What is Virtue?

@Holiday20310401,

Quote:

What is Virtue?

Humility is the virtue.
All other 'virtues' are Perspectives of Humility.

@Holiday20310401,

Virtue is progress; preliminary remarks.

Omitting the problem of considering virtue to be a state of being or a property and whether progress is a state of being or capable of being a property, the statement raises in an immediate way the question of what is progress? To say that progress is fulfilling values which attain virtue is circular, and ends up defining neither term.

Although for Plato, as well as many other ancient philosophers, virtue could be a property of things, I take it that the original post was asking what human virtue is, perhaps as it 1) applies to the individual self and 2) to human society as well. [Could there be, for example, cases in which individual virtue could conflict with societal virtue, and if so, which- - -if either--- would be "more virtuous?].

@jgweed,

Virtue is that quality we describe when we see someone or something conforming to our standard of wrong or right. As such, and most unfortunately, it is another relative term. What I might term Virtuous - as being in accordance with my standards - is just as likely, as not, to conform to other's judgments.

@Holiday20310401,

"And what is virtue without outward form?"
"When standing still," said Confucius, "The water is in the most perfect state of repose. Let that be your model. It remains quietly within, and is not agitated without. It is from the cultivation of such harmony that virtue results. And if virtue takes no outward form, man will not be able to keep aloof from it."

Humility.

@nameless,

Moral is move,but we think it static. This is our mistake . This is the reason why we always confused.

@lixunzhe,

lixunzhe;34705 wrote:

Moral is move,but we think it static. This is our mistake . This is the reason why we always confused.

*******
"We"?
*******

@nameless,

People have been pondering the question of ethics,but no one really solved the puzzle on it . so "we" means "all people". Do you agree with this point of view?I came here in order to look for the answer with you . 你懂汉语吗？

@Holiday20310401,

What is the process of moral's formation? This is a problem that require us to think about it.

@lixunzhe,

lixunzhe;34873 wrote:

People have been pondering the question of ethics,but no one really solved the puzzle on it . so "we" means "all people". Do you agree with this point of view?I came here in order to look for the answer with you .

SOME people have been pondering... Those that do.
SOME people see it as a puzzle, and still do.
SOME people, does not imply ALL people.
Thats all I'm saying.
Hasty generalizations is a cognitive fallacy.

Quote:

Moral is move, but we think it static. This is our mistake . This is the reason why we always confused.

I do not think about morals, static or no, beyond that it is a personal business of the ego. Now, I think of it no longer.
I do not see it as a puzzle. It is ego.
I am not confused.
So, no 'we' as you state. Perhaps speaking just for yourself would prevent people like me from pointing out the error of attempting to speak for everyone. You do not have the authority.
I do not ponder ethics either. We do as we must. There is no option. Some people behave in ways that are interpreted as (or as not) 'moral' and/or 'ethical' by people who believe in such things.
I do not see that there is any such thing as 'choice' or 'free-will' or 'will'. They are products of egoPerspective, all ego.
And, if we must 'do' as we must, the notions of 'morality' and 'ethics' are moot, and only applicable to the Perspectives where people believe in such things as 'free-will' and 'personal responsibility' and 'choices' and 'will'.
I do not.
Hence, my trouble with being included in your "we".
"For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective." -Book of Fudd
There is no one Perspective for everyone, all Perspectives are unique.
You gain no credibility if the whole world agrees with you, nor do you lose any credibility if you speak your own thoughts and no one else agrees/shares them.

And since when do 'morals/ethics' have anything to do with 'virtue'?
Virtue is a lack of 'morals/ethics', a 'lack of ego', humility, a 'lack' of pride (-ful judgement, which is what 'morality' is!). The 'sinful' (as per Judeo/Xtian tradition) display of 'pride' (morality) is antithetical to 'humility'.

@nameless,

Thank you for your reply very much. I need you to refute it .This is the beginning of the discussion. I would like to know how to form the ego. we can talk about it friendly.

@lixunzhe,

lixunzhe;34928 wrote:

Thank you for your reply very much. I need you to refute it .This is the beginning of the discussion. I would like to know how to form the ego. we can talk about it friendly.

A discussion on ego would be off topic. If you'd like to make a thread about ego, I might be tempted to give it some thought. But here isn't the place. If I could answer you in a sentence or two, I would, but the topic seems to require some thought... Sorry.

@nameless,

Hi Holiday20310401 (Are there really that many of you?),

I hope you return to this thread to let us know whether and how much you have learned from the answers you have received. Have they given you a better understanding of what virtue is? (Do you now agree with the meaning your dictionery gives it?)

Or do you wish you hadn't asked such a broad, vaguely worded question, and that you hadn't received such a hodge-podge of fragmentary data from entirely different sources?

Your feedback will help me and perhaps others interested in improving ourr thread-starting skills. Thanks.

@Dewey phil,

Dewey wrote:

I hope you return to this thread to let us know whether and how much you have learned from the answers you have received. Have they given you a better understanding of what virtue is? (Do you now agree with the meaning your dictionery gives it?)

