Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
the red flag of "virtue"
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
Please pardon the self-aggrandizement, but I posted what follows on my blog today and thought it might be provoke some thoughts here:
A friend sent along an article by Chris Hedges, a latter-day moral gadfly whose roof-top positions I generally agree with and simultaneously have less and less energy to read. The latest essay, for Truthout, is entitled "Turning a Blind Eye to Catastrophic Truths." Its thesis more or less is that there are people who speak and act so as to make the soft underbelly of comfortable conclusions apparent ... and society would do well to heed them. I agree with Hedges and I can't help remembering Albert Camus' approximate observation that "some people climb onto the cross in order to be seen from a greater distance."
Whatever my suspicious nature may whisper, still, when speaking of the people who speak out, I liked Hedges' short and sweet line, "They make us unsure of our virtue"
"Virtue" is an odd duck. An Internet dictionary defines the word as
-- a good quality or habit that a person has, especially a moral one such as honesty or loyalty
-- a quality that is useful in a particular activity
-- a way of behaving in which you do what is morally right and avoid things that are morally wrong
-- an advantage or a good feature that something has that makes it better than something else
Virtue seems to be a good thing. But it also seems to rely on the agreement of others for its force: If you say it's virtue and I say it's virtue, then, perforce, it becomes that very good thing called virtue. And it is in this arena that the soft underbelly of virtue is exposed. When virtue becomes static, when it becomes something that does little more than produce a group hug, how realistic can it be?
I'm not so much interested in criticizing or downplaying the group hugs others may indulge in. What does interest me is the static group hug within -- the complacent acceptance of one virtue or another, one socially-active proclivity or another, one conclusion or another. To be sure of a virtue may be comforting and socially-warming, but how realistic can it be?
Generally, I think that doing the best anyone might to act in an attentive and responsible manner is a good thing. But the moment the word "virtue" raises its head, the moment a settled position comes calling ... well, I think "virtue" is a red flag, something that deserves investigation and then re-investigation and then re-investigation.
Anything that stands still is a fantasy. Shrinks may make a good living from those beset with fantasies, but who would want to pay a shrink if they didn't have to?
A friend sent along an article by Chris Hedges, a latter-day moral gadfly whose roof-top positions I generally agree with and simultaneously have less and less energy to read. The latest essay, for Truthout, is entitled "Turning a Blind Eye to Catastrophic Truths." Its thesis more or less is that there are people who speak and act so as to make the soft underbelly of comfortable conclusions apparent ... and society would do well to heed them. I agree with Hedges and I can't help remembering Albert Camus' approximate observation that "some people climb onto the cross in order to be seen from a greater distance."
Whatever my suspicious nature may whisper, still, when speaking of the people who speak out, I liked Hedges' short and sweet line, "They make us unsure of our virtue"
"Virtue" is an odd duck. An Internet dictionary defines the word as
-- a good quality or habit that a person has, especially a moral one such as honesty or loyalty
-- a quality that is useful in a particular activity
-- a way of behaving in which you do what is morally right and avoid things that are morally wrong
-- an advantage or a good feature that something has that makes it better than something else
Virtue seems to be a good thing. But it also seems to rely on the agreement of others for its force: If you say it's virtue and I say it's virtue, then, perforce, it becomes that very good thing called virtue. And it is in this arena that the soft underbelly of virtue is exposed. When virtue becomes static, when it becomes something that does little more than produce a group hug, how realistic can it be?
I'm not so much interested in criticizing or downplaying the group hugs others may indulge in. What does interest me is the static group hug within -- the complacent acceptance of one virtue or another, one socially-active proclivity or another, one conclusion or another. To be sure of a virtue may be comforting and socially-warming, but how realistic can it be?
Generally, I think that doing the best anyone might to act in an attentive and responsible manner is a good thing. But the moment the word "virtue" raises its head, the moment a settled position comes calling ... well, I think "virtue" is a red flag, something that deserves investigation and then re-investigation and then re-investigation.
Anything that stands still is a fantasy. Shrinks may make a good living from those beset with fantasies, but who would want to pay a shrink if they didn't have to?
