Fighting Flaws or Cultivating Virtues: Which is Better?

Helen Keller somewhere said, "It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."


Which might introduce the question: Is it best to "fight the devil" -- that is, oppose weaknesses in ourselves and others -- or cultivate and encourage the strengths in ourselves and others? Given one had to make the choice, that is.

This reminds me of the yamas (restraints, or fighting flaws) and niyamas (observances, cultivating strengths) in my faith.

Both are considered equally valid, but in terms of character development, the restraints come first. So we need to get rid of at least some of our flaws before even attempting cultivation of strengths.

Sunstone said:

Helen Keller somewhere said, "It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."

Which might introduce the question: Is it best to "fight the devil" -- that is, oppose weaknesses in ourselves and others -- or cultivate and encourage the strengths in ourselves and others? Given one had to make the choice, that is.

Click to expand...

I feel like a virtue and a vice are often two points on the same spectrum rather than separate things.

Suppose someone is lazy. We could say she has the vice of laziness, or that she lacks the virtue of productivity. So opposing a weakness and cultivating a virtue in that sense, seem to be the same thing.

Something like Malevolence -> Indifference -> Benevolence is another spectrum. If a person is on the malevolent side, then it seems that phrasing it as fighting a vice is most fitting. If someone is indifferent, then it seems that cultivating the virtue of benevolence is a preferable phrasing. That's still basically the same spectrum though, so the terminology depends where they are on that spectrum to start with.

If someone has a pretty enormous weakness then it seems that trying to oppose that is a good use of energy. If on the other hand, someone is a mostly indifferent person that neither does much good or bad, then building virtue seems to be the appropriate use of energy.

Vinayaka said:

This reminds me of the yamas (restraints, or fighting flaws) and niyamas (observances, cultivating strengths) in my faith.

Both are considered equally valid, but in terms of character development, the restraints come first. So we need to get rid of at least some of our flaws before even attempting cultivation of strengths.

Click to expand...

That's quite interesting to me in part because I've come to a very different view -- albeit while looking at a different area of life than the spiritual.

Back when I had employees, I discovered that it was much easier to get gains in productivity by encouraging them to build on their strengths, rather than spend too much time trying to abolish their weaknesses. I used to think of it as a bit like sports. If you had someone who had the skills of a great quarterback, you wouldn't be spending your time wisely trying to get him to overcome his weaknesses as a lineman.

That's not to say I don't think you have a legitimate point, because I do believe some weaknesses are fatal if not dealt with. So perhaps the difference between us might be a mere matter of emphasis.

It depends on whether its being applied to yourself as self-improvement, self-reflection, or its how you perceive others. I coached volleyball a lot, and it was 90% positive. Still, if some athlete had improper footwork in approaching, I'd point it out and try to get it corrected. Never negative in games, just in practices, so if there was an emotional self-defeating response in the practice, I had time to talk it out with them, and explain why.

Even with employees, I'm sure you had to do some correcting. For example, if someone is chronically 10 minutes late, I'd think you'd say something.

Penumbra said:

I feel like a virtue and a vice are often two points on the same spectrum rather than separate things.

Suppose someone is lazy. We could say she has the vice of laziness, or that she lacks the virtue of productivity. So opposing a weakness and cultivating a virtue in that sense, seem to be the same thing.

Something like Malevolence -> Indifference -> Benevolence is another spectrum. If a person is on the malevolent side, then it seems that phrasing it as fighting a vice is most fitting. If someone is indifferent, then it seems that cultivating the virtue of benevolence is a preferable phrasing. That's still basically the same spectrum though, so the terminology depends where they are on that spectrum to start with.

If someone has a pretty enormous weakness then it seems that trying to oppose that is a good use of energy. If on the other hand, someone is a mostly indifferent person that neither does much good or bad, then building virtue seems to be the appropriate use of energy.

Click to expand...

Would you more or less agree with the proposition that "every virtue is a vice and every vice is a virtue depending on circumstance"? I sometimes feel that way, although I'm sure I would be hard pressed to name some instances in which a vice became a virtue, etc.

But to take your example of laziness -- I can imagine instances in which laziness is the best course of action (or perhaps more properly, inaction). For instance, someone who was lazy might be inclined to wait for problems to solve themselves -- and, indeed, many problems do solve themselves if one waits long enough -- while sometimes tackling a problem prematurely turns it into an even greater problem.

I'm not sure I would say "every" virtue is a vice, etc, but I do believe many virtues and vices are made so by circumstance, rather than being always beneficial or always harmful.

Vinayaka said:

It depends on whether its being applied to yourself as self-improvement, self-reflection, or its how you perceive others. I coached volleyball a lot, and it was 90% positive. Still, if some athlete had improper footwork in approaching, I'd point it out and try to get it corrected. Never negative in games, just in practices, so if there was an emotional self-defeating response in the practice, I had time to talk it out with them, and explain why.

Even with employees, I'm sure you had to do some correcting. For example, if someone is chronically 10 minutes late, I'd think you'd say something.

Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not denying that correction has a place, I'm just saying that encouragement is usually the more fruitful.

It is best to cultivate virtue. The Greeks had it right.

Sunstone said:

saying that encouragement is usually the more fruitful.

Click to expand...

I think that's basically been proven many times by psychological research. Still there are a few who overdo it to the point where the other person feels they can do no wrong at all. Not a parenting technique I'd recommend.

Sunstone said:

Would you more or less agree with the proposition that "every virtue is a vice and every vice is a virtue depending on circumstance"? I sometimes feel that way, although I'm sure I would be hard pressed to name some instances in which a vice became a virtue, etc.

But to take your example of laziness -- I can imagine instances in which laziness is the best course of action (or perhaps more properly, inaction). For instance, someone who was lazy might be inclined to wait for problems to solve themselves -- and, indeed, many problems do solve themselves if one waits long enough -- while sometimes tackling a problem prematurely turns it into an even greater problem.

I'm not sure I would say "every" virtue is a vice, etc, but I do believe many virtues and vices are made so by circumstance, rather than being always beneficial or always harmful.

Click to expand...

I agree that the word "every" is a problem there. I do believe many virtues and vices can be one in the same. I generally agree with Aristotle that virtue is a certain point between two extremes. Justice is somewhere between vengeance and pacifism. Courage is somewhere between cowardliness and recklessness. The optimal point changes depending on circumstances.

For laziness, my experience so far is that waiting for problems to solve themselves almost always end up disastrous. So for me, I would not recommend that approach for most things. If someone has other experiences where waiting does seem to regularly result in problems solving themselves, then they'd probably be more inclined to continue that approach. So I suppose it depends on what types of problems and what type of life a person is living.

Sunstone said:

Helen Keller somewhere said, "It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."


Which might introduce the question: Is it best to "fight the devil" -- that is, oppose weaknesses in ourselves and others -- or cultivate and encourage the strengths in ourselves and others? Given one had to make the choice, that is.

Click to expand...

Interesting question. I think honestly i would consider the cultivation of virtues to be the way forward, and that fixing our shortcomings goes along with it, like the other side of the same coin.

I think that certain cultures and outlooks develop among different sorts of people based on cultivating virtue or resisting weaknesses. Few people will be lucky enough to posess some genuine talent or ability, and the good in their life will be the cultivation of that best part of themselves. That is their virtue, and their virtuous life. Many people (most infact) will not have any particular talent, ability/virtue so to speak. As such their perspective and moral framework will be one of comparison to the other virtuous group, a re-sentiment. Their virtue will emerge from a focus on the not having, the restraint, and the denial of those things the able have, demonising it to legitimate themselves.

This group of people i think have been the target of religion, especially in the Judaeo-Christian tradition, and these 'sins' often don’t actually amount to bad things, but represent resentiments and/or things that lead to a less pacified and servile people. (useful for an institution of religion to reinforce as sins).

As such i think that choosing to focus on 'resisting the devil' will often amount to exercising this resentiment based morality, and lead to a reinforcement of a stifled and repressed sort of existence. That this process of focusing on our evils, our sins is itself the sickness that needs to be broken out of.

Due to the profound effect in western culture that the Judeo-Christian tradition has had, I think it is something that effects even the non-religious, permeating the everyday interactions in society through class issues, politics and discriminations to how we talk about people and gossip to our nasty edged newspapers and celebrity obsessed culture. There’s this pervasive mind-set fixed in the ‘not having’ ‘the resentiment’ and defining that as the norm. I think this is a damaging and broken perspective that persists in our world.

I suppose defining a scope and emphasis is crucial for such a question. For that matter, so is defining what a virtue is; there are some very "out there" understandings of virtue creeping around.

Out there in the vaccuum, though, I would say that seeking virtues is a better choice if a choice must be made. Positive goals are generally more motivating than avoidance-based ones. They also have a better chance of motivating others by their turn, which I have recently concluded to be an important consideration.

Friend Sunstone,

Fighting Flaws or Cultivating Virtues: Which is Better?

Click to expand...

During an interview was asked: " what is your strengths and weaknesses"?
I responded stating that "My weakness is my strength as always respond directly and spontaneously, those who do not like it take it as my weakness and those who do take it as a strength.
Meaning every scale of action has a negative and positive side. Balance is the key to any action. Driving fast maybe cultivating a virtue/skill but has pitfalls and fighting flaws could improve fighting qualities.

Love & rgds

Sunstone said:

Helen Keller somewhere said, "It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui."


Which might introduce the question: Is it best to "fight the devil" -- that is, oppose weaknesses in ourselves and others -- or cultivate and encourage the strengths in ourselves and others? Given one had to make the choice, that is.

Click to expand...

I don't believe good and evil cancel each other out. Just because you gave your $50 M to charity, doesn't make it better that the next guy was murdered.

So I would say "fighting the devil."
Without evil, good would have ample opportunity to flourish on its own.

Better that you only give $10, and that other guy also have his life, so that he can give $10 too.