Moral Habit or Moral Struggle: Which is Most Virtuous?

            Imagine the same moral action performed by two people. Let's say they're walking along together and come across a wallet. The moral thing to do, they both realize, is to return the wallet to the person whose ID and credit cards are still inside, along with $1500 in lovely, new, crisp bills. The first person, Aris, has an easy-going, friendly personality. He's also a very thoughtful, considerate, and generally self-aware person. Besides being well brought up, he's also consciously, on his own, decided to form in himself the habit of doing the right thing. So, he's naturally disposed to act morally, it just comes easy to him. The second person, Imma, has skated along through life without giving much thought to anything other than her own self-interest. She's not been well brought up, and has had mostly bad influences in her life. In fact, she sometimes has a nasty habit of behaving like a jerk just because she has a generally unpleasant personality; it might not have been overcome by proper training or discipline anyway. However, she's gone through some life experiences that have made her seriously reconsider her ways, and she's recently decided to give her whole life a 'moral makeover'. She wants to start doing the right thing, because, like Aris, she's come to the conclusion that it's a better way to live. The problem is, when she tries to act right, it's always a struggle: sometimes because it's contrary to her self-interest, sometimes because she's just always had that nasty side to her personality that enjoys being bad.

            So, to make a long story a little longer, they return the wallet. For Aris, it was easy; he walks away with that gentle little glow that the wallet owner's smile gave him, and otherwise thought little of it because, of course, it was just the natural thing for him to do. It's a very different story for Imma: she's really struggling financially right now, and that money will pay the rent, a couple of bills, and allow her to get nice and high on her lunch break... oh, wait, she's not supposed to do that either. Sigh. This is the first time since her 'moral makeover' that she's really had to do something good that was so... 'big'. The fact that the wallet's owner lived in a fancy house, drove a fancy car, and probably didn't really need the money anyway made the struggle so much more difficult, and as they approached the house to turn over the wallet, Imma was so tempted to turn back that the strain was physically painful. In the end, she returns the wallet, still struggling inside, still not resigned, but she knows it was her duty as a moral person. So now we come to the point of this story, an illustration of a classic philosophical puzzle: who is the most virtuous? Which of the two is most morally praiseworthy for returning the wallet: Aris, the habitual do-gooder, or Imma, the reformed reprobate who conquers herself to do the right thing? Who is the most moral person: he who does right easily, or she who struggles? I think most would say that the answer to one of these questions holds the answer to the other: that the person who performs actions that are individually most morally praiseworthy, is the most virtuous person overall. However, I'm going to take what seems a funny position: Aris is the most virtuous person; but, in returning the wallet and in the other individual moral actions that Imma struggles to perform, she performs the most virtuous actions.

            As you may have guessed by now, Aris represents the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s moral view: virtue is a habit, a state of mind, a way of living that must be realized throughout the whole of one's life.  Moral actions are those performed by virtuous people. Therefore, Aris' action is the most morally praiseworthy, and he is also the most virtuous person. Imma's represents Immanuel Kant's view of moral action as duty: performed because, first, you have the good will to do it, and second, because it is a duty, never because you feel like it. (This good will is something that Imma adopts rather than having it be a natural part of her personality as Kant would wish it to be, but I'm sure Kant would approve of her change of heart.) Therefore, Imma is the most virtuous person, because she performs the most morally praiseworthy actions: because she should do them, not because she feels like doing them. Kant would say these kinds of actions done against one’s inclinations, for duty’s sake, are the only moral actions. (I realize I'm using the terms 'moral’, 'virtuous', and ‘good’ more or less interchangeably; their meanings are close enough for our purpose, and I trust the way I use them is true to Aristotle’s and Kant’s views, so I’ll use them as it seems best.)    

            While Aristotle's theory of virtue as habit represents an admirable ideal for many of us (and a lovely theme for a self-help book), our modern Western cultural viewpoint tends to make us more sympathetic to Imma’s and Kant's attitude of self-mastery and duty. For one thing, there's the Christian influence. After all, Christians say, we are all naturally sinners, and Jesus came to show us how to be good. Of course, this will always be a struggle, since our own sinful nature and the temptations of the devil will try to keep us from being good; but, if we struggle against sin, we conquer it, just like Jesus. For another thing, there's the tradition of the 'self-made’ person who struggles against hardship and succeeds, just like the pioneers, the frontier families who struggle against nature and carve out a living for themselves, the revolutionaries who fight against the wicked king and overcame, those who pulled themselves up by their bootstraps to rise out of the poverty in which they grew up. It's just a good old American tradition to root for the underdog, especially the one who wins in the end. So, these two views of virtue and the virtuous person, the Aristotelian and the Kantian, seem to contradict one another. This is because the Aristotelian view seems to value just the goodness of people who’ve had it easier all their lives, because they’ve enjoyed a good upbringing, and because they happened to be born with the sort of personality that’s naturally drawn to virtuousness. In fact, it even seems a little elitist, and leaves out of the picture those who want to become better people and overcome their past. So how can I take both sides at once? Or, rather, take a piece from one side's view, and a piece from another, and patch them together in such a seemingly contradictory way?

