MysterionMuffles Posted February 20, 2015 Posted February 20, 2015 If love is our involuntary reaction to virtue, what is virtue other than moral excellence? At its most basic definition, virtue is having high moral standards. And that just sounds abstract since morality it self is hard to define, so let's explore it further. What I would like to do in this thread is help compile a list of virtuous traits one could possess in order to be virtuous. To be a moral person you must at least possess a few of these traits, and if you possess them all, then awesome! I think this list could help people know what to look for in potential mates if we're going to accept that love is our involuntary reaction to virtue. Honesty Generosity Curiosity Compassion Empathy And of course, people are free to argue whether or not certain traits or actions are virtuous at all. 1
Omegahero09 Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Rationally self-interested maybe? Edit: nvm an immoral person could easily be rationally self-interested
luxfelix Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 They say Patience is a virtue. Some more for the collection: Trustworthiness (maybe not distinct enough from honesty?), Fairness (as in sportsmanship and following agreed-upon rule sets), and Diligence (a persistence in performance and/or pursuit can generate admiration). 13 Virtues according to Ben Franklin: (To improve the mind through self-education, the body through physical activity, and the behavior through moral perfection, he would evaluate himself on how well he performed in the various subjects.) Temperance: “Eat not to dullness and drink not to elevation.” Silence: “Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself. Avoid trifling conversation.” Order: “Let all your things have their places. Let each part of your business have its time.” Resolution: “Resolve to perform what you ought. Perform without fail what you resolve.” Frugality: “Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself: i.e. Waste nothing.” Industry: “Lose no time. Be always employed in something useful. Cut off all unnecessary actions.” Sincerity: “Use no hurtful deceit. Think innocently and justly; and, if you speak, speak accordingly.” Justice: “Wrong none, by doing injuries or omitting the benefits that are your duty.” Moderation: “Avoid extremes. Forebear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve.” Cleanliness: “Tolerate no uncleanness in body, clothes or habitation.” Chastity: “Rarely use venery but for health or offspring; Never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another’s peace or reputation.” Tranquility: “Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable.” Humility: “Imitate Jesus and Socrates.” 2
Ruben Zandstra Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Just my thoughts: Even extremely immoral persons would probably have at least some virtuous traits. If they wouldn't, then they would most likely be very unsuccessful at being immoral. The more successful someone is at being immoral, the more dangerous we could judge singular virtuous traits to be in the end, since they are then merely the bait with which people are being lured into being exploited. I think a list of virtuous traits would only become helpful if it came along with a method of really narrowing down how a person scores on combinations of traits, both virtuous ones, neutral ones and immoral ones. Perhaps a "psychopathy test" - type of questionnaire could be the basis for a "potential mate" survey.
MysterionMuffles Posted February 21, 2015 Author Posted February 21, 2015 Interesting thoughts, Ruben, I appreciate it. Though I'd argue that we should make this list before we can narrow how a person scores a combination of these traits. We'd have to know what they are first right?
neeeel Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 I think it would also be interesting to look at WHY these things are virtuous? 1
Drew. Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 I'll second neeeeeeeeeeeeeel. I would say that these are all great and wonderful traits to have, but why are they virtues? My understanding is that virtue, ethically positive, and moral are synonymous. At least in the framework of UPB, not only is ethics universal but aesthetics is as well. Why are these traits--which I think we can agree on are universally preferable--ethics and not aesthetics?
Drew. Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 So, I've been reflecting upon this for awhile. I think that my previous statement that virtue and moral are synonymous is not entirely accurate. If I recall correctly, in UPB Stef states that virtue is what we act with, and is not an action itself. I.e. you can act with courage/honesty/etc. But there is no way that you can do courage to another person or thing. That said, I would say that virtue, in essence, is to act with love. To be honest is to act with love toward yourself, the other party, and reality. To act with courage is to act with love toward your values in the face of challenge. I know that before, the conversation was at a block, and I hope that this new path will encourage further discussion and exploration. This has been a question that I've been wondering about. I remember when I was first introduced to FDR, I loved that what was wrong became so clear, but I never quite knew or understood what goodness was. I was drawn to Ayn Rand and Objectivism because she gave a very clear definition what was good--that which furthers man's life.
