Virtuous People

All off topic conversation held here. Have fun and play nice. =)

Moderators: Bookworm, starkruzr, MrFireDragon, PrettyPrincess, Wapsi

User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Virtuous People

Post by Catawampus »

I have some background in theology and philosophy, and I was thinking about some of the debates about virtue and sin and whatnot. Since many of you lot tend to be somewhat thoughtful by nature, come from a wide range of backgrounds, and often aren't shy about expressing your opinions, I figured that I'd try a little poll on the matter.

So, the scenario: There are three men who work for a rich man. Each day, the rich man's gold is brought out of its safe and counted.

The first man not only never steals any of the gold while counting it, but the very notion of stealing is totally alien to him. The thought that he could take somebody else's stuff never crosses his mind.

The second man often thinks about how nice it would be to pocket a little bit of the gold every now and then. But he never steals any of the gold, either, in spite of counting it day after day.

The third man simply leaves the area whenever the gold is going to be brought out, so that he never has to face the temptation.

How do these different men rate as far as virtue?
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by GlytchMeister »

The first man is perfectly innocent, like Errand from the Belgariad and Malloreon series. The second man is strong and virtuous in the face of temptation. The third man is weak, but still virtuous and knows his limits - and found a clever way to abstain from “sin.” So he is, I would say, strong in a different way.
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

I think you're going to have to define what it is that you mean by "virtue" first. Based on the discussions of this over the past few thousand years, I suspect it will take you a while to get everyone to agree. Take your time; we'll wait. :)

Your use of the word "rate" implies that you are asking for the men's locations on a one-dimensional scale of virtue, from "more" to "less", which requires that "virtue" be a measurable scalar. Most philosophical discussions seem to hold that virtue is not this simple... that there are multiple virtues of different nature. If so, then "virtue" is an N-dimensional vector at best, and a very fuzzy one at that... a person may have an obvious and consistent strength of virtue in one respect (e.g. Ahimsa or non-violence) but may be much less consistent in other respects (e.g. Dama or self-restraint). And, things become even more complex if you consider views such as those of Aristotle, which see virtues as a balance between opposing extremes (e.g. courage as a balance between cowardice and foolhardiness).

Looking at it N-dimensionally:
  • The first man is virtuous, as his nature is entirely one of non-covetousness. He is not tempted.
  • The second man is virtuous, as he is exercising self-restraint. He resists temptation.
  • The third man is virtuous, as he is exercising wisdom. He avoids temptation.
Now, if you insist on a one-dimensional rating, then (as a straw man) I suggest the "works for it" principle. Considering that the three men all achieve the same goal of not-stealing, then one way to rate their "virtue" is to consider how difficult it was for them and what they were able to achieve in the face of the difficulty.

In this rating scale, the second man is the most virtuous, as he was actively tempted, chose to resist the temptation, and did do the work of counting the rich man's gold. Significant moral effort required, good results achieved.

The first and third men don't score as easily, even in this simple scale. The first man is perhaps more "innocent" than "virtuous"; it's easy for him and does not require any effort... no points for that. But, he was able to do his job. The third man gets points for knowing that he is temptable, and avoiding the situation... but in doing so he may be shirking work (you didn't say whether he spends his time doing another necessary task).

Which of these two men is more "virtuous" depends on how you weigh the "effort required" and "results achieved" parts of the "works for it" equation.. You have to pick a pair of scaling constants, which should be ones which don't change from case to case and which you can justify from independent principles or reasoning, or at least Divine authority... good luck getting everybody to agree on those numbers

So, that's one way of defining and measuring "virtue" as a scalar... and even this simple model doesn't produce a clear answer.
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

I'll go with Dave's N-dimensional model, but would suggest that most people are a blob rather than a vector. They move around over time, within a certain region of the N-dimensional space, with both short-term fluctuations and long-term drift in one or more (potentially all) of the dimensions.

This is more or less the same model I ended up with for gender identity, sexual orientation, etc.
User avatar
Catawampus
Posts: 2145
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 10:47 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Catawampus »

Dave wrote:I think you're going to have to define what it is that you mean by "virtue" first.
I left that vague on purpose, actually, so that people could fill in their own ideas.
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

Catawampus wrote:
Dave wrote:I think you're going to have to define what it is that you mean by "virtue" first.
I left that vague on purpose, actually, so that people could fill in their own ideas.
Then it would be fair, I guess, for me to suggest that this was a naughty, unvirtuous thing for you to do? :twisted:
User avatar
Just Old Al
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:43 am
Location: Wilderness of Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Just Old Al »

Dave wrote:
Catawampus wrote:
Dave wrote:I think you're going to have to define what it is that you mean by "virtue" first.
I left that vague on purpose, actually, so that people could fill in their own ideas.
Then it would be fair, I guess, for me to suggest that this was a naughty, unvirtuous thing for you to do? :twisted:
Then again, if you force the other guy to accept your terms and definitions you've won the argument already. Working things out in the initial phases of discussion would be the virtuous thing to do.

