Difference between Morality and Virtue?

[Penumbra]

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

Yes, but in my post you responded to, I specifically said that in human terms, a high form of virtue must be broad in scope, encompassing morality and more.

Previous examples, like the virtue of a knife for sharpness, a horse for speed, and an athlete for strength, (and an assassin for ruthlessness or indifference) are purposely simplistic examples to bring home the point that under this definition of virtue/arete, when something is virtuous, it fulfills what it is in an excellent way. To be a virtuous person is to live as a person in an excellent way, and that must necessarily include reason, wisdom, and empathy, because these are the sorts of skills that build a flourishing society. A human is not a one-dimensional concept, and the philosophers that developed this sort of worldview, as well as myself, recognize that virtue of a human must be of a broad scope.

Ethics is a rather fundamental area of study, as it can teach how to best promote human flourishing, either on an individual level or a societal level, and is the natural result of reason, wisdom, and empathy. And so a person really can't be considered virtuous without being highly developed in that area.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Ok, I can see where you are coming from on this issue. For me since I consider morality to be fundamentally rooted in what is beneficial to the person and to society. In order to be moral I would suppose that you must be trying to achieve that excellent life.

Eudaimonia is something I happen to largely agree with. How people get to this is what I think the fundamental disagreement is about. Do you try to be a primarily rational actor, or should you let your emotions guide you? Should you try to uphold traditions or try to undermine them as much as possible? Is there a line that separates justice from compassion; where do justice and vengeance intersect?


The thing I noticed is that most people genuinely agree on what actions are moral; most of the debate is about how we get there (and this is sometimes so confusing to people that they claim to adopt beliefs that they do not in fact possess; vis-a-vis Nihilism or extreme moral relativism).

And if we all agree on what is to be done, well then why bother arguing about how we got there? Let's try and deal with the host of problems that have real life or death consequences; unemployment, energy production, housing, food production and distribution, water access, etc before we start arguing with seriousness about what makes something moral or virtuous.

MTF

 

[godnotgod]

And if we all agree on what is to be done, well then why bother arguing about how we got there? Let's try and deal with the host of problems that have real life or death consequences; unemployment, energy production, housing, food production and distribution, water access, etc before we start arguing with seriousness about what makes something moral or virtuous.

MTF

But, you see, it is those who are driven by desire, which leads to bickering and misunderstandings over priorities, as desire clouds the clarity of the virtuous insight, and insight absolutely necessary to illumine one's path. Nurturing the inner virtue is, therefore, of paramount importance. I recall the parable of the sinner, who, kneelng before Jesus, asks: 'Oh Lord, let me reform the world beginning with myself' (paraphrased).

"You are the world", Maharishi Mahesh Yogi used to say. That is why the spiritually enlightened no longer seek to change the world via moral restraints. They know that by imposing such restraints on others, it only backfires with the opposite effect, though it may appear that change has taken place on the surface. The only real change that can occur is within.

The point it not to argue about what makes something moral or virtuous, but to know the difference between the two.

 

[godnotgod]

Consider the following:

Tao Te Ching
Chapter 38: High Virtue (Te)

The Master doesn't try to be virtuous;
thus his virtue is genuine.
The ordinary man keeps reaching for virtue;
thus his virtue is contrived.

The Master does nothing,
yet he leaves nothing undone.
The ordinary man is always doing things,
yet many more are left to be done.

The kind man does something,
yet something remains undone.

The just man does something,
and leaves many things to be done.

The moralist does something,
and when no one responds
he rolls up his sleeves and uses force.

When the Tao* is lost, there is goodness.
When goodness is lost, there is morality.
When morality is lost, there is ritual.
Ritual is the mere semblance of true faith,
engendering confusion.

Therefore the Master concerns himself
with the depths and not the surface,
with the fruit and not the flower.
He has no will of his own.
He dwells in reality,
and lets all illusions go.

*Tao: Essential Nature
*****

Wayne Dyer essay on the Tao Te Ching - Chapter 38

Living Within Your Own Nature

Here's the message behind this seemingly paradoxical verse of the Tao Te Ching: Your nature is to be good because you came from the Tao, which is goodness. But when you're trying to be good, your essential nature becomes inoperative. In your effort to be good, moral, or obedient, you lose touch with your Tao nature.

