What do you all say? — MysticMonist

What is this virtue you speak of?

• Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
• Behavior showing high moral standards.
• Theological virtues - faith, hope, and charity
• Cardinal virtues - justice, temperance, prudence, and fortitude.
• Civic virtues - duty, loyalty, courage, honor
• Synonyms - goodness, righteousness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, nobility, worthiness, purity;

Not trying to be pedantic, just getting my head together.

I would suggest that most people operate off a vague morality formed by a mix of cultural norms and inner conscious. They often don’t reflect very deeply and cultural norms provide inconsistent and conflicting messages. I also think the vast majority of people believe themselves to be moral, despite simultaneously suspecting others of immorality. — MysticMonist

When I think of this subject and "most people" I think about something that happened to me in 2009, right after Obama took office here in the US. I was in Alabama at a job site driving around with the contractor's foreman looking at buildings and discussing how to go about working on them. As I tell people I am friendly with in the south - I am everything you've ever been told about people from the northeast - I'm loud, fast-talking, aggressive, and very liberal. I try not to talk politics while I am there.

While driving around, the foreman spontaneously told me that he prays for Obama every morning, even though I know he is a traditional southern conservative. And white. I was really moved. This was not a unique type of experience down there. Even as someone who doesn't think much about god, except when forced to by you guys, one thing I admire about Christians is that they do think about what it means to be good, even if they often fail to live up to their ideals, as do we all.

What does being a virtuous person in today’s world really look like? Is Virtue found in most people, most of the time or it is rare and only the product of intense training and self-renunciation? Is human virtue is even possible? — MysticMonist

A virtuous person must have the traits of virtues such as gentleness and self-control. An upright and pure heart, willingness to work hard but the ability to prioritize which things are more valuable. A virtuous person cannot be virtuous on the outside alone but must have a reformation of the mind and even of emotions. And so on.
Virtue remains impossible to develop through training, but rather is more of obedience to the conscience. All people have a conscience, but also all have corrupted it so that no one possesses the ability to be perfectly virtuous. Often, I believe, many rationalize unvirtuous deeds, which leads to a slippery slope on to more deeds of the sort, greatly inhibiting what virtue they possess.
Attempting to live a virtuous life through sheer discipline will lead to a life of misery, as this will merely lead to a state of mind where one only recognizes the depravity of humanity.

I also think the vast majority of people believe themselves to be moral, despite simultaneously suspecting others of immorality. An exception to this would be religious guilt or humility where people openly state and perhaps exaggerate their immoral nature. Yet I think being humble and aware of your faults is key to keeping them in check. — MysticMonist

I very much agree with the statement of many believing themselves to be moral, but not truly being so. Humility is a virtue, so those who profess to be very virtuous but remain proud are not virtuous.

Is it enough to be a loving family member, be honest in your job and obey most of the laws? — MysticMonist

No, that will not produce true virtue. It must come from the depth of the soul.

I very much agree with the statement of many believing themselves to be moral, but not truly being so. Humility is a virtue, so those who profess to be very virtuous but remain proud are not virtuous.

Is it enough to be a loving family member, be honest in your job and obey most of the laws? — MysticMonist

No, that will not produce true virtue. It must come from the depth of the soul. — Lone Wolf

Not only have you set up rigid standards of what people must do to be virtuous, you have set rigid standards about how they must feel inside while they are doing it. You also say that I cannot call myself virtuous without being vain, and thus unvirtuous. So, everyone is either unvirtuous or their virtue is suspect. I say, give people the benefit of the doubt. Judge them by their actions. A truly virtuous person doesn't care what you think anyway.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that many of the worst Nazis were loving family members, honest, and obeyed the laws.

"But to those of you who will listen, I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone takes your cloak, do not withhold your tunic as well. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what is yours, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full.

But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." - Jebus

The problem with morality, is that we're all big fat hypocrites, and we don't know how to change the world, by being the change we want to see in the world, by acting towards the wicked as we wish them to act, to embodying, rather than mouthing our virtues.

I am far from perfect, and I even go further than that and say that no one is even good, but this too is quoting Jesus: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone."

Another way that truth telling facilitates the undermining of your own wickedness, is that if you don't pretend to be only helpful, only benevolent, only righteous and good, people then may guard against you as well.

