Jeana left a wonderfully provocative comment on an earlier post. I began to reply in the comments, but I realized that this merited its own post, so here’s a bit of Jeana’s comment, followed by my response:
Perhaps a start would be the argument that there is a natural order to the world, and things work better when we cooperate with it. Plants die without life. Cows were made to eat grass. We live longer if we exercise and eat our veggies than if we sit in front of the TV and eat cookies all day every day. Men’s and women’s bodies each operate in ways that the other cannot.
If you were able to argue that following the natural order is a moral obligation, you could argue that….
This touches on, I think, the different moral roles of virtue and law.
Virtue enables us to realize the full potential of our nature and, according to Catholic teaching, of our supernatural gifts. Law, on the other hand, prevents us from (or at least warns us against) acting contrary to our nature. Virtue motivates us to reach for excellence, but places no obligations, strictly speaking, on us. Law places obligations on us, both positive and negative ones, but only obliges us to a bare minimum.
Law does not ask us to fulfill our nature; it only demands that we not act contrary to it. It does not strive for excellence. It is a stop-gap against excessive vice.
Now, ever since the so-called “Enlightenment” (if I understand my history correctly) western culture has been obsessed with the notion of law, and has largely forgotten the idea of virtue. This is why “morality” immediately brings to mind the idea of obligation.
But virtue sets a higher standard. Or, to put it another way, it opens up a broader field of possibility. Morality is not just about jumping through hoop X and avoiding pitfall Q. Morality is about living my life in a way that fulfills its potential, that brings to reality the potential good that is within me.
And that good is both for me and from me. It is good for me to be healthy. It is also good for me to serve my neighbor with whatever gifts I have. Indeed, serving my neighbor with my gifts is good for me as well, because it exercises and brings to greater perfection those gifts themselves. And it feels good to do so, which is a sign of health in using those gifts.
When we’re focused on obligation, feeling good is taken as a sign of not meeting an obligation. But when we’re focused on excellence, feeling good is a sign of health, of growth.
So much more to say, but I also want to prepare a reply to bob. So, till soon…!


Thanks for the explanation. That makes more sense except for how to tell the difference between virtue and law. Isn’t sin, by Catholic definition, a lesser good? I assume that natural rights come from natural law rather than virtue.
I’m looking forward to continuing the conversation.
But, it seems to me that this idea that the world has a “natural order” is problematic.
If we use Jenna’s example of plants needing water and sunlight to live. Does this mean that if I am morally wrong to not water my petunias? Or that other “natural” phenomena like floods and droughts that kill plants are somehow immoral?
The shift towards a discussion of “virtues” fits will, of course, with MacIntyre’s argument. But it brings up two questions. First, MacIntyre obviously takes a “virtue-ethics” position, and he doesn’t accept natural rights — so why do we need to believe in natural rights to believe in virtues?
Second, we run into a similar problem with “virtues” as we do with “natural rights”. How are we to recognize what is a virtue and what is not? Historically and cross-culturally people recognize different things as “virtuous” — who is correct? And how are we to adjudicate between competing virtue claims?