No actually, I'm seeing this as very VERY rational, but ofcourse not realistic in terms of representing human behaviour.

So if this is the way virtue is then what does society see as virtue? For example, capitalism. How the !@#4 is there even a term called liberal capitalism floating around in the internet?!

Ahhh, justifying and excusing 'sin' (ego).
No, this is not the prevailing view from the religious community. They, like you, are too busy excusing and rationalizing their 'sin'. There's your mundane rabble.

'Truth' is simple!


We have no such control, we have 'feelings' that we have 'control' that the ego loves to 'believe' to be 'reality' and identify with.

Whatever they are told.

Good discussion, may I interject?

To say that someone is humble, or that they have humility, is not to say that they accept humiliation.

I'd agree (if agreement here is what I've been seeing) that humility is the chief or best virtue to have. It breeds compassion, allows us to really listen to others, it allows us to learn, it accepts newly-encountered concepts and much, much more. It's the salve by which we can interact productively and the motive behind generosity. If there's one thing - more than anything else - that I've seen as destructive to successful human interaction and the conduct of an enlightened life it's the lack of humility.

Being humble doesn't mean you demean yourself; it means you accept that your view is just that - your view. It doesn't deny the truths you've learned since the humble person can state strongly without being a bastard. Pride gets in the way of more insight than any other attribute of human behavior I've seen.

... sorry for the ramble.

Thanks

I should demonstrate some "humility" and humbly accept the religious community's confiscatory use of the term.. But then I'd be at the low end of humility -- specifically, I'd feel humiliated.

Seriously, this is a tempest in a teacup. If you all agree to strip "humility" of the dictionery synonyms such as "timidity", self-abasement", "fawning", nonresistance, and "inferiority comples", go right ahead with my best wishes.

.

Just throwing in my two cents.

Virtue has come up in discussions about Ethics since the start. How does one define it, how can one live virtuously? I would like to take us back to our philosophical roots and bring up Socrates. Specifically a dialogue titled Meno. Meno asked Socrates about virtue and a long discussion ensued which I will not repeat here. Let me touch on a few points though.

First of all, no man believes his actions to unjust or un-virtuous. Every man believes that what he is doing is correct action. Now we take a look at the differences in civilization over the last, say, 3000 years. In each society this question has been defined and in each society it has been different. Virtue is the heart of ethics and ethics is the heart of... well... nothing. See, ethics is a flawed concept in that it attempts to create a single code of rules by which all men can be ethical. This can't happen as all rules are based upon the needs of the people in the location.

Example: In the dessert, stealing water is an offense punishable by death where as in the forest, anyone can drink from your stream.

See, virtue can really only be one thing. A single definition. That which assists the society in which you live to live better.

Can a man be virtuous in a society in which he does not live?

Yes. One can even be virtuous in a society which conflicts with the one he lives in. Where, in one, he is a hero, in the other, he is a villian.

I know what is good and what isn't, doesn't everyone?
What a silly question.

=
MJA

Ok... Abortion, virtuous or not?

Depends on the context of the action. If the child is brought into the world from an incestuous incident (forced or otherwise) the child has a high susceptibility to genetic flaws so in that case the abortion would be virtuous. I would also say a child born out of a traumatic rape incident may cause too much suffering for the victim, which would adversely affect the child so an abortion could be a virtuous in that case as well. I would also argue that an unwanted child is another child the world and with this as the motivation the act could be virtuous.

I know, why don't you?
Ice cream is good and equally not.
So it is, and so it is not.

=
MJA

[quote=Icon]Ok... Abortion, virtuous or not?[/quote]
?
I think Socrates would have set out to show many actions virtuous and not virtuous (given his cultural sensitivity as you say). He would have used his elenchus to show a counterexample which is easily done.

Socrates didn't know the truth, but he sure tried.
And that made him virtuous or good.
All One can do is try, that's The Way!

=
MJA

My point is simply that Virtue is not something we can define because it is a human element. By that I mean that it is something that changes depending on the person. Each person is a culmination of their life experience. Thus, there may be something in their life which could turn something into a virtue where as, for someone else, that act is terrible.

There cannot be a standard for virtue as long as there is no standard for life. Get my point?

virtue is another word for acting on logic, it is what distinguishes us from the animal kingdom
to quote frank herbert

"an animal in a trap will chew its leg off and flee, leading to incontrovertible death, a human will wait until it has the oportunity to strike at its captors"

the ability to act on reason rather than instinct and emotion is our hallmark achievement, and always leads to a better result in the long run\

I really like dictionaries because they give us what is commonly accepted for what defines a particular word. (And they are a decent place to start the brain to working.) There is meaning in such definitions because a vast part of the particular language speaking group accepts the definition as printed. And where do these definitions come from? Popular usage in conversation and the written word (be it scientific, literary, philosophical, medical, etc.,.). It is what the collective society has learned as the meaning of the word. (That is until the society changes the meaning through usage.) For us today, the following definitions are found for virtue:

vir⋅tue
-noun
1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.

right⋅eous⋅ness
-noun
3. the quality or state of being just or rightful.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, my favorite explanation of Justice comes from the Protagoras where Zeus tells Hermes to distribute to humanity, "qualities of respect and a sense of justice" for for each other so as to "bring order to the cities and create a bond of friendship and union."

Someone mentioned early on here that virtue was a quality. And I have responded that it may in fact be a psychological quality of humanity or humanness. Whatever the case may be, my personal opinion seems to vary from what Socrates hints at in the Meno. Does anyone else see that he points toward virtue as being a Form-in-itself?

Interesting that you only pick one dictionary and one definition.
A dictionary definition of a word is effective if that definition is the exact meaning of the word as you intend it, and offered for the edification of he with whom you are attempting to communicate at the moment. It might have a different meaning to you another time;

"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used." -Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Virtue is the individual expression of morality... Societies are moral, and people preach or teach morality, but they live virtuously... But, virtue and morality are the same thing in reality, since no society or social living is possible without both of these concepts as realities...

Aristotle said that the line between vice and virtue divides all of mankind; but this is wrong.... That line divides the individual from his community, and only by crossing that line and accepting the common morality does one become a member of his community... When communities are divided ,the line is between virtue and virtue, since each community survives on its virtue, its essential morale, it unity; then one side is not vice, and the other virtue, but both virtuous, and are divided only in their perception of virtue, as in my virtue is your vice....And Spinosa says this in the foundation of moral life, that life, survival is virtue..."The endeavor after self preservation is the primary and only foundation of virtue..." Since we can only achieve this aim through cooperation, and all communities cooperate, then each is virtuous in its own sight, and from an objective point of view might seem identical, and so better off to cooperate than conflict... We are good, moral, and virtuous because these are the tried and true lessons of survival... Nothing injurious to the person or society is ever thought virtuous... If bravery is a virtue though it often leads to death, it is never without the cause of self preservation, because our selves and self perception are grown out of our communities, which are our families, and nations...So we may, in standing brave preserve the common life which is our life too, made of the same food and genes...