What is this virtue you speak of? — T Clark

Actually I think that’s the real question. Once you establish a concrete understanding of Virtue/morality/ethics then it would be pretty easy to see how widespread it is.
I admit I’ve not yet established a good enough understanding yet. I’ll finish reading Plato’s works and then maybe Aristotle’s Nichomacean Ethics and then the Stoics. If by then I still don’t know what Virtue really is, I’m probably hopeless!

There is another way to determine how widespread Virtue even I I don’t know exactly what it is yet is based off its fruits. The fruit of virtue is abiding contentment. A wise person takes consolation in virtue and has equanimity in all things. I suppose wisdom and virtue are two seperate concepts and you can be virtuous without being wise in the way you can have a healthy diet yet be ignorant of nutrition. Regardless, there seems to be very few content and equanimous people in the world. Though again content people don’t need to brag about their contentment.

Empathy makes contentment impossible, for as long as even a single feeling thing remains discontent. You can be content some of the time, but not all the time, as life involves personal and vicarious suffering.

I liked both your descriptions. They definitely point to virtue being uncommon.
Even if Virtue is too high of a standard to be fully attainable these descriptions suggest that the majority don’t ever come close.

I hope that by desiring Virtue for its own sake (or at least the contentment and self validation it brings) is a sufficient start. I find I have daily failures to be always kind and even tempered (I’ve got two young kids and am perpetually sleep deprived) and to avoid temptations of sloth. I wonder how significant these small short comings are? I suppose they do signal that I’m far from perfected and still have work to do.

Empathy makes contentment impossible — Wosret

I think you and I have disagreed about this before.

You can be content some of the time, but not all the time, as life involves personal and vicarious suffering. — Wosret

You can be content while you are suffering or identifying with the suffering of others. Contentment is facing suffering head on without flinching. That's not something I can do on a consistent basis, but I believe some can and I may be able to.

Empathy makes contentment impossible, for as long as even a single feeling thing remains discontent. You can be content some of the time, but not all the time, as life involves personal and vicarious suffering. — Wosret

That’s a really great thought. I remember dealing with this when praying Zen meditation and reaching content but detached states. I would hardly say this is moral.

I think there is a difference in self centered suffering because of one’s own desires and anxieties and compassionate suffering for the sake of another. Both are unpleasant but there is a nobility that comes from compassion and empathy that outweighs the suffering (otherwise you would be wisest to never have empathy).

I am far from perfect, and I even go further than that and say that no one is even good — Wosret

I have met a few people who are completely not perfect but I think are good. These are not people whose goodness is obvious. Typically I've seen it when I've come to know them well enough to see into their hearts. I am thinking about the possibility that some people on this forum might even be good.

Don't worry Wosret - I'm not talking about you or me.

I just can't be a cynic, and believe that everything ultimately reduces to prudence, or selfish benefits. Call me averse, but I can't. Goodness is genuinely selfless, and not ultimately in your own best interest. There is more at stake than just me, the world's bigger and older, and will carry on long after I'm gone, and I wish to discover a way that truly benefits it, and is really good, without it being ultimately about me.

I just can't be a cynic, and believe that everything ultimately reduces to prudence, or selfish benefits. — Wosret

So are you saying we gain happiness/contentment/nobility/validation from virtue for its own sake really isn’t for its own sake? Instead it’s just another way to get something?
I don’t know.. I think we have an inherent desire to want to be good and be closer to the Divine. Is this still selfish?
I do think that this holy and pure desire to be good is easily corrupted into wanting to seem good or to be free of nagging guilt regardless of actual goodness.
Or did you mean something else?

I think that one should do good things, because they are good, and not because they are rewarding, ennobling, bring contentment, make one an uncommon jewel or something like that. I'm not like opposed to things that are good, and enjoyable for you, but they aren't necessarily related to the good in my view. You know, it is possible to be tortured horribly, and then crucified if you're good. Plato's notion of the truly just man is one that everyone believes is unjust, in order to set it up so that he isn't personally gaining in any way from it.

I think that there are both benefits and downsides to most everything, even doing the right things. There are also benefits to being wicked, otherwise no one would do it, or would only do it because they were ignorant of something important, but both the Buddha, and Jesus were tempted by the devil, and the temptation couldn't have been tempting unless it was beneficial to them personally and actually desirable things, as it doesn't set up the situations under the pretext that they are deluded, or deceived in any way.

