Definition of Virtue

Krete · Oct 30, 2006

*open IMO*

Virtue is the concern for the betterment of the whole, whether that whole is humanity, church, family, community, God, and whether that betterment is in faith, morality, health...

In other words, virtue is subjective, as everybody has a different idea of that which is more helpful. Virtue is as changing, situational, and ponderable as is destiny. Everybody has his/her own beliefs, and they are their own, and nobody shares them exactly.

*close IMO*

holysee · Oct 31, 2006

Krete said:
*open IMO*

In other words, virtue is subjective, as everybody has a different idea of that which is more helpful. Virtue is as changing, situational, and ponderable as is destiny. Everybody has his/her own beliefs, and they are their own, and nobody shares them exactly.

*close IMO*

In his last sermon as a mere Cardinal the future Pope Benedict XVI said of relativism
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html

Today, having a clear faith based on the Creed of the Church is often labeled as fundamentalism. Whereas relativism, that is, letting oneself be "tossed here and there, carried about by every wind of doctrine", seems the only attitude that can cope with modern times. We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires....

"You are my friends if you do what I command you" (Jn 15: 14). Friendship with Christ coincides with the third request of the Our Father: "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven". At his hour in the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus transformed our rebellious human will into a will conformed and united with the divine will. He suffered the whole drama of our autonomy - and precisely by placing our will in God's hands, he gives us true freedom: "Not as I will, but as you will" (Mt 26: 39).
Our redemption is brought about in this communion of wills: being friends of Jesus, to become friends of God. The more we love Jesus, the more we know him, the more our true freedom develops and our joy in being redeemed flourishes. Thank you, Jesus, for your friendship!

Right and wrong do not change over time. They are moral absolutes. Virtue is doing what Jesus commands us to do, love God and our neighbour as ourselves, obedience to God in humility is the first virtue from which all the others follow.

Krete · Oct 31, 2006

holysee said:
In his last sermon as a mere Cardinal the future Pope Benedict XVI said of relativism

Cardinals aren't entirely infalliable, are they? Also, wouldn't what a Cardinal says be adhered to mainly by Catholics? That's a lot of people that aren't getting their definition of virtue redefined.

Right and wrong do not change over time. They are moral absolutes.

The Crusades were 'right' at the time. The Inquisition was 'right' at the time. Hah, in the OT, it was 'wrong' to wear clothes woven of two different linens. Right and Wrong do change.

Virtue is doing what Jesus commands us to do, love God and our neighbour as ourselves, obedience to God in humility is the first virtue from which all the others follow.

Hmm, now where do lowly atheists like I fall? I don't follow Jesus, love God, or follow all of His rules. So is it impossible for me to be virtuous?

Besides, the bible gets virtue wrong. A lot.

The Nihilist · Oct 31, 2006

holysee said:
In his last sermon as a mere Cardinal the future Pope Benedict XVI said of relativism
http://www.vatican.va/gpII/documents/homily-pro-eligendo-pontifice_20050418_en.html

Right and wrong do not change over time. They are moral absolutes. Virtue is doing what Jesus commands us to do, love God and our neighbour as ourselves, obedience to God in humility is the first virtue from which all the others follow.

Right and wrong do not change, except every time God feels like making up a new covenant.

Species8472 · Oct 31, 2006

RecoveringPhilosopher said:
Right and wrong do not change, except every time God feels like making up a new covenant.

lol. That's funny.

Sojourner<>< · Oct 31, 2006

RecoveringPhilosopher said:
Right and wrong do not change, except every time God feels like making up a new covenant.

Covenant = contract. Sticking to your word requires integrity, honor, honesty and more virtue.

MoonlessNight · Oct 31, 2006

Hmm, now where do lowly atheists like I fall? I don't follow Jesus, love God, or follow all of His rules. So is it impossible for me to be virtuous?

You can be virtuous, but not fully. Aquinas was probably the foremost Catholic thinker on virtue, and I doubt that he would ever say that Aristotle ("The Philosopher") was clueless on the topic of virtue, or that he was entirely without virtue, even though he was more or less an atheist in his philosophy, and certainly didn't know the Christian God.

A person can certainly do good things without thinking about God (I don't know whether I would say that a person can be virtuous without God. Certainly an atheist can be virtuous to an extent... but that is not the same statement.) But without knowledge of God, virtue falls short. For example it is impossible to fully humble without being humble before God. Humility includes knowing one's place in the world, what one is able to do and what one isn't and so forth. Without respect to the things that God has done in one's life, that person can never be said to be humble. But such a person can certainly move away from the vice of arrogrance, as well as its opposing vice.

So you can move towards virtue. But without God, such a quest will never be entirely fulfilled.

MoonlessNight · Oct 31, 2006

In other words, virtue is subjective, as everybody has a different idea of that which is more helpful. Virtue is as changing, situational, and ponderable as is destiny. Everybody has his/her own beliefs, and they are their own, and nobody shares them exactly.

I would take a closer look in virtue theory as Eudaimonism by itself. Certainly it would seem by our very nature there are things which are good for us, and things that are not good for us. Things that help us express our natures and things that squelch that nature. This seems to be an objective fact unless we twist meaning to the point where anything can mean anything. All other things being equal, is it better for a man to live or to die?

