll just add this, you certainly do not have to answer my questions nor respond to my post. To do so, I believe would to show a level of vulnerability over a internet forum in which most anyone can access and may have painful results.
 

 

I don't mind. 

 

Why am I arguing this?

 

I'm not so much arguing it as opposed to seeing where everyone else comes from. I already had my argument in mind when I posted this, but I always like to see what others think initially and it's been interesting to see how one can give reasons why we should be virtuous aside from simply fuck evil! The goal I had in mind was to add to my conscience arguement, so for Carl to point out that shouds require ifs, MRW adding that one cannot be loved without virtue, and then of course the various economic arguments others went over--all of this has helped solidify my already existant desire to be virtuous.

 

What I would like to come from my argument is others to accept if it's reasonable to them as well that we require virtue to have a clean enough conscience to function in society and our relationships.

 

As for how do I define virtue and what actions count?

 

I would like to make another thread about it actually

[Drew.]

Since there are similarities, knowing the differences between our views would help bridge the gap if there are any significant differences that might need work.

 

 

 

I don't mind. 

 

Why am I arguing this?

 

I'm not so much arguing it as opposed to seeing where everyone else comes from. I already had my argument in mind when I posted this, but I always like to see what others think initially and it's been interesting to see how one can give reasons why we should be virtuous aside from simply fuck evil! The goal I had in mind was to add to my conscience arguement, so for Carl to point out that shouds require ifs, MRW adding that one cannot be loved without virtue, and then of course the various economic arguments others went over--all of this has helped solidify my already existant desire to be virtuous.

 

What I would like to come from my argument is others to accept if it's reasonable to them as well that we require virtue to have a clean enough conscience to function in society and our relationships.

 

As for how do I define virtue and what actions count?

 

I would like to make another thread about it actually

 

Oh, yeah that makes sense. As far as "shoulds" go, assuming that should implies a moral reason/absolute, then I don't think that creating a valid argument that could be convincing would be possible. A person would follow a should if they already wanted to follow shoulds and be moral. As far as effects go, I think that you could list a bajillion of them, one such being a clean conscience.

 

I've been tossing around the question of what is 'virtue' for a long time, and I don't think that I've really got anywhere, haha. I wish you the best, though.

[MysterionMuffles]

Thanks for participating in satiating my curiosity on virtue, Drew

[Nathan Metric]

The question "why be virtious" is a mal-formed question. It presupooses that one should act or believe in something for a good reason.

 

A more proper question is how do we convince people who only look out for their hedonistic self-interest to pursue virtue? This is probably going to ruffle the feathers of the strong atheists on this site.

 

Pose a wager. There are 5 possible outcomes of death,

 

1)Death is absolute. Our bodies go to the grave and that's it.

2)We wake up from the Matrix and are greeted by advanced humans that look nothing like us. 

3)We are forced to suffer an evil supernaturality.

4)We are unconditionally rewarded by whatever supernaturality.

5)We are conditionally rewarded by the supernaturality 

 

So how do these 5 possible outcomes inform us of the signifance of out actions.

 

1)Our actions have no meaning for there is no hope for mortals. 

2)Our actions have no meaning because our reality is just a simulation,

3)Our actions have no meaning because evil cannot be trusted. (Evil can betray. Trying to secure favors with evil is absurd and pointless)

4)Our actions have no meaning because we will be rewarded no matter what we do.

5)Our actions DO have meaning because we will only be rewarded to the degree we pursue what that supernaturality thinks is virtue.

 

So what do we have? We have 4 options where our actions do not matter and we have 1 option where our actions do matter. That one option tells us that we should act virtiously.

 

Therefore,  you should pursue virtue because

a)you could potentially be rewarded after death because of that virtue

and

b)you are not "wasting" any of your life anyway even if the other possibilities are true.

 

Now to be clear, this is not the same as Pascal's Wager because Pascal's Wager is an attempt to justify being part of a specific religion where this Wager I've formulated doesn't justify any particular belief system. It merely provides a reason why you should pursue virtue period.