            Well, for one thing, I don't think that the one part of Aristotle's view necessarily leads to the other: that since the habit of being good makes a person virtuous, each of the habitually virtuous person's actions must be the most good too. This could be seen as committing the classic 'fallacy of division': that each part of a thing must be just like the whole thing. In this case, it would mean that if a whole life is the most virtuous, each action done in that life is the most virtuous too. Now, I think that Aristotle would say since habit is necessary to virtue, if it’s not habitual, it's not virtuous. While I admire the importance Aristotle places on making morality an essential part of your everyday life, I think that if we limit our definition of morality the way he does, it can be more harmful than helpful. That’s because it goes too far too cutting off from the moral community those who try to do better, to become virtuous even if they weren’t before. Where's the room for the 'reformed reprobate' like Imma in his view? And doesn't Aris seem a little morally uninteresting, sort of a flat character? I think that most people have a strong sense that morality is supposed to ask more of us than just that which we feel like doing, whether it’s good or bad, helpful or harmful. Otherwise, what’s the point? I think, instead of defining virtue as habit, we should call the habit of virtue a virtue in itself. We could go so far as to say that it's one of the most important virtues since it leads to so many other virtues, in ourselves as well as the example we give to others when we’re good most of the time. And since this habit of being good applies directly to a whole life, it makes the whole life more virtuous. So here’s where I get the Aristotelian part of my conclusion: Aris is the most virtuous person, since morality is a habit for him; it's an essential part of who he is. He does good all the time, and inspires others to do the same. That's why we admire him.

            Yet, most of us admire those who struggle to do right, such as Imma, the most, and most of us can see ourselves in her shoes more often than in Aris’. We do so instinctively, and I think this is based on more than just our cultural values. I think it's because most human beings see morality not just as habit or a way of life, but as a human achievement too, even the greatest one. That's because we don't feel like doing right thing all the time; sometimes because it's against our self-interest, sometimes it’s because we’re being lazy or thoughtless or short-sighted, sometimes it’s because we of our bad habits or personality flaws. Yet without morality, human beings can't live together, or do great things, or help each other out, or keep from harming each other to get what we want. That's so the insight Kant has about morality is right in line with our view of virtuous actions as achievements, and those achievements that are the most admirable of all are often those done in the face of adversity.

However, Kant makes a mistake by going too far with this idea. He thinks that the only actions we can admire for their goodness, or those we can call moral or virtuous, are done in spite of adversity, in acting against our inclinations. This means he would say visiting a sick friend out of love and concern is not virtuous; only visiting them out of a sense of obligation is. But who can take this seriously? Let’s go back to our idea of virtue as achievement. Think of the musical achievements of two great violinists. One was a naturally talented child, patient and quick-learning by nature, who had the best teachers growing up, the fanciest instruments to play on, and most nimble fingers. Therefore, being a great violinist was not all that hard to do. The other was poor, with stubby fingers, who scraped together the money by working nights after school, who taught herself to play from old cassette tapes borrowed from the library on a rickety old violin borrowed from school, and did so only with great difficulty since she has ADD. If we applied Kant’s basic idea of virtue to this metaphor, we’d have to say that only the latter of the two violinists deserves our admiration. (Aristotle might say only the first one does). Yet, that doesn’t make sense to most of us. We recognize that both of them achieved something great.

