View Full Version : It is virtuous if you're actually just inclined to that virtue?
Ultralight
6-28-18, 3:15pm
I am reading a book called The Brothers K.
Hell of a book!
Anyway, the author describes a character (Peter) in the book who renounces earthly pleasures to live a scholarly, monastic life with few possessions. This character focuses on inner work and spiritual development.
But the author explains that the character likes reading and studying. The character also enjoys meditation and living simply. The character never cared much anyway for possessions. So he asked of the character, is living this way such a virtue?
Then he compared that character to another character (Irwin) -- one who loved food and women. And said said, if Irwin gave up these things that he really, really likes, now that would be a virtuous act.
So it is virtuous if you are just inclined that way?
Is simple living a virtue if you are simply quite inclined to live simply by your very nature?
iris lilies
6-28-18, 3:22pm
I am reading a book called The Brothers K.
Hell of a book!
Anyway, the author describes a character (Peter) in the book who renounces earthly pleasures to live a scholarly, monastic life with few possessions. This character focuses on inner work and spiritual development.
But the author explains that the character likes reading and studying. The character also enjoys meditation and living simply. The character never cared much anyway for possessions. So he asked of the character, is living this way such a virtue?
Then he compared that character to another character (Irwin) -- one who loved food and women. And said said, if Irwin gave up these things that he really, really likes, now that would be a virtuous act.
So it is virtuous if you are just inclined that way?
Is simple living a virtue if you are simply quite inclined to live simply by your very nature?
Your premise is that simple living is virtuous in itself. I challenge that.
Ultralight
6-28-18, 3:28pm
My premise is that simple living can be virtuous.
Are you asking whether something can only be a virtue if some kind of sacrifice is made in order to acquire it?
Ultralight
6-28-18, 3:40pm
Are you asking whether something can only be a virtue if some kind of sacrifice is made in order to acquire it?
In a sense, yes, I am asking that. I am also not sure what I am asking, only that there are questions embedded in this. And I want to figure out the questions and the answers.
I think virtue is absolute. So if you are born "virtuous" you exhibit certain virtues. You don't have to "earn" it. But I guess you can acquire certain virtues.
I believe that most of our human excesses are educated. We all need to eat, seek safety and shelter and reproduce as well as exercise mental abilities AKA a version of Maslow's needs. Beyond that it is education that determines our priorities in most cases. We are brainwashed from birth, or even before, based on reports that playing music to the unborn generates a desire for music.
If we are educated to self-gratification, we choose that which gives us the greatest initial satisfaction and then stay in that mode whether it be simple living, self-denial or violent living.
Some choose to withdraw from the earlier choices but it often takes a real struggle for the change to be permanent.
Virtue is a whole different kettle of fish. My online dictionary defines virtue as "a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person: patience is a virtue." Virtue can be defined by a society or for oneself.
[QUOTE=razz;300579]I believe that most of our human excesses are educated. We all need to ..... and reproduce /QUOTE]
Huh? Really? I guess I am a human failure.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-18, 4:42pm
I'd be like Peter if such a choice existed in the modern world. But it really doesn't. I do sometimes think about this, how there really aren't ways to live a monastic life in the modern world much. Well one could be homeless, but the monastic life was better than that. If a monastic life existed in the modern world a renunciation of this shitty society and it's "benefits" wouldn't be much of a renunciation to me.
Virtue I'd define on social impact, which is knowable to a degree on a local level (but not always choosable). But globally it gets so complex ...
I don't know, I am a pretty good person, maybe as good as they come almost (although maybe not brave enough to be better). But I don't know how much I really value it, as we are so bound up in forced "choices" and systems and hard social constraints anyway that what does individual virtue even mean anymore anyway?
Other than resistance? :)
Ultralight
6-28-18, 4:50pm
I'd be like Peter if such a choice existed in the modern world. But it really doesn't. I do sometimes think about this, how there really aren't ways to live a monastic life in the modern world much. Well one could be homeless, but the monastic life was better than that. If a monastic life existed in the modern world a renunciation of this shitty society and it's "benefits" wouldn't be much of a renunciation to me.
Virtue I'd define on social impact, which is knowable to a degree on a local level (but not always choosable). But globally it gets so complex ...
I don't know, I am a pretty good person, maybe as good as they come almost (although maybe not brave enough to be better). But I don't know how much I really value it, as we are so bound up in forced "choices" and systems and hard social constraints anyway that what does individual virtue even mean anymore anyway?
Other than resistance? :)
I think there are ways to still live a monastic life of renunciation in today's society. You could enter a religious sect. You could pull a Daniel Suelo or Mark Boyle. You could self-style it.
But it means accepting risk. Like you would not have health insurance or fridge full of food.
