Yes, but I’m more looking into the view of how an individual should organize their life, not onto what is the exact basis of morality. The latter is certainly an important question, but in my mind if a justice-based reasoning did result in a higher overall utility, that would make utilitarianism self-defeating from a decision-making perspective.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that philosophers couldn’t argue that it is the underlying cause of morality, just that it isn’t as useful to individuals making decisions.

-Scott

1) to Vat, where oh where did you find that “good person test”?! I clicked on it and am still trying to come down from all of the anger it stirred up in me!!! well done for giving such a great example of what Scott was saying about virtue and religion being so distinct! Just to clarify, I am not trying to be sarcastic- I really do think it was a gem of a find, even though it stirs some pretty strong reactions.

2) in response to other posts here, the one about teaching vs marketing in particular, I say go with your heart-your profession isn’t the basis of virtue (I believe that Scott was just using it as an example). The thing is, relating our contribution to society purely relating it to the actions that our job allows us to undertake is oversimplifying the point. Sure, doctors can do a great deal of good,but they (like the rest of us) can also be overconfident, arrogant and predictable and therefore not question their own judgement making them prescribe incorrect treatments and essentially cause additional harm (As a nurse, I have seen it many times!). Teachers can offer so much to those in their charge, but if they are not passionate about their jobs and let themselves fall into a routine without creativity, the benefit students receive will be limited. Any job, when combined with creativity, can benefit others-marketing is what permits many charities to accomplish their work by garnering funds! Go for it!
Indeed, if we were only focused on the benefits to society of our job, we should all be working in garbage disposal, and the cleaning up sewerage.

Maybe it’s sort of the opposite of that happiness-seeking spiral of depression that we are all too familiar with.

I’ve always dealt with this question all my life and I’ve never heard anyone else bring up the topic, at least with the keen observation you have made.

I’ve never been able to pick just one, virtue or happiness. I’m more in the gray area and I find what’s best for me is using discernment whenever necessary. In a broad scope, I always try to base my decisions on what’s most beneficial in the long run.

Good post.

For me I try to live simply without too much complicated chasing, thinking and striving. I have what I have and I seek only to enjoy people, the world and what I do. This makes me happy which is good. In this way one leads naturally to the other so no dilemmas or self moralising required. But a very wise question my friend indeed!

Okay, I think I see your point more clearly now.

Yes, specificity of purpose has to be there. I’m not sure whether I agree that we can’t pursue virtue as a category in our lives and actions. As an example with the minister and the oven, I think virtue can be expressed by trying as much as possible to align our behaviors with what we feel is just.

However, you may be right in arguing that the discussion is beside the point and that specificity of purpose is what matters over general virtue.

Not sure if I agree completely, but an interesting point to consider.

-Scott

I understand what you mean. May I propose an analogy to describe how I see virtue? Healing people is to virtue as a square is to a rectangle, or a parallelogram. That is, while healing people is virtuous, virtue is not healing people. In other words, as you said, virtue is a category we use to describe a host of actions, from healing people to providing them with food and shelter, to bringing them happiness or opening their minds. As such, I believe it becomes ineffective as a life goal. As I know you’ve said elsewhere, goals need to be specific. To live a life of virtue is quite vague, and doesn’t give us a specific form of action. It does tell us a lot of things to avoid, since they fall in the vice category, but it doesn’t really tell us what to embrace. In this respect I would say happiness is a more useful life goal, since it at least tells us what to do as soon as we figure out what makes us happy. Unfortunately, the truth is that we won’t be happy all the time, and sometimes we must endure current pain to experience future happiness. You know this, the idea that hard work now pays off in the future.

Am I making more sense? I’m not even bothering here to talk about false people who want to appear virtuous. I’m simply saying that when we talk about the lofty goal of living a life of virtue, it seems quite empty to me. I think happiness and virtue can be “byproducts” of a choice of life path, but they are not the main characteristics of the path.

I don’t mean to shut you down, it’s just that the topic you’ve brought up is one all too common in media and religion and such, at least that I’ve been hearing, but I seriously think it misses the point. I stand by Whitman’s quote, even though I can’t truly qualify the word “alive” either, other than to propose that it is a state recognized by the individual upon achievement, that opens up his/her mind and senses to the universe around him/her. I think that is a good yardstick for measuring a life.

-Jason