There's one sentence in this verse that I pondered for days before writing this short essay: "When the Tao is lost, there is goodness." I felt perplexed because it seemed so contradictory to what the Tao Te Ching was teaching. Finally, in a moment of contemplation while I meditated on a drawing of Lao-tzu, it became clear to me: Nature is good without knowing it were the exact words I heard in my meditation. I then understood what Lao-tzu seemed to want me to convey about this somewhat confusing (to me) 38th verse.

Live by your essential nature, the Tao, which is oneness; it has no polarity. Yet the moment that you know you're good, you introduce the polarity of "good" versus "bad," which causes you to lose your connection to the Tao. Then you introduce something newyou figure that if you can't be good, you'll try to be moral. And what is morality but standards of right and wrong that you try to uphold? As Lao-tzu seems to be saying to me, The Tao is oneness; it has no standards for you to follow. In other words, the Tao just is; it isn't doing anything, yet it leaves nothing undone. There's no morality; there is only the unattached Tao. It isn't right and it isn't fair, but it is essential nature, and you're encouraged to be true to your own.

As morality is lost, the idea of ritual surfaces, so you try to live in accordance with rules and customs that have defined "your people" for centuries. But I could almost hear Lao-tzu saying: The Tao is infinite and excludes no one. Rituals keep you disconnected from the Tao, and you lose them by trying. So you rely upon laws, further dividing yourself and creating chaos for yourself. Again, the Tao just is its own true, essential nature - it has no laws, rituals, morality, or goodness. Observe it and live within its nature. In other words, act without being concerned for your own ego. Give as the Tao does, without condition or trying to be good, moral, or just. Just give to all without preference, as Lao-tzu advises.

I admit that living by this 38th verse may be the total opposite of what you've learned in this lifetime. It certainly represents both an intellectual and a behavioral challenge for me at times. You may appreciate knowing that many of the scholars whom I researched regarding this verse said that Lao-tzu wrote it (and the next one) in response to his opposition to Confucius, his contemporary who laid out specific edicts and codes of conduct for the people. What Laotzu seemed to be saying to me through meditation was: Trust your own essential nature. Let go of all polarities and live in the indivisible oneness that is the Tao. The dichotomies of good/bad, right/wrong, proper/improper, legal/illegal, and the like can be difficult-just remember that when they surface, the Tao is lost.

 

[Jeff_Childers]

Hmm virtue comes from the 1400's. From my studies virtue/s are defined by the absence of a particular sin. So I would define virtue as "virtue predicates without sin(evil) all that is left is virtue".

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Does anyone care to discuss the differences, and their implications, between Morality and Virtue?

Working definitions might be in order.

No man considers morality, or virtue, because others consider it for him, and he doesn't care that they do. When I want something good, I am not moral, nor virtuous.

 

[godnotgod]

No man considers morality, or virtue, because others consider it for him, and he doesn't care that they do. When I want something good, I am not moral, nor virtuous.

What is it in you that recognizes it as good?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

An individual decides his morality based on what they think is the right action to take.

Virtue is just what is smiled upon by the majority that the individual acts upon, disconsidering his moral views.

 

[godnotgod]

An individual decides his morality based on what they think is the right action to take.

..right, and by what means is that determined?

Virtue is just what is smiled upon by the majority that the individual acts upon, disconsidering his moral views.

Is one learned while the other innate?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

..right, and by what means is that determined?

In my personal opinion, ignorance and emotion.

Is one learned while the other innate?

Virtue is learned by learning what another person likes, and acting the way they like around them, while morality is decided by the individual based on how they think they should act when others aren't around.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

What is it in you that recognizes it as good?

I don't care about the good, or what happens after. I feel that it is not for me. I just feel happy, and not because of anyone or everyone, any particular or general reason.

 

[godnotgod]

In my personal opinion, ignorance and emotion.

Virtue is learned by learning what another person likes, and acting the way they like around them, while morality is decided by the individual based on how they think they should act when others aren't around.

Is an intrinsic quality that is not learned a possibility. In other words, before learning, before your social indoctrination, is there a quality you possess naturally? What is it?

 

[godnotgod]

I don't care about the good, or what happens after. I feel that it is not for me. I just feel happy, and not because of anyone or everyone, any particular or general reason.