Not only have you set up rigid standards of what people must do to be virtuous, you have set rigid standards about how they must feel inside while they are doing it. You also say that I cannot call myself virtuous without being vain, and thus unvirtuous. So, everyone is either unvirtuous or their virtue is suspect. I say, give people the benefit of the doubt. Judge them by their actions. A truly virtuous person doesn't care what you think anyway. — T Clark

True virtue is not physical, therefore it cannot be something that you do. Rather, virtuous actions are a result of true virtue.

I hope that by desiring Virtue for its own sake (or at least the contentment and self validation it brings) is a sufficient start. I find I have daily failures to be always kind and even tempered (I’ve got two young kids and am perpetually sleep deprived) and to avoid temptations of sloth. I wonder how significant these small short comings are? I suppose they do signal that I’m far from perfected and still have work to do. — MysticMonist

The issue is that perfect virtue is impossible to attain by yourself. Of course, you will have short-comings, and that is the case of all humanity. The harder you try to be virtuous, the more you will see that you can never attain it.

Are we called by God or by reason to be of greater virtue? — MysticMonist

What put me on the path to become greater must have been reason. Reason put me here, and reason also tries to convince me daily to leave. Sadly I think it is through selfish desires that we eventually come to even try at what much greater men tried their entire lives. But, if we stay I can only think that it is through selflessness that we stay.

They often don’t reflect very deeply and cultural norms provide inconsistent and conflicting messages. — MysticMonist

I think that's the key difference between those who seek virtue and those who are fine with doing what they normally do. People might even be aware that what they do is wrong or not very nice; but if you don't think about it much, there's no room to feel bad about it.

So I have here:
Feel bad about what you did?
Maybe seek virtue?
Y: Mang, this is hard. Stay cause I like others and I will keep feeling bad if i go back?
N: Mang, this is ez. hard on conscience, but Donald Trump doesn't look like he feels bad soooooo...

I think I’ve solved my quandary with y’all’s help. (Got to love when you can use the 2nd person plural).
It seems to me that the way we are talking about virtue or being good is very simmilar to conversations of “enlightenment” in Buddhism. You run into same problem of if enlightenment is common or uncommon or is any person enlightened at all. Claiming to be enlightened is a clear sign you aren’t.
The way I solved this for myself when studying Zen was to see enlightenment as a verb not as a noun or adjective. So as a Zen practicioner I was able to attain moments of “kensho” the awareness of “satori” or enlightenment that is always around us. I apologize for the Japanese but it’s hard to describe these things simply. But the basic jist that enlightenment is gained thru meditation only in meditation. It’s not a permanent state or one time achievement.
So on a basic level, you are virtous only when you are practicing virtue. No one is always virtuous. Are you virtuous when you sleep? No, not usually.

This can also been seen on a deeper level. If as Wosret states that only God is good, or all goodness comes from God, we are only good in and when we participate in God’s goodness (Kadosh or holiness in Hebrew). This also means that my mystical/contemplative practice and my moral practice are intrinsically linked, which is an intuitive truth.

I now understand the original question of are most people virtuous to be a misunderstanding of virtue. The real answer is obvious. A few people are rarely virtuous, most people are sometimes virtuous, a few people are frequently virtuous.
It makes sense then I feel like a good person when I practice good deeds but don’t feel that way all the time and when I make a mistake I feel rather worthless. It’s a moment by moment, action by action thing.

Virtue by definition means being uncommonly good at something, and like skills in general virtuousness is a spectrum. Anyone is virtuous by some standards.

I think I’ve solved my quandary with y’all’s help. (Got to love when you can use the 2nd person plural). — MysticMonist

Up north here we say "you guys."

So we are discussing moral virtue. Though I don’t deny that if there is one Source of goodness and beauty and thus might be related. Creating a skilled and inspired painting might be morally good.

So we are discussing moral virtue. — MysticMonist

This was clear.

Up north here we say "you guys." — T Clark

I’m in SW Virginia so I do use y’all. Fun fact: my town of Lynchburg is home to Liberty University a gigantic super conservative Christian college that pretty much runs everything. They just finished this large tower to be higher than anything else in the city to house their theology program. I think they need to reread their Old Testament!

s it enough to be a loving family member, be honest in your job and obey most of the laws? In short to not be terrible and ruin it for everyone.
Are we called by God or by reason to be of greater virtue? I think of a Rabbi who once said that monkeys love their mates and their children and are kind to their friends and obey stronger monkeys. But this isn’t virtue. — MysticMonist

As I see it, it's somewhat "aggressive" to say that "this isn't virtue." How does one not thereby project a non-obvious duty? This ordinary restraint and decency is the basic foundation of freedom. I leave you alone to wrestle with God if you leave me alone. I recognize your freedom. Lots of self-righteous violence and contempt flows from idiosyncratic notions of virtue that transcend this ordinary decency. It's not "innocent" in a certain sense to negate this ordinary virtue. IMV it's often the prologue of a superiority play that wears an angelic mask.