So Kant’s view, of limiting virtue only to what’s done out of duty and not according to our inclinations, doesn’t make sense according to our view of virtue as achievement, because it indicate that the only achievements that matter are those done out of duty or in spite of hardship, but never the ones achieved out of love, or enthusiasm, or pride. This goes against much of what we consider good and moral. For example, that happy little glow that Aris enjoyed when he returned the wallet: most people would consider that a good, morally praiseworthy feeling. The emotions that make us want to do good help make virtue a habit, which leads to more acts of virtue, and here's where we return to Aristotle. But before we return to our attention fully to him, let's give Kant the credit he's due for helping us understand why we admire each of Imma's moral triumphs so much. His view shows reveals to us the great moral value of the struggle to be good, and helps us see why it’s so important not to give up. Most of us find it hard to be good all of the time, and many of us find it hard to be good a lot of the time, but according to Kant’s view, virtue is not limited to habit, but available to all of us to decide to do the right thing. Just as Aristotle’s view reveals that the habit of virtue is one of the important, Kant’s view reveals that self-mastery is one of the most important virtues too. And since this self-mastery applies to each individual struggle to do the right thing, rather than to the whole life (since remember, it’s not a struggle if it’s a habit), then this virtue applies to each moral action. And that’s what I base the Kantian part of my conclusion on: each one of Imma's moral actions, done after a struggle, is more virtuous, and what’s more, anyone can do the same, at any time in their life, so long as they try. And if they fail, they can try again.

            So Aristotle's theory of virtue helps us in the way that it shows how important it is that we do good all the time, because the more good we do, the more we can do. It also gives moral value to good inclinations and positive emotions, because they help us form the habit of virtue. However, his theory stops working so well when it seems to limit virtue only to those who are always or almost always good. Kant's theory of virtue helps us realize how important it is for us to do good even when we don't want to, and it includes among the virtuous to all who want to change their lives for the better, and who makes the effort to do so. However, his theory doesn’t give credit to those that make a habit of virtue. It also fails to give moral credit to the feelings of kindness, generosity, tenderness, empathy, and so on, that help us act virtuously. In the end, all of those who do the right thing such as Aris and Imma are good examples to all of us, whether we find doing good easy or difficult, and Aristotle and Kant both have something important to tell us when we ask how we can best live a virtuous life.

Montaigne: How To Be the Happiest Philosopher & the Best Human Being

While I have yet to read the entirety of his essays, Michel de Montaigne is a thinker after my own heart. He did not write out a complete philosophical system or moral theory. Instead, he revolutionized a way of writing: a series of essays on anything and everything he found interesting enough to observe and think deeply about which was, well, just about everything. Yet his Essays are a rich source of wonderful philosophical and moral insights. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Montaigne's approach this way: “... under the guise of innocuous anecdotes, Montaigne achieved the humanist revolution in philosophy. He moved from a conception of philosophy conceived of as theoretical science, to a philosophy conceived of as the practice of free judgment'. Judgment, in this sense, involves applying both our cultivated moral sense and our reason, enriched with knowledge, to navigate the complexity and variety of situations we face throughout our lives; it also refers to the expansive, tolerant attitude we should display towards each other and towards the whole of reality.

For one thing, while Montaigne highly valued learning, he recognized that it is often overemphasized, to the detriment of learning from our own experiences of human beings, when it comes to understanding how to live well. The way that educated people often learned in his day was by rote, memorizing a vast quantity of facts. This can stifle our ability to exercise practical judgment as well as blunt our social skills, preventing us from learning from and about each other, which is essential to cultivating moral understanding. We should learn as much about each other as possible, Montaigne thought, both through education and through personal interaction. Montaigne says that sometimes, our big, smart brains can even hinder our quest for wisdom. For example, we becomes ashamed, insecure, even hateful of our own bodies, when we contrast the refinements of education and the arts to the material reality of the caring for and satisfying our bodily needs. This distaste is ungenerous and ungrateful, Montaigne says, seeing that we rely on our bodies for so much; in fact, our bodies are us. Our big brains can make also make us too proud, unable to recognize wisdom in humble or unexpected places. People of little or no education sometimes display more wisdom than the most rigorous scholar. Even animals are sometimes wiser than we are; for example, in their natural, unembarrassed attitudes towards their own bodies, and their unapologetic enjoyment of pleasure; we should learn from them and imitate them in these respects. The wisest beings, then, can come from all walks of life, and the wisest person will be receptive to the lessons that can be learned from all of them.

We should not limit our exposure merely to our own society, but should learn about as many other cultures and beliefs as possible. Montaigne, like Confucius, is of the opinion that before you can be a social scientist or a moral theorist, you must first be an anthropologist (my wording). This wide-ranging self- education has two huge advantages. For one thing, the information you have to work with will be much more vast, your scope much wider, than if you merely stuck to the received 'wisdom' of your own culture. For another, you will cultivate in yourself the very virtues that characterizes the wise and moral person: tolerance, benevolence, respect, kindness, generosity, and so forth. Conversely, xenophobia leads to hatred, violence, and so on, as the horrific stories coming back from the conquest of the New World made him all too aware. He says, also, we should not base our attitudes towards right and wrong on habit, which is morally lazy and which a narrow education can easily lead us to do; rather, we should temper our moral attitudes with reason, and our reason should be informed by an expansive and ever-expanding body of knowledge.