Now, I am going to stop before I make seven or eight awful puns...
"The Empire was founded on cups of tea, mate, and if you think I am going to war without one you are sadly mistaken."
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

Lest we forget (or get sidetracked):

Image
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
Just Old Al
Posts: 1683
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:43 am
Location: Wilderness of Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Just Old Al »

Atomic wrote:Lest we forget (or get sidetracked):

Image
You list the things on the left like they're BAD things...
"The Empire was founded on cups of tea, mate, and if you think I am going to war without one you are sadly mistaken."
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

Honestly, and with the realization that this is just my viewpoint and I am well aware that few would agree with me, only the second would be considered virtuous.

The concept of virtue means succeeding in the face of difficulty. Succeeding where there is no difficulty is no particular virtue, because there is no challenge to it. Thus the first man, while innocent and saintly, cannot be considered to be virtuous because he cannot concieve of temptation. The second man faces his temptations and takes the moral high ground to do the right thing, so he is virtuous. The third man basically abandons his duty for fear of failing to be virtuous. He's running from his problem, in other words. So while he may be wise and self-aware, which are both very positive qualities to have, he is basically not doing the job he is being paid to do, and should probably find occupation elsewhere.

So in brief:

The first man, while saintly and innocent, is not virtuous because he has no concept of the temptation. To make a slightly 'ad rediculum' comparison, it is not particularly virtuous to not steal common rocks on the ground, because there is no temptation to steal them.

The second man is tempted, faces his temptations, conquers his temptations, and performs his job in spite of that temptation. This man is virtuous.

The third man shirks and abandons his duty to avoid temptation. While perhaps wise and possessing a realistic view of his darker side, which are both positive traits, the fact that he abandons his job in order to avoid the sin means he should probably not have accepted the job in the first place.

So, all three men display positive traits, but only one I would consider virtuous.
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

ShneekeyTheLost wrote:The concept of virtue means succeeding in the face of difficulty
That's a very reasonable definition, Shneekey, and I think it's not uncommon. So, I suspect that a fair number of people would agree with your analysis.

It isn't, of course, the only definition of "virtue"... and that's where at least 5,000 years of interesting philosophical debates come from.

Just for grins, I think I'll stir up the soil of discussion, fertilize the field of argument, and plant some seeds and sprouts of doubt. (Yes, my friends, I'm about to be a dibble's advocate, and hereby deposit a large container of Miracle Idea Food into the Pun Jar).

Proposal: considered objectively, the first and second men are exactly as virtuous as one another.

Reasoning: under identical working conditions, their behaviors are identical. No external observer (from an individual, to a judge, to society as a whole) can distinguish between the two on the basis of any direct observation. Both work, both count the gold, neither steals... those are the facts we have to work with. That's the evidence that could be put in front of a court of law, for example.

Now, you can try to rank them in "virtue" by a subjective analysis, along the lines that you suggest (or that Glytch and I both mentioned): difficulty and temptation. Externally, they're both faced with the same difficulties and temptations - the possibility of stealing, and whether to do it. The only difference is their internal (mental/emotional/moral) state, which no one else can directly observe.

So, you can only make this ranking by asking them why they didn't steal, and whether they wanted to - and then you have to trust their answers.
  • The first guy may respond in a way which leads you to believe that he truly doesn't understand the temptation, and never thought of stealing. He may be telling the truth.
  • Or, he may be lying to you. He may be as tempted as most of us, but could be afraid that if he admits to any temptation at all, he'll be fired. He may believe that only pretending to be a saint will ensure him of his job.
  • The second guy may tell you honestly that yes, he was tempted.
  • Or, the second guy may be lying to you. He may be a thorough innocent, but was told by his parents that people won't believe him because "most people aren't like that", and that he should try to "fit in" by pretending to have certain vices and temptations that most people exhibit.
If you want to assert that the second man is more virtuous than the first, then you have to accept their answers as to their motivations. If both men are lying to you (for different, but quite reasonable motivations) and you believe, you'll end up judging the second man as the more virtuous, when actually the first man was the one who had more difficulty in resisting the temptations. In this case you'll make the correct assessment only if you're cynical enough to disbelieve both men.