Dictionaries are formal pieces of crap. I was looking for some deeper input though. Maybe if we understood human behaviour and went from there to connect it to virtue...

Dewey wrote:

Or do you wish you hadn't asked such a broad, vaguely worded question, and that you hadn't received such a hodge-podge of fragmentary data from entirely different sources?

No, because I think we can get somewhere here. Honestly, if virtue can relate to ego and we can come back to virtue with an ego detour, I'm all for discussing the ego.

Dewey wrote:

Your feedback will help me and perhaps others interested in improving ourr thread-starting skills. Thanks.

I suck at starting threads, as you can see. Maybe I should start a thread on how do I make a thread well responded to?

And no I am not satisfied by the humility-virtue response. What on Earth is this implying; that get virtue out of superiority? Nameless, are you supposing that reciprocity does not imply virtue?

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;35156 wrote:

And no I am not satisfied by the humility-virtue response.

We can explore it if you like.

Quote:

What on Earth is this implying; that get virtue out of superiority?

Haven't a clue what you mean here. Get virtue out of superiority? Huh?

Quote:

Nameless, are you supposing that reciprocity does not imply virtue?

Reciprocity? Like an eye for an eye? Is that your idea of virtue?
The virtuous never know that they are.
Who thinks he is, is not.
Humility is the ground of virtue.
Whether one manifests virtue or not is for 'others' to decide.
Understand?

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

We can explore it if you like.

Ok:).

nameless wrote:

Haven't a clue what you mean here. Get virtue out of superiority? Huh?

Sorry, poorly explained. I mean that for a person to be virtuous this humility seems to rely on the existence of people being relatively superior in power compared to the virtuous person.

nameless wrote:

Reciprocity? Like an eye for an eye? Is that your idea of virtue?
The virtuous never know that they are.
Who thinks he is, is not.
Humility is the ground of virtue.
Whether one manifests virtue or not is for 'others' to decide.
Understand?

Does this not entail an inevitability in human behaviour that only a handful of people are truly virtuous, making the claim itself that virtue comes from humility a rather (ironically) arrogant claim?

I don't think I necessarily disagree with humility being a type of virtue, but explain to me how all other virtue is rooted by this.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;35643 wrote:

Sorry, poorly explained. I mean that for a person to be virtuous this humility seems to rely on the existence of people being relatively superior in power compared to the virtuous person.

I'm not sure that 'humility' relies on anything other then the nature of the person (and, ultimately, the entire omniverse at the moment) in question. Certainly 'distinguishing' a 'humble' person requires egotistical people with which to make comparison.

Quote:

Does this not entail an inevitability in human behaviour that only a handful of people are truly virtuous, making the claim itself that virtue comes from humility a rather (ironically) arrogant claim?

I said that 'virtue' is 'humility'. And even if that statement, though true, is somehow arrogant, I never claimed 'humility'! But I do not see how that description can be arrogant, as it's a mere definition, and again, I claim no 'humility'.
It seems like a bell shaped curve again. There are few that are so exceptionally egoic that there manifests little to no 'humility/virtue', and there are few with so little ego manifesting (selflessness) that they seem to manifest great humility, and the vast majority of people somewhere in between those poles.

Quote:

I don't think I necessarily disagree with humility being a type of virtue, but explain to me how all other virtue is rooted by this.

Okey dokey, let's test my hypothesis and do the experiment; you tell me what you consider to be a virtue, other than 'humility', and I'll see if I can 'trace' it's 'genesis' to humility (or vanity; an antivirtue, other end of the spectrum). I'm game...

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Okey dokey, let's test my hypothesis and do the experiment; you tell me what you consider to be a virtue, other than 'humility', and I'll see if I can 'trace' it's 'genesis' to humility (or vanity; an antivirtue, other end of the spectrum). I'm game...

Having a divine in your life, an ultimate being. Mom and Dad. Laws.

Yes I think I fully agree with you now. There is no rational virtue that doesn't stem from humility (seriously speaking). God, parents, and laws are about control, not necessarily progress. They are meager attempts at such.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401;35778 wrote:

Having a divine in your life, an ultimate being. Mom and Dad. Laws.

Yes I think I fully agree with you now. There is no rational virtue that doesn't stem from humility (seriously speaking). God, parents, and laws are about control, not necessarily progress. They are meager attempts at such.

There is only one 'sin', Pride/Vanity (from a 'spiritual/religious' Perspective). All else, 'subsets'.
The truly 'humble' realize that they have no 'control', of any sort, to assert over anyone.
Always a pleasant quality in 'others'! *__-

@nameless,

So, humility is a virtue and pride is a sin. Is that the prevailing view in the religious community? If so, I think it's too simplistic. It would be more realistic, I believe, to moderate our aim. Our target should be the midpoint between these two extremes.

To the limited extent that we can control our emotions, we should modify our feeling of humility so as not to lose our self-respect and modify our feeling of pride so as to respect others (and, if you are religious, so as to respect Him).

Philosophy Forum

What is Virtue?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know