If by then I still don’t know what Virtue really is, I’m probably hopeless! — MysticMonist

Maybe it's virtuous to remain open about virtue. I think wrestling with this question is arguably philosophy itself. Perhaps we always already act on some possibly blurry notion of virtue. We spend our lives tinkering with or even revolutionizing this concept. Perhaps to "harden" on this matter is to lose something good.

I think we have an inherent desire to want to be good and be closer to the Divine. Is this still selfish? — MysticMonist

For what it's worth, I'd call it the higher selfishness, the good selfishness. Isn't 'selfishness' usually employed to call out a sort of 'cheating' in interpersonal relationships? Unfortunately 'healthy' self-interest suffers from guilt by association. It feels good to love. By following our profounder pleasures we arguably move closer to God or virtue. So the un-virtuous man is being selfish in the wrong way, inefficiently. If we oppose virtue to enjoyment or good selfishness, how can we avoid framing life as a miserable, guilty duty? Where 'God' is anti-human and we are cut in half by opposing motives?

Loving someone doesn't always make you feel good. It doesn't have to be the opposite extreme, of either ultimately rewarding, or ultimately punishing. It can be both rewarding and punishing, circumstantially, without being relevant at all to the goal.

From my perspective, it generally feels good to love, though I see that there is vulnerability in this. We suffer when they do, to some degree.

Goodness is genuinely selfless, and not ultimately in your own best interest. — Wosret

I suppose we disagree on something basic. I'm opposed to this opposition of virtue and "higher" self-interest. That makes virtue an "alien" essence. It makes us "sinners" of necessity. In a worst case scenario it's a hatred of humans, since even their higher self-interest must only be a distraction from virtue, not virtue itself.

On the other hand, I understand that goodness may require sacrifice. A person might even sacrifice their life to protect others. But for me this is just an extension of the self to include those others. Love is this expansion of the self, as I see it.

If that is an "extension of the self" and still a kind of selfishness, then what is selflessness? Aren't you just moving the goal post, and making everything conceivable a kind of selfishness in that case?

I do think "selfishness" is an abused word. If we use it in the ordinary pejorative sense, then clearly it's a vice. It's the name of a vice. But there's a guilt by association, so that happiness or enjoyment is commonly understood as a sin.

But, yes, in the "higher" sense I think we want and strive for a "higher" fulfillment, expanding the self so that the virtue of others doesn't cause envy or guilt. Or it causes a "good" envy/guilt that inspires us to a joyful sense of moving in the right direction. The closed-up self wants to lay down the law, stamp out freedom. It defends its "crystallizations" of itself.

IMV, We [can] participate in a "flee floating" virtue. So you and I probably agree that "petty" egoism is a low state. But I think that at-homeness and serenity are or at least can be manifestations of virtue. If we never find a sense of gratitude for the world in all its imperfection, then IMV we are doing it wrong. But I don't want to project this as a law.

Happiness is commonly understood to be a sin?

IMV, yes. Two manifestations that come to mind are the understanding of spirituality as essentially political and also pessimism.

For [a certain kind of ] politicized spirituality the individual has an "infinite" duty to fix the world. It is wrong to be 'complacent.' Admittedly excess in this direction is often enough viewed suspiciously. Because beneath our "moral vanity" there is a deep love of health as manifested in happiness. Away from our own "excessive" investments and projections of duty, we are clear-sighted enough to see a morbidity in hand-wringing the-world-is-ending hysteria. So I'm not denying that there is a middle-of-the-road position that looks down on both the idiot as private person and the "crazy" who doesn't know how to laugh and enjoy what is good.

The pessimist implies that there is virtue in the knowledge that life is evil, so that unhappiness becomes (accompanied by the right words) a measure of the higher, intellectual virtue of possessing the truth, of holding onto it virtuously like a hot coal in one's hand.