You could pull a Daniel Suelo or Mark Boyle. You could self-style it.
But it means accepting risk. Like you would not have health insurance or fridge full of food.
That's what I was thinking. And Heidemarie Schwermer just died a short time ago, but she lived moneyless. It's doable. As UL said, the biggest barrier to living that life is refusing to abandon illusions of security.
ApatheticNoMore
6-28-18, 5:10pm
I don't think those are very comparable to monasteries. Those are individual, a monastery was never just one person, it was a (religious) community. A commune would be closer. A few communes do still exist.
Virtue is a whole different kettle of fish. My online dictionary defines virtue as "a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person: patience is a virtue." Virtue can be defined by a society or for oneself.
My take on reading UL's question was that virtue is not defined by an individual; it is more of a societal or cultural consensus. And different societies and cultures may modify what is considered "virtuous". In some cultures, for example, individualism is a virtue; in others, acting for the collective good is a virtue. Neither can say the specified virtue is good or bad; it is good or bad only in the context of the rest of that people group. So I don't think being virtuous requires sacrifice. Some people are almost born to certain virtues. Others never achieve them (that doesn't necessarily make them unvirtuous either).
iris lilies
6-28-18, 10:22pm
My premise is that simple living can be virtuous.
What is virtuous about it?
Is this The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky?
The Russians are really heavy to read. Which translation?
Ultralight
6-29-18, 6:03am
Is this The Brothers Karamazov by Dostoevsky?
The Russians are really heavy to read. Which translation?
It is David James Duncan!
Ultralight
6-29-18, 7:27am
What is virtuous about it?
I think it depends on why a person does it. That is the heart of this conversation.
I think it depends on why a person does it. That is the heart of this conversation.
I think it's safe to say that many, many wisdom-seekers and sages have advocated a simple life, going way, way back to early civilization. A lot of "simple livers" are represented in various schools of philosophy, and tons of spiritual leaders (outside of Christian Evangelicals and advocates of the Prosperity Gospel) have spoken to the "virtues" of a life of simplicity. I could start a list of historical proponents of simple living as a virtue in and of itself, but I don't have time and it would be too long a post.
So if simplicity is a virtue, what difference does it make when you get on the train? The "virtue" of taking up the simple life shouldn't be like a cross to bear, but in practicing a way to greater happiness.
Who cares if one exhibits virtue? Who is judging? Who appointed the judge? Why? To what end for the individual?
I'd be like Peter if such a choice existed in the modern world. But it really doesn't. I do sometimes think about this, how there really aren't ways to live a monastic life in the modern world much.
There are still monasteries out there. Until recently, there was a Benedictine and a Franciscan monastery just a few miles from me, on one of our smaller islands. The Franciscans (who used to run the ferry dock and the one-and-only store on that island) closed up shop just a few years ago, but the Benedictines are going strong.
https://olrmonastery.org/
iris lilies
6-29-18, 2:02pm
Who cares if one exhibits virtue? Who is judging? Who appointed the judge? Why? To what end for the individual?
Agreed. i dont accept the basic idea that a “virtue” is worth dentifying and cultivating. At least,
I dont necessarily accept it, and certainly not in the context of simplicity.
Ultralight
6-29-18, 3:20pm
Agreed. i dont accept the basic idea that a “virture” is worth dentifying and cultivating. At least,
I dont necessarily accept it, and certainly not in the context of simplicity.
What, if anything, is a virtue, in your opinion?
Gardenarian
7-1-18, 8:20pm
I've been thinking about this so much that I'm losing the sense of what the word virtue means!
Is virtue the same thing as a life well lived?
Virtuous: honest, hard working, caring (for other people, animals, plants, the planet, and for your own self), kind, generous, brave. Not necessarily selfless but not selfish. Not giving in to one's lower self.
Is educating oneself a virtue? Is living like a hermit? Not by definition.
My attempt at living a simpler life is partly motivated by a desire to be more virtuous. I want to have a smaller ecological footprint.
I am primarily motivated by the desire to live a life that has more meaning. So, books rather than TV, to grow my mind. Making art and learning crafts, to enrich my spirit. Owning less so there is less maintenance and housework. Taking pleasure in the ordinary, which costs nothing and increases happiness. And so on.
That being said, "simple living" is a pretty amorphous philosophy.
iris lilies
7-1-18, 9:17pm
...My attempt at living a simpler life is partly motivated by a desire to be more virtuous. I want to have a smaller ecological footprint. y.
So, you and the OP agree that
1) there is this thing known as virtue
2) “small ecological footprint” is equal to a virtuous life
so you two are on the same wavelength
Me, probably not in agreement. While I guess I agree with #1 but am struggling with the idea, I dont agree with #2.