[darsin814]

The law of diminishing returns applies to evil. Virtue does not. Therefore, based on return on investment, virtue is more profitable. I think I just plagiarized Stef, by the way.

[AjaxTheGiant]

Humans are a social species, and as a result our interactions affect one and other. For example if a parent is virtuous they’re more likely to raise virtuous children, whom are going to grow up and positively affect the world around them. Virtue is an underpinning factor if we want to more towards a more enlightened society, as once there are no longer any forms of Government, what is deemed socially acceptable will be fully reflected in the morals standards of society. I submit that in an evil society, people would only care for themselves and not hesitate to push someone else down if it meant that they could get what they want, in contrast in a virtuous society people would assist others where they could in an attempt to build a move loving, peaceful world. 

[neeeel]

There are lots of arguments here for why we should be virtuous, based on the rewards we get for being virtuous. That doesnt sound virtuous to me, Narcissists and sociopaths act nice, act virtuous even, in order to get supply, or/ reward. does that make them virtuous?

 

Is virtuousness just the actions? Ie if all my actions are virtuous, then I am virtuous? Even if perhaps inside I would rather do something that wasnt virtuous, but decided not to because of the greater rewards of being virtuous? Can I fake it till I make it?

 

My impression is that virtuousness is what you are, not what you do. That its a natural response, rather than a weighing up of options, that its not a rational discussion in your head as to what you should do to get the best return on investment. That its not even identifying in your head what the "virtous" response is. But rather it being a natural response, like breathing, or your heart beating

[Phuein]

I'm glad I ran into this discussion. I've given this question a lot of thought, over the years.

 

Actually, I phrased my question differently: What is the harm in doing evil? Say murder, rape, or steal. Even insulting others, say out of spite.

 

The idea of karma entertained me. The notion that all bad deeds eventually return to you. Seems fair. But it doesn't always happen... History tells of people who did horrible things, yet lived a full rich life in great success, such as some of the ancient Greek emperors.

 

Also, Hindu Karma requires reincarnation for it to make sense; as karma may act in another life entirely. I dismiss karma, because there's no proof for reincarnation, nor for future retribution. So I kept thinking...

 

And then I realized that the price for doing evil is instantaneous. The moment I act in a harmful way, I immediately make that behavior a real part of my life - of myself. This means that while I don't steal, theft isn't a constant reality in my life. I don't fear it each moment. But, once I do steal, then the reality of theft turns so vivid, that the threat of theft becomes constant. If I could steal, then might as well anyone else could steal from me.

 

The clearest example of this is murder. Murder has the greatest impact on people. One you kill a man, not in self-defense, your mind sees the world as if in constant war. Every person is a real potential murderer, who might attack you at any moment. Anxiety eats at you constantly. Your dreams are full of murder, and loud noises make you jump in terror, bringing you back to that moment you murdered. ><

 

The only exception to this are sociopaths. People who are unable to sympathize with others. They see others only as prey. But those people don't represent humanity in any way, so I don't think it's relevant for this discussion.

[Freedom4TheVirtuous]

If being evil is more profitable and virtue does not guarantee happiness at our current state as a species, why should one be virtuous?

 

(I'm not saying that I'd want to turn to the dark side because it's easier, with the progress I've made, I think it'd be much more difficult to be evil. Just curious.)

I don't know. The answer is different to everyone. I don't need a reason. I know I'm going to die. I know what it feels like to suffer Evil. I know what it feels like to be treated well, I know what it feels like to play Evil's game, I know what it feels like to be virtuous.

 

I prefer Virtue.

 

It just makes me happy...

 

Uncertainty also excites me.

 

The virtuous life is quite an uncertain one.

 

Always hated boring, repetitive tasks - but now I do those and just focus on the relationships I can influence towards better behavior.

 

Nothing else matters.

 

I already had my childhood.

 

Time for others to have a better childhood and that's what I hope to give.

 

It brings me joy, sadness, grief, love, pain.

 

I feel alive.

 

I also like fighting evil.

 

Ive always been an underdog and been Good at overcoming odds.

 

Hope this helps others achieve Good.