Krete · Oct 31, 2006

MoonlessNight said:
You can be virtuous, but not fully. Aquinas was probably the foremost Catholic thinker on virtue, and I doubt that he would ever say that Aristotle ("The Philosopher") was clueless on the topic of virtue, or that he was entirely without virtue, even though he was more or less an atheist in his philosophy, and certainly didn't know the Christian God.

A person can certainly do good things without thinking about God (I don't know whether I would say that a person can be virtuous without God. Certainly an atheist can be virtuous to an extent... but that is not the same statement.) But without knowledge of God, virtue falls short. For example it is impossible to fully humble without being humble before God. Humility includes knowing one's place in the world, what one is able to do and what one isn't and so forth. Without respect to the things that God has done in one's life, that person can never be said to be humble. But such a person can certainly move away from the vice of arrogrance, as well as its opposing vice.

So you can move towards virtue. But without God, such a quest will never be entirely fulfilled.

So I can cure cancer, provide caring, loving homes for all the Earth's orphans, end all violence, oppression, and poverty in the world, further medical science expotentionally, donate billions to churches worldwide, and, I don't know, save a drowning kitten, but because I don't acknowledge a G/god, I'm less virtuous than your everyday Christian?

I'm not looking for greater virtue, just equal.

Krete · Oct 31, 2006

MoonlessNight said:
I would take a closer look in virtue theory as Eudaimonism by itself. Certainly it would seem by our very nature there are things which are good for us, and things that are not good for us. Things that help us express our natures and things that squelch that nature. This seems to be an objective fact unless we twist meaning to the point where anything can mean anything. All other things being equal, is it better for a man to live or to die?

Using the 'is it better for a man to live or die?' problem...

If the man dies, is he in a state worthy of Heaven?
If the man lives, will he contribute positively, or hinder the rest of humanity?
If the man dies, will there be any negative effects (other than the obvious mourning and psychological impact on family and friends), or would his death serve some purpose?
If the man lives, will his living adversely affect the lives of others?
Is it better to save one Christian, or three pagans?

MoonlessNight · Oct 31, 2006

Krete said:
[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]So I can cure cancer, provide caring, loving homes for all the Earth's orphans, end all violence, oppression, and poverty in the world, further medical science expotentionally, donate billions to churches worldwide, and, I don't know, save a drowning kitten, but because I don't acknowledge a G/god, I'm less virtuous than your everyday Christian?

I'm not looking for greater virtue, just equal.

Virtue is a state, not a history of actions. Certainly actions have an affect on it, but they are not the same. You can't make a consequentialist quantification of virtue, that's just not how the concept works.

But certainly not every Christian is virtuous, and in fact all are lacking.

But what you are trying to get to is a place where an amount of material good can negate the need for god; where we can become so perfect secularly that we will be atheists as virtuous as saints.

It doesn't work that way either.

MoonlessNight · Oct 31, 2006

Krete said:
Using the 'is it better for a man to live or die?' problem...

If the man dies, is he in a state worthy of Heaven?
If the man lives, will he contribute positively, or hinder the rest of humanity?
If the man dies, will there be any negative effects (other than the obvious mourning and psychological impact on family and friends), or would his death serve some purpose?
If the man lives, will his living adversely affect the lives of others?
Is it better to save one Christian, or three pagans?

Is it better or worse for the purpose of allowing the flourishment of a person?

You can say that the production of paint causes environmental problems and is therefore bad, but it is certainly better than water if I want to change the color of my house.

Don't introduce unnecessary criteria as to muddy the waters to the point where we can't tell complete arbitrariness from perfect order.

Sojourner<>< · Oct 31, 2006

MoonlessNight said:
Virtue is a state, not a history of actions. Certainly actions have an affect on it, but they are not the same. You can't make a consequentialist quantification of virtue, that's just not how the concept works.

But certainly not every Christian is virtuous, and in fact all are lacking.

But what you are trying to get to is a place where an amount of material good can negate the need for god; where we can become so perfect secularly that we will be atheists as virtuous as saints.

It doesn't work that way either.

Would you think it's fair to say that apart from God the virtue of an atheist would be indistinguishable from the virtue of a saint?

In other words, is it through knowing God that the virtues of and from God shine through and overshadow what little virtue is present in the saint to begin with?

Im_A · Oct 31, 2006

Shabby said:
How would all of you define virtue? I would like some viewpoints from atheists and other world religions as well hopefully.

What is a virtue? What makes something a virtue? Please try to avoid using dictionary definitions and root the word.

i view virtue as something that isn't definable universally.

if anything, i see virtue as the creation of what one's beliefs and actions create, thus leading me to think there is no universal virtue that exists, but virtue to be defined is extremely relative.

Eudaimonist · Nov 1, 2006

Krete said:
I'm not looking for greater virtue, just equal.

That sounds fair and reasonable to me, but if Christians define virtue so narrowly that one must accept their worldview to be virtuous (for instance, in MoonlessNight's example of humility), then an atheist must necessarily choose a slightly different target. To the Christian, it will look like the target of the atheist is amiss. To the atheist, it will look like the target of the Christian is amiss. (To me, Christian humility strikes me as a vice of deficiency, not moderation.) However, both may be equal in virtue in the sense of equal dedication and skill respective to their worldviews.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Definition of Virtue

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Contributor

Active Member

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Fides et Ratio

Fides et Ratio

Active Member

Active Member

Fides et Ratio

Fides et Ratio

Incoherent Freedom Fighter

Legend

I believe in life before death!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency