Difference between Morality and Virtue?

[godnotgod]

Not really, but I can vaguely remember life when the stimuli was solely based on images and senses and nothing more.

I am asking what the condition of your mind is at this very moment, when it is not thinking, not conceptualizing. Even when your mind is actively involved in thought, in ideas, etc, those thoughts occur against some kind of background. There are silent intervals between thoughts. Can you see the background, and forget the foreground for a moment, and describe that background against which all thoughts occur?

Long ago, even before stimuli, images, senses, etc. your mind was there as well, but perhaps you do not remember.

"What did your face look like before your mother was born?"
A Zen koan

 

[godnotgod]

I would say that morality is a system of right and wrong.

A virtue, otoh, is a principle that is morally good. Justice, for example.

So, morality encompasses virtue, but also its opposite.

Your description sounds as if morality and virtue are one and the same, 'good' and 'not-good' being the criteria. We usually think of virtue as an intrinsic quality, whereas morality is a developed system of values.

Morality comes about when the mind discriminates between good and not-good. What is the condition without such discrimination, where the mind does not see any distinction between the two; where the mind is amoral? We can look at nature, for example, and not see it as morally good or evil, but still see it as 'good' in the virtuous sense.

 

[Storm]

Your description sounds as if morality and virtue are one and the same, 'good' and 'not-good' being the criteria.

Then you didn't understand what I was saying. Morality codifies virtues AND non-virtues. Virtue is part of morality. That does NOT make them synonymous.

We usually think of virtue as an intrinsic quality, whereas morality is a developed system of values.

I don't. Virtue comes more naturally to some than others, but everyone can benefit by cultivating it.

 

[godnotgod]

Then you didn't understand what I was saying. Morality codifies virtues AND non-virtues. Virtue is part of morality. That does NOT make them synonymous.


I don't. Virtue comes more naturally to some than others, but everyone can benefit by cultivating it.

You have good points. I have been busy and have not had ample time to respond to your posts, but will try to do so soon.

Thanks.

 

[Storm]

You have good points. I have been busy and have not had ample time to respond to your posts, but will try to do so soon.

Thanks.

OK, no pressure.

 

[dust1n]

I am asking what the condition of your mind is at this very moment, when it is not thinking, not conceptualizing. Even when your mind is actively involved in thought, in ideas, etc, those thoughts occur against some kind of background. There are silent intervals between thoughts. Can you see the background, and forget the foreground for a moment, and describe that background against which all thoughts occur?

Long ago, even before stimuli, images, senses, etc. your mind was there as well, but perhaps you do not remember.

"What did your face look like before your mother was born?"
A Zen koan

To answer the question, no. But I'm kinda of becoming a little lost on what you are getting out defining the difference between morality and virtue.

 

[godnotgod]

I am beginning with the idea that man is intrinsically good, but not morally good. To be intrinsically good is to follow one's nature. Your nature is something that you already have. It is not good in the sense of moral good and evil. Intrinsic goodness directs our behavior from the inside-out. It does not try to make us good because we already are good.

Morality is a product of our social conditioning. We learn how to be morally good from our social institutions, our laws, our parents, our mores. Moral laws are directed toward the individual from the outside. It is an attempt, by society, to make man good by moulding him into something he has not yet become. Morality involves the concepts of good and evil which have been superimposed over the natural order. Nature itself, however, is amoral.

The problem with morality is that when a concept of The Good is created, the concept of Evil is also automatically created, since Good and Evil are relative to one another, and so, inseparable. Once The Good is created, it must now fight Evil, as dictated by how it sees Evil. In fighting Evil, one only succeeds in making Evil stronger. Action is always required with morality, but therein lies the problem, as action creates cause and effect, and while the immediate result may appear to be good, negative effects come about in the long run, because the actions morality seeks are against the natural flow of life.

Not so with intrinsic goodness, or Virtue. By simply following one's true nature, without deliberate intent or action to make anything good, goodness is the result.

'The sage carries the jade close to his heart'

Lao tse

 

[ManTimeForgot]

MTF definitions:

Morality is a set of values specifically designed to ensure social harmony and the reproductive success of humanity.

Virtues are the specific values that are generally deemed ideal in order to ensure social harmony and the continued reproductive success of humanity.

Ethics are the individual practice of virtuous behavior or the discussion (branch of philosophy) of what said behaviors should be.


A virtuous man is someone we would characterize as having strong characteristics that lead to social harmony/reproductive success (society is the predominant environment in which reproduction occurs). So we would then characterize this man's behavior as generally being moral as his decision making is consistent with morality.


If morality were actually as subjective as many like to claim it is, then how come more people don't think that Aztec behavior of ritual sacrifice of humans was moral since it was generally accepted (within their society) as being necessary to stop the sun from going cold and dead?

The truth is most people go about their days making moral judgments. The decision not to want grape jelly on our sandwich does not share the same character as the decision to not want a neighbor who is a murderer or child molester. At the core of most moral judgment is resentment. We resent when bad things that are within the control of another sentient happen to us. You shouldn't have chosen to do that. So whether or not we can actually identify the principles used to make moral judgments (Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism) is irrelevant since it is demonstrably true that we act as though we have a morality system with objective features to it. Yes there is some variability in terms of how it is practiced and which features are weighted more heavily, but considering we are not perfect practitioners of everything and our understanding is subconscious I would say that we are doing pretty good.

MTF

 

[Penumbra]

I think of virtue in the broad sense of basically being equivalent to Arete. Excellence of any kind, and most appropriately, excellent of a broad and well-rounded kind.

With this sort of view, roughly speaking, the virtue of a horse is its swiftness, the virtue of a knife is a sharp edge, the virtue of an athlete is his strength, etc.

The virtues of a human are things like intelligence, athleticism, beauty, integrity, wisdom, courage, and morality. In this sense, all appropriate forms of morality are subsets of virtue. Virtue encompasses all forms of excellence, including excellence in behavior and interaction (morality), but extends well beyond morality. And a high form of human virtue covers a broad subset of all possible human virtues- well rounded and excellent in many ways. When I think of a "virtuous" person rather than simply a "moral" person, I think of a person who is highly skilled and able, and also morally developed.

For example, Ben Franklin's 13 virtues extend far beyond morality. Although certain items may be debatable, the premise behind the list is that it's a list of things to do to be excellent.

 

[lunamoth]

Morality refers to the social norms and behaviors that allow smooth functioning of people in groups. Virtue implies a value, that a trait is good. We think of virtues as being objectively good, while morals may change from place to place.

 

[godnotgod]

Some really great comments here. But still a question:

Is virtue innate, or is it taught/acquired, as morality is?

 

[Penumbra]

Some really great comments here. But still a question:

Is virtue innate, or is it taught/acquired, as morality is?

Certain types of aptitude (whether it's moral aptitude, physical aptitude, mental aptitude, etc) are innate, while others are refined or developed through experience.

 

[godnotgod]

Certain types of aptitude (whether it's moral aptitude, physical aptitude, mental aptitude, etc) are innate, while others are refined or developed through experience.

Excuse me? You are saying that 'moral aptitude' is innate? Morality is concerned with concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. We come into this world with ideas of right and wrong, good and evil as innate to our being?

What I am suggesting to you is that man is amoral to begin with, and that morality is something that is taught to him by his society.

Virtue, however, is innate.

Tell me. Where does the natural ability of an infant to smile and laugh come from? And why do many of us lose this ability when we 'grow up', that is to say, when we become socially indoctrinated by a 'moral' society? An infant seems to know how to play the simple game of peek-a-boo without having been taught. Do you see a connection between this and innate virtue, or no?

 

[Penumbra]

Excuse me? You are saying that 'moral aptitude' is innate? Morality is concerned with concepts of right and wrong, good and evil. We come into this world with ideas of right and wrong, good and evil as innate to our being?

What I am suggesting to you is that man is amoral to begin with, and that morality is something that is taught to him by his society.

Virtue, however, is innate.

Tell me. Where does the natural ability of an infant to smile and laugh come from? And why do many of us lose this ability when we 'grow up', that is to say, when we become socially indoctrinated by a 'moral' society? An infant seems to know how to play the simple game of peek-a-boo without having been taught. Do you see a connection between this and innate virtue, or no?

People, from early on, have different characteristics from each other. Some people naturally feel more empathy than others, and that acts as part of the foundation for developing moral character.