UL asked upthread what, if anything, I consider a virtue. As I think about it,
I just do not like the word “virtue,” it sounds like something from a Victorian religious tract.
perhaps I would say “he was a good man” about someone who lived a long life of good intention and action. I would not say “he was a virtuous man.”
So, you and the OP agree that
1) there is this thing known as virtue
Yeah, I think your problem is with the word, but I'm sure you agree that there are virtues. The opposite of vice is virtue. Do you believe in vice?
There are lots of lists of virtues. Here's a pretty all-encompassing one (it lists vices as well): http://beliefcloset.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Virtues-The-Master-List.pdf
But there are subsets of virtue:
Here is list of Protestant virtues: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_protestant_virtues
Here is a list of Catholic virtues: It's a very succinct list actually: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance.
Here are Benjamin Franklin's list of virtues: https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/the-virtuous-life-wrap-up/
And here is a list of secular virtues: http://alaindebotton.com/on-being-good/
There's a list of virtues for everyone! I think simple living falls under the virtue of temperance.
perhaps I would say “he was a good man” about someone who lived a long life of good intention and action. I would not say “he was a virtuous man.”
What did he do or not do that made him a "good man?"
iris lilies
7-2-18, 7:52am
What did he do or not do that made him a "good man?"
He was kind to people snd his dog. He took care of his family.
if you want to break any of his small actions into virtues, you can do that.
He was kind to people snd his dog. Many folks consider kindness to animals a virtue.
But to get back to my question. Let's say he naturally loved dogs, loved'em! So of course he was kind to his dog.
Now, suppose he naturally disliked dogs -- hated them fleabags! -- but his wife loved dogs, so she got two. And he, despite hating dogs, treated those dogs with incredible kindness. And then let's say his wife died and left him a widower. But the two dogs were still around and he kept them and treated them as well as his wife would have wanted.
My question is, which is truly virtuous? Or which is more virtuous? The kindness to dogs that is naturally a man's inclination or the kindness to dogs that takes discipline and going against one's natural inclinations?
Williamsmith
7-2-18, 9:34am
I don’t have an opinion either way. But I will admit that I mostly don’t like anything that starts with a “v”. I would not want, “He was a virtuous man.” on my tombstone.
I like the secular list; it seems to me to be a set of practical guidelines for living--without a lot of judgment.
The idea that constant self-denial is someyhing to be desired seems very puritanical to me; I can almost see Cotton Mather looming in the background. That's what the word "virtue" says to me.
"
ApatheticNoMore
7-2-18, 10:47am
I guess the word virtue is a little problematic, but mostly I don't believe what one's inclinations are has anything whatsoever to do with whether an act is ethical or not. I think it's 100% irrelevant. So no I don't relate to this discussion in discussing whether a person was ethical.
But what about doing things that go against one's nature etc.? Look the word for that might be personal growth if that's indeed what it is in any given case (and not just a desire for self-punishment). And yes a growth oriented life may be admirable and deeply meaningful in it's own way, however I don't really think it's an *ethical* issue. Some definitions of ethics (mostly Aristotelian I guess) might disagree but so be it.
Maybe being ethical is hard (sometimes too hard for most people to do - wasn't Viktor Frankl off on how the most moral inmates died in the concentration camps) and maybe it's not .... in any given situation, but that doesn't bear on whether it's ethical or not IMO.
If you choose your life and actions according to the best values as you see and define them, you live with the consequences. Others may see them as virtues or vices.
If you choose to live your life according to others' sense of values using Catherine's multiple options for virtues vs vices, are you being your unique self or someone's else's pawn which will change as the public will dictates?
Using a classic example that has lasted for centuries, if a young girl is raped, she is tarnished goods, filled with sin and rejected and ejected by societies. The male that raped her has little negative thought about him. Today it is sex-texing images in our society. For the Rohingya, it is annihilation committed by police and soldiers with the support of government and monks. For the Greeks in their war with the Turks, it was destruction.
Personal integrity or being true to one's highest sense of oneself is a value. How/when others perceive it, it might be a virtue or a vice. Which is it for you?
Personally, I think you are confusing values (judged by the self) with virtues (judged by others).
From my online dictionary:
2 (values) principles or standards of behaviour; one's judgement of what is important in life: they internalize their parents' rules and values.
Virtues noun
1 [mass noun] behaviour showing high moral standards: paragons of virtue.
• [count noun] a quality considered morally good or desirable in a person: patience is a virtue.
• [count noun] a good or useful quality of a thing: Mike was extolling the virtues of the car | [mass noun] : there's no virtue in suffering in silence.
• [mass noun] archaic virginity or chastity, especially of a woman.
2 (virtues) (in traditional Christian angelology) the seventh-highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy.
