one persons version of morality is almost always different to anothers. There has been a lengthy discussion about that very subject not so long ago in this forum.

Without a clear definition of "virtuous," anything we say here will have little meaning. Would anyone care to attempt to define what they mean by virtuous? The more I read here, the less I'm sure that you are all talking about the same thing.

It does not matter so much for me what all these philosophers and thinkers have to say on the issue. At one time I did. I wanted to be a philosopher. I found that studying philosophers work, and then calling myself a philosopher, was like studying artists work, and then calling myself an artist. It did not improve my stick figure drawings at all.

It's good to look at their work. At the end of the day, or my life, it's my work that has the most impact on me. Perhaps more importantly on the people around me.

Some people are motivated by self, are not virtuous by nature. They may behave in a way that appears virtuous, it is only to reach a selfish end. In my opinion this is not virtue. Just because it appears virtuous to the outside observer.

Virtue: 1. conforming to moral and ethical principles; morally excellent; upright: Lead a virtuous life.

Moral: 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

Ethical: 1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

Do these work for definitions?

These definitions, when run through the grinder, all come down to right conduct. That's where, for me, the problem lies, because we are all free to choose what we mean by right conduct.

What's virtuous to the fox might not be virtuous to the hen.

[quote=Aliantha;422731]one persons version of morality is almost always different to anothers. QUOTE]

Agreed. That's what makes us so interesting. But in society todsay, there are many people who, going back to a previous post, are unscrupulous. Those in power and those who are not. And, they get places by walking over those of us who are virtuous.

Eh, I said why we favor virtue, not answered why should we be.

We should be virtuous because it is best for society and the greater good.

For the greater good vs For the good of the whole?
:)
lol!!!

The definition of selfishness was changed in the 50's. Doing for one's self didn't used to be at the exclusion of others by definition. It was actually a positive until "spin" came around to say "selfish bad"- "altruism good". Now everyone comes down on selfishness like it's a terrible quality...but in the larger picture it is a good quality to have as a virtue in varying degrees. (Doing for one's self is not always that black and white, and at the exclusion of all others) This is one of the few points that I agree with Ayn Rand.
@Regular.
G'day. Back to the salt mines for me.

A "side effect" of virtue is power. It's the virtue that should be admired. And the power is a "leading by example" type of power, not a "pushing people around" type of power. Power in and of itself is not necessarily admirable, and power through fear or intimidation is despicable.

Thank you smoothmoniker for asking such a stimulating question.

I like the recent turn of the conversation. What is virtue? What is good? What is ethical? What is moral?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions.

I think the answers will NOT be pat, hard edged, easily quantifiable, whatever they turn out to be. I think that circumstances and context and perspectiv matter a great deal, sometimes even as much as the action itself.

I don't know if it's easier, or clearer, but my thoughts on the matter run along this line. Is an action *effective*? Effective at what? Effective at progressing toward or achieving some goal. What goal? Is that goal compatible with my other goals? With the goals of others? Is it important? How important is it relative to the other aspects of my life?

All these questions bear on my actions, and how virtuous they are.

I'm sorry I've sidestepped entirely your question of why be virtuous with what is virtuous.

That's not an accurate summary of Ayn Rand's view. She believed that one requires virtue even on a desert island -- ESPECIALLY on a desert island. The reason to act virtuously, she would say, is that your continued existence and happiness require it. Failing to act virtuously leads to a lessened enjoyment of life and, if you acted contrary to virtue consistently, you'd soon be dead.

This makes more sense if you understand what Ayn Rand held to be major virtues. It's certainly not things like helping others, sacrificing, being humble, etc. She wrote that:

You can find out more here:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...ism_essentials

Each person will almost certainly have a different view of what "virtuous" means, but their opinion will reflect what they view to be desirable behavior. If that person behaves differently than their concience or reason dictates they would likely experience some level of emotional discomfort. Thus, satisfying this desire will prevent as much dissatisfaction as possible and make their impact on the world positive in their eyes.

*throws a water balloon at Phage and runs away*

You want to ask why be virtuous? Ok, I ask why not be the ultimate jerk? Let's lift up every skirt and fondle under the shirt of women that passes us by. Let's walk right in front of cars that have the green light (could be fatal on some streets). Let's go into a grocery store and house some snacks, paying optional. Oh, yeah! Let's go out just to drink. It seems to work for some.

I've struggled with this thread a bit because I resist the notion that virtue is imposed from outside, from a god, peer pressure, or other societal constructs. Like most things in my life, I give a big FU to other people's notions of how to behave.

When I act virtuously, it's because I want to live with myself and the consequences of my own actions.

What about when you don't? No matter how much you resist peer pressure, can you ever completely discard its influences? Aren't those who rebel against society's constructs affected by the existence of those constructs just as much as those who conform to them?