Why Be Virtuous?
 

Why be virtuous? Why do good things instead of bad things? The following five statements aren't direct quotes, but they are accurate summaries of five philosophers, and how they answered the question of why we should be virtuous.

“The best reason to be virtuous is because of the nature of the human soul - virtue is the proper function of the human nature, and we do damage to our own nature, our own souls, if we deceive others and act with cruelty.” (Plato)

“The best reason to be virtuous is because of God’s decree - He commands us to do certain things and not to do certain other things, and out of either love or fear, we ought to obey his commands.” (William of Ockham)

"The best reason to be virtuous is because it is the most rational state of affairs - rationality is the cardinal human endeavor, and virtue is the highest expression of reason." (Immanuel Kant)

“The best reason to be virtuous is increased personal well-being in the midst of social pressure - if you are dishonest and cruel to others, society will shun you, and your capacity to enjoy life will be diminished.” (Ayn Rand)

“The best reason to be virtuous is to increase the total happiness (or flourishing) of sentient beings - the cumulative total of well-being is increased better off when people are honest and compassionate toward one another.” (Peter Singer)

Why? Because I want my children to be virtuous. How do I coach them along what I believe to be the path of virtue if it is plainly clear that I am not on the same path?

Why?

Doesn't any answer you give to that question devolve back to one of the justifications sm gave?

not really. i'm just cheap and if they are virtuous there is a much smaller chance of me having to bail them out of jail.;)

Rational self-interest. 1 pt Rand

I'll go with Plato. Doing things which are not virtuous is self destroying.

People are virtuous because they want other people to like them. That's all.

If other people like you, you have power. The more people that like you, the more power you have.

If society valued something else, there'd be power in being that thing instead of virtuous.

Reciprocity. The foundation of all human cultures.

There are a great many powerful people who are not very likable and who have done many unlikable things.

Well, I'm talking about on a day to day level with normal people.

Most of the unlikeable people in power got there via unscrupulous means and they're still in power because everyone else is too 'virtuous' to take them down.

If virtue is nothing more than a tool for social power, then we should admire and emulate those who are "unscrupulous" and powerful, since they were able to achieve the beneficial outcome (power) without the personal constraint (virtue).

If it's true that social power is the only real benefit of virtue, then the powerful and immoral person has the most praiseworthy life.

yes but society doesn't value immoral and unscrupulous people. Only virtuous.

We are after all just animals living out our life. I suppose one of the things that sets us apart from other animals is virtue however, that may or may not be a good thing.

I guess it all depends on your perspective.

First, I would like to claim that I, and many others I know, find happiness in virtue. I try to be virtuous because it brings me happiness. Helping others bring me happiness.

I think the connection of virtue and happiness comes across through evolution and the growth of living and interacting in a community.

For one, humans are very community based animals, and for this we can not look at modern society because we have not evolved to live in a society like ours today, but a more nomadic and communal society. So the question has to change too, why would it be advantageous for me to help someone in my community?

The answer seems pretty simple. In that time, it would be better for my survival to watch out for the interests of the community instead of my own because a strong community will better insure the passing of my genes than watching my individual interests. If I lived a million years ago by myself, there is a good chance I would be quickly killed because even though humans are smart, it is not easy to kill predators, find food, and build shelters by oneself. So, instead I become more altruistic and watch out for the interests of the community because if the community strengthens, so does my chance of passing on my genes. Basically, if I watch your back, you watch mine, and we both have a better chance of survival and people that showed the trait of being virtuous and watching out for the community survived while the selfish did not.

That is my guess.

To be, or act virtuous is better then to not be, or not act virtuous. It doesn't matter why.

The why matters a great deal. The why is not simple a motivation, but a definition. Each of the statements above indicates a different meaning of what virtue actually is. Defining virtue through one of the above statements will lead a person to different moral choices when confronted with an ethical dilemma.

Take heroic self-sacrifice (woman falls on grenade to save the lives of strangers). Plato, Ockham, and Kant would all say that this is a virtuous act. Rand would say it's an immoral act, since any act that ends one's own life is the ultimate abdication of self-interest. Singer would say that it's not necessarily virtuous - it depends on the degree of greater benefit that flows out of the survival of those several strangers rather than the survival of that one heroic self-sacrificer.

The question of why be virtuous is essential to the question of how to be virtuous.

Good point, virtue is defined as living a moral life or living up to moral excellency and since morally is subjective, it makes a virtuous life subjective as well.

My version of moral excellency is doing what is best in the bigger picture, which reflects on to my example.