Do you consider happiness something 'good'?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Is an intrinsic quality that is not learned a possibility. In other words, before learning, before your social indoctrination, is there a quality you possess naturally? What is it?

The pleasure and pain senses. Which is why people claim children and most animals have no sense of morality; all moral codes are determined by pleasure and pain senses, but the psychology of a child or animal would not have crawled out of the egomorphic hole yet, they base morality on their pleasure and pain, not entirely aware of others' pleasure and pain structures. When we observe others more as we grow up, we tend to forget about those things and focus on the pleasure and pain of others more than our own, and that's how morality is formed.

 

[godnotgod]

The pleasure and pain senses. Which is why people claim children and most animals have no sense of morality; all moral codes are determined by pleasure and pain senses, but the psychology of a child or animal would not have crawled out of the egomorphic hole yet, they base morality on their pleasure and pain, not entirely aware of others' pleasure and pain structures. When we observe others more as we grow up, we tend to forget about those things and focus on the pleasure and pain of others more than our own, and that's how morality is formed.

That sounds like a sound argument, but aren't we forgetng something? In reality, isn't morality formed as a selfish result of concern over our own pleasure or pain, in the form of reward and punishment, they always being the consequence of moral behavior? In other words, it is reward or punishment that define morality, but both being conceptually formed, while a child has no concepts of either. His responses are purely and directly experiential in the here and now. He does not associate pleasure or pain with a future reward or punishment yet, until authority figures present him with some negative or positive consequence of his actions: "Do not eat of this Fruit....or else!"

It seems to me that virtue is the unselfish idea here, not morality, as virtue is not motivated by concerns over reward or punishment.

My argument would say that morality is learned, socialized behavior, while virtue is an innate quality that must be awakened and developed from the inside out.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

That sounds like a sound argument, but aren't we forgetng something? In reality, isn't morality formed as a selfish result of concern over our own pleasure or pain, in the form of reward and punishment, they always being the consequence of moral behavior? In other words, it is reward or punishment that define morality, but both being conceptually formed, while a child has no concepts of either. His responses are purely and directly experiential in the here and now. He does not associate pleasure or pain with a future reward or punishment yet, until authority figures present him with some negative or positive consequence of his actions: "Do not eat of this Fruit....or else!"

Children either gain the concept of pleasure and pain from seeing others perform the action or finding out themselves.

It seems to me that virtue is the unselfish idea here, not morality, as virtue is not motivated by concerns over reward or punishment.

Yes, virtue is the concern for how others view you and whatnot.

My argument would say that morality is learned, socialized behavior, while virtue is an innate quality that must be awakened and developed from the inside out.

It would be harder to tell others' mindsets than understanding your own.

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Does anyone care to discuss the differences, and their implications, between Morality and Virtue?

Working definitions might be in order.

Are you asking, or do you want to tell?

 

[AdityaMookerjee]

Do you consider happiness something 'good'?

That depends. Do you feel foolish, when you are eating Pizza, feeling delightful, and then suffer cardiac arrest? Remember, every death is a cardiac arrest. What if you survived, and the doctor says that your blood vessels are blocked?

 

[godnotgod]

That depends. Do you feel foolish, when you are eating Pizza, feeling delightful, and then suffer cardiac arrest? Remember, every death is a cardiac arrest. What if you survived, and the doctor says that your blood vessels are blocked?

I was assuming that by 'happiness' you meant the real thing, that is to say, to distinguish between the relative joy you are speaking of, which necessarily includes the relative suffering you are speaking of, and that of Absolute Joy, which is intemporal.

If you have no clue re: Absolute Joy, then my question makes no sense, 'goodness' to you being only a relative value, as you pointed out.

However, even in that case, while eating pizza, one would consider it a desirable pursuit at the time, and being desirable, would most likely think of it as 'good', for whatever reason, probably for the reason of sheer taste and therefore, sensual gratification.

I, in fact, have actually eaten an entire pizza at times, knowing full well the effects of constipation, but still went ahead full steam anyway. I have heard of cardiac patients, while still recuperating from surgery in their hospital rooms, go to the balcony and smoke cigarette after cigarette.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you asking, or do you want to tell?

Both, as already given, if you have been following the discussion.