Morality isn't just knowledge. Morality is determined in part by feelings that person experiences, which then leads to choices of actions, or adoption of certain moral worldviews.

 

[godnotgod]

People, from early on, have different characteristics from each other. Some people naturally feel more empathy than others, and that acts as part of the foundation for developing moral character.

How would you define 'moral character'?

Morality isn't just knowledge. Morality is determined in part by feelings that person experiences, which then leads to choices of actions, or adoption of certain moral worldviews.

In other words, we devise a code of conduct for future behavior that is based on concepts of good and evil; right and wrong. The empathy you speak of is just part of being human, perhaps tied in to our biological survival mechanisms?

Why is it, then, that the moralist, in general, turns out to be such a rigid, intolerant character, the epitome of such having been expressed in those who carried out such programs like the Inquisition, for example?

*****

 

[joea]

Morality has no place in my books because it is imposed on me by the society. I simply do that which I feel is right.....even if it's the wrong morality. For virtue,....no such thing;

 

[godnotgod]

Morality has no place in my books because it is imposed on me by the society. I simply do that which I feel is right.....even if it's the wrong morality.

So you are following your intuitive nature. Do you know it's source?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

I think of virtue in the broad sense of basically being equivalent to Arete. Excellence of any kind, and most appropriately, excellent of a broad and well-rounded kind.

With this sort of view, roughly speaking, the virtue of a horse is its swiftness, the virtue of a knife is a sharp edge, the virtue of an athlete is his strength, etc.

The virtues of a human are things like intelligence, athleticism, beauty, integrity, wisdom, courage, and morality. In this sense, all appropriate forms of morality are subsets of virtue. Virtue encompasses all forms of excellence, including excellence in behavior and interaction (morality), but extends well beyond morality. And a high form of human virtue covers a broad subset of all possible human virtues- well rounded and excellent in many ways. When I think of a "virtuous" person rather than simply a "moral" person, I think of a person who is highly skilled and able, and also morally developed.

For example, Ben Franklin's 13 virtues extend far beyond morality. Although certain items may be debatable, the premise behind the list is that it's a list of things to do to be excellent.

I can respect this position, but, at least for me personally, there is a limit to how far this can go.

Certain forms of excellence, while useful in certain circumstances or to certain professions, I do not think qualify as "virtue." A ruthless and indifferent professional assassin might be made far more effective as an assassin by virtue of his ruthlessness or indifference, but I would not say that he was made more virtuous because of it.

Ultimately, I think that virtue must have a morality component. Sure qualities like pragmatism, creativity, and determination can be used for "Evil" (they are amoral after all), but when applied as intended by morality we say that the person is virtuous.

MTF

 

[godnotgod]

I can respect this position, but, at least for me personally, there is a limit to how far this can go.

Certain forms of excellence, while useful in certain circumstances or to certain professions, I do not think qualify as "virtue." A ruthless and indifferent professional assassin might be made far more effective as an assassin by virtue of his ruthlessness or indifference, but I would not say that he was made more virtuous because of it.

Ultimately, I think that virtue must have a morality component. Sure qualities like pragmatism, creativity, and determination can be used for "Evil" (they are amoral after all), but when applied as intended by morality we say that the person is virtuous.

MTF

But you see, a truly virtuous person, one that is directed from within, would never allow himself to be led into behavior he intrinsically knows is incorrect and even harmful. The reason for this is because he has no expectation of reward or punishment. His virtue shows him that such pursuits are folly. He is in no need of the constraints of morality.

But a moral person is always tempted to cross over the line, because he is willing to take the chance that he might surrender being morally 'good' for awhile in order to reap maximum reward. He is constantly driven by some sort of 'gaining idea', and it is this gaining idea which corrupts.

A virtuous person who adopts morality as his guide may end up losing contact with his inner virtue, in the pursuit of external gratifications and rewards.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Having gone back and reread my last post for like the fifth time I realized that I must have at least looked the fool to some. "By virtue of..." You would not use a word unless it was meant to some extent. So in some way it must be true that indifference and ruthlessness possess the identity of virtuousness.


With that said I think that most people when referring to matters of behavior or describing other people use the word virtue with morality in mind. So, I do not think that a primary and secondary virtue distinction would be out of line. Categorize virtues according to whether or not they use the first definition or second definition of virtue.

MTF