0
Comments
virtue
early 13c., "moral life and conduct, moral excellence," vertu, from Anglo-French and O.Fr. vertu, from L. virtutem (nom. virtus) "moral strength, manliness, valor, excellence, worth," from vir "man" (see virile). Phrase by virtue of (early 13c.) preserves alternative Middle English sense of "efficacy." Wyclif Bible has virtue where KJV uses power. The seven cardinal virtues (early 14c.) were divided into the natural (justice, prudence, temperance, fortitude) and the theological (hope, faith, charity). To make a virtue of a necessity (late 14c.) translates L. facere de necessitate virtutem [Jerome].
For my part I honour with the name of virtue the habit of acting in a way troublesome to oneself and useful to others. [Stendhal "de l'Amour," 1822]
ethics
"the science of morals," c.1600, plural of M.E. ethik "study of morals" (see ethic). The word also traces to Ta Ethika, title of Aristotle's work.
ethic (n.)
late 14c., ethik "study of morals," from O.Fr. etique (13c.), from L.L. ethica, from Gk. ethike philosophia "moral philosophy," fem. of ethikos "ethical," from ethos "moral character," related to ethos "custom" (see ethos). Meaning "a person's moral principles" is attested from 1650s.
morals (n.)
"a person's moral qualities," 1610s, plural of moral (n.).
moral (adj.)
mid-14c., "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral (14c.) and directly from L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," lit. "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin. Perhaps sharing a PIE root with English mood (1).
Meaning "morally good, conforming to moral rules," is first recorded late 14c. of stories, 1630s of persons. Original value-neutral sense preserved in moral support, moral victory (with sense of "pertaining to character as opposed to physical action"). Related: Morally.
Am I acknowledging that same group experience of 'acceptance'
as the common bond of Buddhism? Am I loving the hug?
I practice the ethics/virtues/morals that 'we' have at least agreed upon
as presented to us by Buddha, no?
We have to have a group of 'I thinks', right?
But imagine how much time she might have wasted if Mother Teresa spent all her time imagining she was being virtuous instead of just treating those in need of her care.
virtues instead of being productive about them. I agree.
So she was practicing virtues, right? If the virtues are taught by a 'group', which
mine are taught to me, not sure my red flag needs raising. Is it the attachment to
the group? Just trying to clarify the teaching(s) in the OP.
I'm just noodling here and I guess I think that it really is a good idea to try to do 'better' in some sense. But the minute virtue crosses the awe-struck lips, I suspect that any honest virtue would be significantly diminished.
Or maybe I just qualify as a suspicious old cuss.
Virtuous, in my experience, translates into something like, "How the Victorians judge you to be." It's the stuff of 1800s literature
Funny how very deeply-rooted our feelings are on individual words. Just goes to show the immense power of language.
I like his explanation of ethics:
"Ethics is that quality of the mind, which wishes to protect the mind. What it is protecting against is non-virtue. Of the various non-virtues, it is primarily protecting against the non-virtuous motivation. And of the types of non-virtuous motivation, it is primarily concerned with the three poisonous states of mind. So how to generate and strengthen the quality that wants to abstain from non-virtue and to protect the mind? There are two ways. The first is through the taking of vows or precepts from an abbot or a preceptor. The second way is through understanding the shortcomings and failures of ignorance, attachment, anger and so forth, knowing the disadvantages of these negative states of mind. Knowing the antidotes to all of these is what enables us to have that quality of the mind wanting to abstain, wanting to protect.
As we talked about last time, for some, ethics is happiness, for others, it is suffering. For example, if one thinks, "I took these vows and precepts and if I break them or incur transgressions, it will cause me to take rebirth in the lower realms," this is a narrow way of thinking, and if one practices ethics only in this way it will not become ethics that causes happiness. It is not living in ethics that brings joy. What is important is that one takes on the practice of living in ethics by understanding that it is the antidote to one's negative states of mind, targeting attachment, anger, and ignorance. One needs to understand the dependent arising of actions and their results, and it is this wisdom that transforms living in ethics into happiness. By thinking in this way, our practice of ethics becomes one that is able to bring forth happiness, as opposed to thinking, "Oh, I have taken these commitments and if I don't keep them I'm going to be reborn in the lower realms." If this way of thinking is the only reason why one is living in ethics, then living in ethics cannot be joy, cannot be happiness."
http://www.tushita.info/resources/teachings/103-the-joy-of-pure-morality-by-yangsi-rinpoche
Virtue... It was the dogged pursuit of "bright virtue " that brought Bankei to "Unborn Zen".. if I recall correctly. I like that.
@porpoise -- If you like it, try it.
See what happens.