I don’t have an opinion either way. But I will admit that I mostly don’t like anything that starts with a “v”. I would not want, “He was a virtuous man.” on my tombstone.
There is one thing that starts with a "v" that I like very much, but it ain't got nothing to do with being virtuous!
I like the secular list; it seems to me to be a set of practical guidelines for living--without a lot of judgment.
The idea that constant self-denial is someyhing to be desired seems very puritanical to me; I can almost see Cotton Mather looming in the background. That's what the word "virtue" says to me.
"
Self-denial can be a really, really good thing. For instance, the more I deny myself slices of pepperoni pizza the healthier I will be.
Back in college, I denied myself to a certain degree when it came to promiscuity. Had a indulged as much as I wanted I would probably have gotten a bunch of STDs!
iris lilies
7-2-18, 5:29pm
There is one thing that starts with a "v" that I like very much, but it ain't got nothing to do with being virtuous!
Snort!
I have known, and still know, many men who I literally call "men of vice."
These men live their lives for and around then vices. I have a colleague who is really cruising-for-a-bruisin' at work. He goes to these outdoor rock festivals and gets obliterated. This is his main hobby! So when he comes back to work he is totally scatter-brained. He is also a big smoker -- cigars, vapes, etc.
Anyway, at work, during really important meetings he pulls out that little vape device and inhales it. It looks like a pen so most people don't notice. But I make an effort to be observant. So I see it. If he gets caught, he'll be fired.
I know other guys who have let alcohol or drugs or gambling -- vices -- take over their lives.
In this sad age of moral relativism and deconstructed ideals, it's understandable so many are uncomfortable with the concept of virtue. Mossback that I am, I define it as the pursuit of moral excellence even if it comes at a cost.
It's the difference between the French Resistance and the Trump Resistance. It's the difference between Thomas More standing before King Henry and Robert Di Niro shouting obscenities before a crowd of expensively dressed twits.
Isn't modesty considered a virtue?
I would think boasting about one's own virtuousness would be oxymoronic. Or something.
Some would call it "virtue signaling."
I'm all for people embracing honesty, kindness, thrift, and all that. You can aspire to goodness without making a fetish of it.
ApatheticNoMore
7-3-18, 4:37pm
yea being a generally good person, even sacrificing for your principles when appropriate fine. I just find whatever kind of virtue simple living could address being issues too large to really fit into any kind of individualist virtue framework. Global environmental issues .. uh. Yea. And I know we have had this discussion on here before.
Unless it's purely some kind of inward "virtue" one is seeking like simple living to focus on human relationships instead, all well and good I suppose (but not an ethical issue because even if one say avoided human relationships, it isn't immoral).
In this sad age of moral relativism and deconstructed ideals, it's understandable so many are uncomfortable with the concept of virtue. Mossback that I am, I define it as the pursuit of moral excellence even if it comes at a cost.
It's the difference between the French Resistance and the Trump Resistance. It's the difference between Thomas More standing before King Henry and Robert Di Niro shouting obscenities before a crowd of expensively dressed twits.
I agree with the part about virtue being the pursuit of moral excellence, but I don't think you have to be Thomas More. That's a high bar. IMHO, virtues are the simple guideposts by which we live our lives.
Personally, I think you are confusing values (judged by the self) with virtues (judged by others).
I don't agree at all. In fact I think the opposite. Like LDAHL, I also define virtue as moral excellence--to me virtues are the ingredients that make up your moral compass, and definitely are not external.
I'm really surprised by the antipathy toward the idea of virtue--and I'm assuming it's just a semantic issue. I really don't think people object to the pursuit of qualities like kindness, fortitude, or prudence. Side note: Prudence was the very first word I learned the definition of. When I was about 8, my father asked me to define a word one day, and I said, "I know what it means, but I can't explain it." He said "If you can't explain it, you don't know what it means." So he took me to the dictionary and made me memorize "prudence"--"The ability to make sound judgements in practical matters." I've never forgotten it.
Williamsmith
7-4-18, 10:27am
I thought about it further. My understanding of virtue is classical. Self control, fairness, good judgement and being able to overcome in the face of challenges. Some of it necessarily is genetic predisposition but most of it I think is learned from mentors and other people modeling. It probably forms the basis of my everyday living. That I have virtues is important to me, where it emminates from is not.
UL, Have you considered that Pete and Irwin are not really two people, but a metaphor for two characteristics of the same person that struggle with each other. Sort of reminds me of Herman Hesse's Narcissus and Goldmund. I had to do a quick review since it's been years since I've read it.
“We are sun and moon, dear friend; we are sea and land. It is not our purpose to become each other; it is to recognize each other, to learn to see the other and honor him for what he is: each the other's opposite and complement.” (from the book)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.