If only one man is misleading you (and you believe both, or neither), then both men are actually facing the same level of temptation, and are equally virtuous, but you'll rank one above the other (and might rank the liar above the truth-teller, depending on whether you believe both or neither).

Or, you could try to deduce their mental/emotional/moral processes, by observing them away from work (in the face of other possible temptations). That still isn't reliable... a man who is sorely tempted, but masquerades successfully as a saint while at work, might be equally convincing in all other aspects of his life. Similarly, a saintly innocent might manage to come across as a "usual, real guy" through convincing locker-room dialog that he'd learned without really understanding it. So, you can't trust even extended observation for sure.

To sum it up: in this particular case (man #1 and man #2), your judgment of whom is the more virtuous depends as much on you, as it does on them.
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

This discussion reminds me more than a bit of a "senior English in high school" test, from back in my youth. We had been assigned to read Hawthorne's "The Scarlet Letter". The test was an essay on the subject of "sin" (one of the major topics of this novel). Specifically: consider the three major characters (Hester Prynne, Minister Dimmesdale, and Hester's estranged husband "Roger Chillingworth") and discuss their degree of sinfulness. Hester, of course, was the woman who was judged by her fellow Puritan town-people, punished, forced to wear a scarlet "A" on her clothing, and shunned as a sinner (for bearing a daughter out of wedlock)... but was she the real sinner of the bunch?

Who among these three was the least virtuous?
ShneekeyTheLost
Posts: 609
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:45 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by ShneekeyTheLost »

Dave wrote:
ShneekeyTheLost wrote:The concept of virtue means succeeding in the face of difficulty
That's a very reasonable definition, Shneekey, and I think it's not uncommon. So, I suspect that a fair number of people would agree with your analysis.

It isn't, of course, the only definition of "virtue"... and that's where at least 5,000 years of interesting philosophical debates come from.

Just for grins, I think I'll stir up the soil of discussion, fertilize the field of argument, and plant some seeds and sprouts of doubt. (Yes, my friends, I'm about to be a dibble's advocate, and hereby deposit a large container of Miracle Idea Food into the Pun Jar).

Proposal: considered objectively, the first and second men are exactly as virtuous as one another.

Reasoning: under identical working conditions, their behaviors are identical. No external observer (from an individual, to a judge, to society as a whole) can distinguish between the two on the basis of any direct observation. Both work, both count the gold, neither steals... those are the facts we have to work with. That's the evidence that could be put in front of a court of law, for example.

Now, you can try to rank them in "virtue" by a subjective analysis, along the lines that you suggest (or that Glytch and I both mentioned): difficulty and temptation. Externally, they're both faced with the same difficulties and temptations - the possibility of stealing, and whether to do it. The only difference is their internal (mental/emotional/moral) state, which no one else can directly observe.

So, you can only make this ranking by asking them why they didn't steal, and whether they wanted to - and then you have to trust their answers.
  • The first guy may respond in a way which leads you to believe that he truly doesn't understand the temptation, and never thought of stealing. He may be telling the truth.
  • Or, he may be lying to you. He may be as tempted as most of us, but could be afraid that if he admits to any temptation at all, he'll be fired. He may believe that only pretending to be a saint will ensure him of his job.
  • The second guy may tell you honestly that yes, he was tempted.
  • Or, the second guy may be lying to you. He may be a thorough innocent, but was told by his parents that people won't believe him because "most people aren't like that", and that he should try to "fit in" by pretending to have certain vices and temptations that most people exhibit.
If you want to assert that the second man is more virtuous than the first, then you have to accept their answers as to their motivations. If both men are lying to you (for different, but quite reasonable motivations) and you believe, you'll end up judging the second man as the more virtuous, when actually the first man was the one who had more difficulty in resisting the temptations. In this case you'll make the correct assessment only if you're cynical enough to disbelieve both men.

If only one man is misleading you (and you believe both, or neither), then both men are actually facing the same level of temptation, and are equally virtuous, but you'll rank one above the other (and might rank the liar above the truth-teller, depending on whether you believe both or neither).

Or, you could try to deduce their mental/emotional/moral processes, by observing them away from work (in the face of other possible temptations). That still isn't reliable... a man who is sorely tempted, but masquerades successfully as a saint while at work, might be equally convincing in all other aspects of his life. Similarly, a saintly innocent might manage to come across as a "usual, real guy" through convincing locker-room dialog that he'd learned without really understanding it. So, you can't trust even extended observation for sure.