This can make Montaigne seem like a moral relativist, but I don't think this is the case. He does recognize that some things that society traditionally recognize as wrong is in fact both bad and good, sometimes one or the other, sometimes both at the same time. For example: drunkenness. It's bad when it gets you fired our causes you to beat your family members. It's good when it promotes sociability. Montaigne recognizes that if there are universally true moral maxims, they are likely to be few. Rather, his approach to philosophy is a skeptical one: he sees an attitude of uncertainty and doubt as a fruitful one for gaining wisdom. When you don't accept the first easy answers that come along, when you wait for more information to come in, when you generally accept that there's a possibility you are wrong, you are practicing a wise skepticism; otherwise, you cheat yourself out of the opportunity to learn. Most importantly, philosophy is a joyful enterprise.

Ethically, he espouses some behaviors as universally preferable: tolerance, joyfulness, sociability, generosity, benevolence, a good-humored attitude towards other people and their various ways of living, and so on; he specifically denounces cruelty and narrowness in thinking and feeling. He describes his ethical theory not by outlining a rigorous system, however, but by enacting a moral attitude that inspires moral behavior in others. In sum, he may or may not be a relativist when it comes to a specific theory or set of maxims, but he is definitely not relativistic in the overarching value of he places on the art of being a good, complete human being, and promoting the same in others. Montaigne's writings provide compelling evidence that the most well-reasoned advanced moral theory may never be as convincing or effective when spelled out, as that which is lived. Montaigne's shows us how we can all be philosophers, how we can live ethically, and how we can discover it all for ourselves. Philosophers, if they're doing it right, will be the happiest of all people, and we should all be philosophers.

Sources:

Alain de Botton: Video – Montaigne on Self-Esteem http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6436583611449448580

Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/montaign/

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/montaigne/#FreJud

Update on Matthew Leone, the young bassist beaten into a coma while rescuing a battered woman

Image: Altpress

'Events like this, while traumatic and painful, force you to stop and reevaluate, and there’s beauty in that.'

So says Matthew Leone, who was severely beaten while stopping a domestic attack last June (and whose story I shared with you in August). I'm happy to be able to tell you he's doing much, much better!

A couple of months ago, the prognosis was uncertain for Matthew: his doctors were unsure whether he'd be walking and talking within a year, and whether or not he'd ever fully recover his memory. Now, he's up and about, and looking forward to going back out on tour with his band Madina Lake in early spring. Concerned fans and others set up benefit shows and other fundraisers to pay his extensive medical costs. The outpouring of love and support he received 'was a demonstration of compassion and generosity and selflessness in a world where selfishness prevails,' Matthew said.

More than 40 farmers volunteer to harvest their ill neighbor's crop

Image: GraniteFallsNews.com

Last Tuesday, dozens of farmers rose early, and rolled out with their combines, grain carts, and other equipment ready for the 360 acre harvest. But this time, they didn't work their own fields; instead, they gathered at City Hall to plan and finish the harvest of Robert Thompson's crop, another local farmer who's hospital-bound.

This isn't even the first time these farmers have helped each other out: “There’s been four or five times, since I’ve started farming, that things like this have happened and every time word gets out everybody drops whatever they’re doing and comes running,” Tim Velde remembers. 

Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals give up a Saturday to perform free surgeries

Image: 10News.com

Last weekend in San Diego, over 150 doctors, nurses, anesthesiologists, and other medical professionals volunteered to perform free medical procedures from biopsies to repairing hernias to gallbladder removals on patients who needed surgery but have no insurance. Project Access San Diego organized this event with Kaiser Permanente, in addition to other such events, providing free specialty medical care to over 550 patients since December 2008. Several hospitals and over 400 volunteers have participated in Project Access San Diego, doing what they can to bring healing to those who cannot afford today's high cost of medical care.. 

Image: Wikipedia

If we should deal out justice only, in this world, who would escape?  No, it is better to be generous, and in the end more profitable, for it gains gratitude for us, and love. - Mark Twain

Community workshop in Norwich, England, helps build relationships through building bikes

Image: Norwich Evening News 24

It's Not About the Bike, a community workshop organized by Sarah Smith, brings socially isolated people together through learning to build and ride bikes. It's run by users, community workers from Norwich City Council, and volunteers who offer classes and work experience, and take people on organized rides through the city, including disabled people on specially built bikes. Their goal is to offer a practical yet fun way of getting people out and about, and ready to rebuild their work and social lives.