MysterionMuffles Posted March 10, 2015 Author Posted March 10, 2015 I think it would also be interesting to look at WHY these things are virtuous? Good point. I'll think about it and see if I can reason out why some of these traits are virtuous.
neeeel Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Good point. I'll think about it and see if I can reason out why some of these traits are virtuous. You might need to start with a definition of virtue and virtuous This has been a question that I've been wondering about. I remember when I was first introduced to FDR, I loved that what was wrong became so clear, but I never quite knew or understood what goodness was. I was drawn to Ayn Rand and Objectivism because she gave a very clear definition what was good--that which furthers man's life. Isnt this just utilitarianism in disguise? What do you mean by "furthers mans life"? Stef says at the beginning of UPB Ethics cannot be objectively defined as “that which is good for man’s survival.”
Drew. Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Isnt this just utilitarianism in disguise? What do you mean by "furthers mans life"? Ms. Rand added some caveats so that actions such as murder, theft, rape, and lying weren't justified. In essence, she would say that they may benefit a single individual who acts in this manner, but it doesn't not further life because the actor is required to take from someone who has acted with rationality, perseverance, and whatever else to produce something of value. But, when I was trying to follow her definition, I would weigh my decisions to figure out what would benefit me and further my life the most, and whatever that was, I called it to be "the good." Which is definitely and absolutely a limited form of utilitarianism.
Alice Amell Posted March 24, 2015 Posted March 24, 2015 I like that definition of love. However I interpret virtues as being unrelated to morality, and subjective. A virtue could be anything you value. It is just a trait someone has. If for instance you value dishonesty, you may love a dishonest person. Because they embody your values. Or if you value honesty, you may love an honest person. If you value UPB's morality, you may love someone who follows UPB. And so on. In this way, virtues are any trait you value. I think most people prefer honesty, generosity etc. But I would not say that universal objective virtues exist that are a prerequisite for love.
MysterionMuffles Posted March 26, 2015 Author Posted March 26, 2015 From Wikipedia: Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή "arete") is moral excellence. A virtue is a positive trait or quality deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. To be virtuous is to hold steadfastly to positive principles that make people happy without manipulation, like lying to someone to make them happy. Virtuous actions would be rooted in principles of moral excellence. The first thing an action has to live up to is not violating UPB. The second thing an action needs to do to qualify is virtuous is mutual benefit between giver and receiver. I think a virtuous action should end in a win/win situation. Even if some honesty may be inconvenient at the moment, like telling someone they're ruining their life with drugs, it would make them happier in the long run if they honoured your empathy and compassion by cleaning themselves up, thus making better of themselves as well as keeping you happy by fulfilling a condition that is required to remain friends.
Alice Amell Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 From Wikipedia: To be virtuous is to hold steadfastly to positive principles that make people happy without manipulation, like lying to someone to make them happy. Virtuous actions would be rooted in principles of moral excellence. The first thing an action has to live up to is not violating UPB. The second thing an action needs to do to qualify is virtuous is mutual benefit between giver and receiver. I think a virtuous action should end in a win/win situation. Even if some honesty may be inconvenient at the moment, like telling someone they're ruining their life with drugs, it would make them happier in the long run if they honoured your empathy and compassion by cleaning themselves up, thus making better of themselves as well as keeping you happy by fulfilling a condition that is required to remain friends. If we are going by that definition, then virtue is synonymous with following UPB. However, the definition of love that Stefan puts forth does not use that definition of virtue. He accepts honesty, hard working, etc. as virtues but these are only aesthetically pleasing traits. They are not related to morality. You may say they result in win-win scenarios but that is not always true. Many people do not appreciate honesty and if you are honest they will get angry; they will also never change and will dissociate from you. They would see it as being rude to challenge their views. They value faith over reason. So not everyone values the same things. Even morality is not valued by everyone (immoral people). My definition of virtue would be any trait that someone possesses that is valued. Virtue then would be completely subjective. If I am religious and I value faith, and I want to avoid all conflicts, I won't like someone who is dropping truth bombs all the time or challenging my ideas. But I will like someone who also has faith and avoids conflict. 1
Recommended Posts