To sum it up: in this particular case (man #1 and man #2), your judgment of whom is the more virtuous depends as much on you, as it does on them.
Ask a subjective question, get a subjective answer. Topics of morality, ethics, virtue... are inherently a subjective definition and application by virtue of being shaded by that individual's life experiences and upbringing as much as anything else.
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

Hmm -- is virtue an attribute when the person who has so sensitivity to an issue produces an outcome identical to one who is sensitive? Is overcoming the sensitivity inherently virtuous? Are you then defining a virtue in terms of conflict and not consequence?

So then, is Charity a Virtue when you give to another what you cannot afford to lose, as opposed to one who can without harm? NB: the Widow's Mite.

Consider "temptation" -- is it internal or external? An example shown me was the doughnut on a plate in plain view. You're slightly hungry. Are you obligated to eat the doughnut? Is it yours to eat without asking? Enticement is when an outside source advocates an action within your capabilities. "Come! Eat the doughnut! It will taste great!" is an enticement. Your desire to eat the doughnut is the temptation. If you aren't hungry, then no desire (for argument's sake), then no temptation.

If you aren't hungry, have you overcome gluttony? If you are hungry, have you been tempted if you refuse to eat on principle?

From Bible studies, I remember a discussion about a time in the wilderness and the call (enticement) to turn a stone into bread, among other actions. The reply was "Don't tempt me." That is (the teaching went), the enticement was external, and the refusal to respond to the enticement was to overcome the internal temptation to put on a show. This was a lesson in human weakness and overcoming it. Thus the calls by people that somebody "tempted them" was actually that they fell for somebody's enticement, and failed due to their own internal motivation choices.

Which leads me to Sayer's Objection. Miss Rose Sayer was a missionary's daughter in WW 1 German East Africa. Her father engaged Charles Alnut and his boat to see her down river to safety in a British held area. After various narrow escapes, Charles decides to celebrate a bit and hoists a few drinks for the occasion, getting drunk in the process. One hangover later, he apologizes to Rose, saying it's a mans nature to cut loose every now and again. And Rose replied with Sayer's Objection: "But isn't our nature what we're here to overcome?"
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
User avatar
GlytchMeister
Posts: 3733
Joined: Wed Oct 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Location: Central Illinois
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by GlytchMeister »

Paarthurnax wrote:What is better - to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through great effort?
I recall a character from Skyrim - a dragon (a species seen as evil) named Paarthurnax who served as the liutenant to the Big Bad dragon Alduin, and committed unspeakable atrocities against mankind.

When Alduin claims he is a god, Paarthurnax betrayed Alduin, taught humans how to do dragon shouts, helped banish Alduin, and became a pacifist who worshipped Kyne. It’s also said Kyne (an actual god - basically of the sky and wind and stuff) intervened to get Paarthurnax do a heel-face turn.

Paarthurnax later went on to found a pacifist monastic order worshipping Kyne... but he still felt a major lust for power, so he lived in seclusion and spent his time meditating to avoid going back to his old ways.

I just figured he’s kind of a complex example - was his betrayal completely internally motivated? What if Kyne messed with his mind? He actively fought back against the very evil he perpetrated, but then he lived alone to avoid temptation/enticement.

Is the end result what defines him as virtuous, even if it only happened because Kyne messed with his mind? Is his decision to live in seclusion “running away” or is it him actively fighting against his evil nature? Does his previous atrocities still mark him as evil, or do his acts against evil in service of good mark him as good?

Do the ends justify the means?

Is it possible to be both good and evil? Can vice and virtue coexist or is someone viceful if they have a single vice among many virtues, or are they virtuous if they have a single virtue among many vices? How does it balance out? Where’s the tipping point? Can running away from the temptation into vice be resistance against temptation? Say, if the sensation of temptation is still present? Like... if the guy didn’t enter the room but he still wants to in order to steal, but resists that?

A lot of these questions are the kind with infinitely many answers - as many different answers as there are different scenarios and details and people. Too many variables left undefined, even in this controlled scenario. Even one person can behave differently in the same scenario for no reason, logical or not.
He's mister GlytchMeister, he's mister code
He's mister exploiter, he's mister ones and zeros
They call me GlytchMeister, whatever I touch
Starts to glitch in my clutch!
I'm too much!
User avatar
DinkyInky
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 9:38 am
Location: Where there's more than Corn.
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by DinkyInky »

The first is pure and innocent, not virtuous.
The second is pious, overcame temptation, so is virtuous.
The third is a coward, and avoided temptation by dereliction of duty. Had he even said to the owner of the coin that "It was too great a temptation, I cannot be near it." with the understanding he could be sent away as such, he too would be virtuous.
Yanno how some people have Angels/Devils for a conscience? I have a Dark Elf ShadowKnight and a Half Elf Ranger for mine. The really bad part is when they agree on something.

Aphyon chu kissa whol l'jaed.
--Safyr Drathmir
User avatar
Atomic
Posts: 2948
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 12:39 am
Location: Central PA
Contact:

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Atomic »

DinkyInky wrote:The first is pure and innocent, not virtuous.
The second is pious, overcame temptation, so is virtuous.
The third is a coward, and avoided temptation by dereliction of duty. Had he even said to the owner of the coin that "It was too great a temptation, I cannot be near it." with the understanding he could be sent away as such, he too would be virtuous.
Great summary!

From my background, virtue is an implied verb -- that is, an action is required to be virtuous. It is possible to admire something without greed or envy, but that is not charity or kindness. It is possible to stand on the sidelines, disinterested without wrath or sloth (passive aggressive), but that is neither forgiveness or diligence. It is possible to desire and work toward a goal without lust or gluttony, but that is neither chastity nor temperance. It is possible to recognize an accomplishment without pride, but that is not humility.

I enjoy a beautiful sunset! I don't want one for my own, nor am I upset others enjoy it also.

I mind my own business, and know nothing of a horrible situation somewhere else other than chance mention in the newspapers. It neither affects nor interests me.

Time to do the laundry, again. And, put it away. Because, I want clean clothing and a tidy home.

OK, the laundry's done. I'm not obsessing about it, but come on, it's just laundry. It's something you do. Vacuum, empty the bag, then take a shower. Then shopping. Chores, chores, chores.

Granted, you could make the case that tending to one's own needs is an act of temperance, but where do you draw the line? Have a slice of pie (fine) vs eat half a pie (gluttony) vs not eating half a pie (temperance) because you'd get a tummy ache?

The problem with categories is defining the edges, and things that simply don't apply to the categories you've defined.

"If your not part of the solution, you're part of the problem!" shouts the advocate.

Well, there's the solution, the precipitate, the suspended particles, the sediment, the container, the air above and around the container, the evaporate, the stand the container rests upon, the observer(s), the room containing all of the above, the building the room is in, the campus containing the science building, etc, etc.

Which brings us to the third man. Is it virtuous that he knows to leave and so avoids facing his temptation, or cowardly that he does so? Is he actively rejecting greed and lust in favor of temperance? This hinges on his requirement to be in the room and participate in the gold counting. I can see virtue in rejecting temptation while doing the work, and also in avoiding that work if it's not required. On the other hand, if he's shirking his duty as assigned, then he's trading temperance for sloth - failing to act when required.
Don't let other peoples limitations become your constraints!

My Deviant Art scribbles
The Atomic Guide to Basic GIMP Stuff
Warrl
Posts: 1723
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 10:44 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Warrl »

And what if the third man, upon learning that the job involves counting the gold, goes to the master/employer/whatever and says "I will be so tempted to steal some of your gold that I am not confident of my ability to resist. Please assign another to this task, and perhaps give me their work instead, or some other work, or send me away to seek employment elsewhere."



As for the notion that it is the outcome that determines virtue. There is a serial rapist-murderer in the city. Jane develops a desire to know what it's like to murder somebody. So she goes in search of the serial murderer. Identifies him. To be absolutely certain of the identification, she waits until the guy is standing over the corpse of the next victim, and then puts a bullet through his head.

Jane stopped - definitively - a serial rapist-murder. While not the best possible outcome, it is certainly a good one.

But she also deliberately sought out a specific person for the purpose of murdering him. At the time Jane killed the guy, there was no immediate threat to Jane or anyone else.

A slightly better outcome - one less murder victim - would have been achieved if Jane had killed the guy a few minutes sooner, while the final victim was still alive and in good health. (And she possibly could legally justify the killing in terms of saving the victim.)

A similar outcome - stopping the serial rapist-murderer, timing uncertain - could have been achieved if Jane had taken her identification and supporting information to the police.

Is Jane virtuous for killing the guy?
User avatar
TazManiac
Posts: 3701
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 6:53 pm

Re: Virtuous People

Post by TazManiac »

Depends, did she eat what she killed?
User avatar
Dave
Posts: 7584
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA

Re: Virtuous People

Post by Dave »

TazManiac wrote:Depends, did she eat what she killed?
That's not a question of "virtue".

That's a question of "thrifty" vs. "wasteful". :mrgreen:
Post Reply