Virtue Quest

Cutting through to the heart of the question

The profound James Chastek points out that James T. Kirk must have hated Greek drama:

The Greeks loved sticking characters in the midst of problem for which there is no right answer: Antigone must bury her brother and obey the king; Agamemnon must sail and love his daughter; and the fight between Achilles and Agamemnon is like the fight between the head coach and the star quarterback. The circumstances demand action but make every action wrong, or at least very problematic. This applies even to inaction : Achilles is doing something when he sits in his tent and lets his compatriots get slaughtered and pushed back to the ships.

In other words, the Greek playwrights loved exploring the dynamics of a no-win situation. The near-Greek Alexander the Great took matters to a new level by challenging the limits of the test: using a sword to loose the Gordian Knot.

But most of us don’t have the resources of an Alexander or a Kirk. Most of us, like Antigone or Agamemnon, are stuck facing powers greater than ourselves. Those powers don’t have to be gods; they could be banks, or governments, or even bosses.

And these are the kinds of situations that push all our moral buttons. What do I do when faced with an impossible choice? Do I pay my utilities or my mortgage? Do I alienate my best friend or my brother? Do I break the law or break my promise?

What is impossible?

The reason these situations can’t be easily resolved is because we are all limited, finite human beings. We are not all-powerful. We do not have bottomless bank accounts. We can’t be in two places at once. Eventually, we will die.

But I do have a certain power that is unlimited: that is my freedom. I am able to make choices without any restraint or encumbrance. I will always have to face the consequences of my actions, but my decisions are truly and completely my own.

How does this help anything? Freedom allows me to step away from the choice presented to me and ask another question entirely: what is the good that I can do here?

These situations are only impossible because they present every choice as something evil. But evil does not exist in itself: it is nothing but the loss or distortion of some good. And if the question turns to a choice, not between evils, but about the kind of good I can do – then I see what is truly possible, rather than fearing what is impossible.

Outwitting evil

Only two things are necessary to face any “no-win” decision: a clear understanding of what is good, and a clear knowledge of one’s own abilities.

Granted, gaining true clarity about those things could take a lifetime, or longer. But it shows what is important to look for, what the questions need asking and what questions are mere distractions.

Paying the bills with limited resources won’t get done by worrying about which axe will drop first. But it can be solved by overcoming fear and pride, talking to creditors, seeking different ways to gain income.

Maintaining close relationships with people who hate each other can’t happen by tip-toeing around the situation. But whatever is worth keeping in those relationships will remain if I seek love and honesty rather than avoiding hurt feelings.

It’s true, something will be lost or damaged, whatever choice I make. But this is true of all of life, not just the so-called “no-win” situations. But no good can be done by avoiding loss or hurt. The world is full of powers greater than any one of us, or even all of us together. Our goal is not to avoid suffering, but to do whatever good is possible. And because we can see the real good in the world, good made through our own efforts and those of others, we can trust that our work will not be in vain.

I’ve been a bit wiped out the last few days, but I wanted to point out this Guide to Virtue (PDF) that I found over at True Manhood.

A couple caveats: the whole site is focused on masculine spirituality, so it really plays up the manly side of things. (Not that you hadn’t noticed that already from the site’s title!) Second, it’s much more of an outline than a guide. When I first saw it I had hoped for a “how-to.” Still, it’s an excellent summary of the virtues from the Thomistic tradition.

So, I hope it’s useful!

A friend pointed me to a post on one of her favorite blogs, The Gnosis of Now. The author makes an excellent point about a primary aspect of the “American experiment”: that our society is, in a sense, founded on pluralism. The U.S.A. is not a single people, but a collection of peoples. Our social and governmental structures are meant to allow persons from any and every cultural background to live together in peace.

The fact that this ideal has never, even from the very beginning, found full realization raises the question of whether it is at all possible. One could ask whether this is an impossible goal that should be abandoned, or rather an ideal to strive for despite the fact that it is always beyond perfect attainment. One could also argue that, over the past two centuries, a distinctive “American people” and “American culture” has in fact grown and taken root, and that the opportunity for this pluralistic ideal has passed (though the constant influx of immigrants – both legal and illegal – provides new opportunities every day).

In any case, it’s a good reminder to someone like myself who is delving into my medieval and Catholic roots that the Founding Fathers had an entirely different set of problems they were addressing. I’m trying to grow toward personal virtue and social unity; they were trying to find peace and safety for their plurality of faith and cultural traditions.

I suppose I should pray that these are not incompatible goals.

Tomorrow, that is, on the first day of July, I will awaken as a published author.

Sure, this blog is a publication of sorts. But I’m of the old school that believes you’re not really published until someone else – indeed, someone not related to you or biased by friendship – decides your work is worth putting out there. For me, that will happen tomorrow.

Where? you might ask. In a small on-line journal called This Great Society. It’s a quirky little corner of the internet, and well worth a read. I hope that recommendation includes even my own contribution to the issue.

My essay is entitled “Following Distance” and is a kind of meditation on the psychology of driving. I note that the space that separates cars on the road is also a medium of communication, and that giving another driver room is a sign of respect.

This message could not arrive at a more perfect time for me. On Monday, as I was driving home from work, I got in a fender-bender. I rear-ended the car in front of me. Fortunately, no one was hurt and the damage seemed minimal. (I left a pair of dimples on the other car’s bumper in the exact shape of the bolts holding on my front license plate.) And although the other driver called the police, I didn’t receive a ticket. The officer let me off with a warning, for “following too close.”

Anthony Esolen has a fascinating little article at First Things on how out-of-step Bill Shakespeare was with the sexual mores of his contemporaries.

Apparently, Elizabethan times were just as bawdy and lustful as our own, and while Shakespeare liked to make pelvic puns aplenty, he also held the virtue of chastity in much higher esteem than most other writers and entertainers of his day.

That gives me a bit of hope for our own day. All we need is another Shakespeare.

Hat tip to John C. Wright.

Mike Flynn, author of a few speculative fiction novels, including the fascinating Eifelheim, asks the question in the style of a medieval academic debate.

A quick summary, as I understand his argument: classical virtue theory provides a basis for morality among atheists; but most atheists these days reject, not only God, but also any notion of natural good. Therefore, atheists can act morally, but have largely destroyed their own philosophical basis for doing so.

My take: most of us, with or without God, are hypocrites. I do all sorts of stuff I know is wrong; and when I do good things, I don’t always have good reasons for it. So I would separate out the question into two parts:

1. Can atheists act morally? Yes. Experience shows that most atheists do good stuff most of the time.
2. Do atheists have a philosophical basis for moral behavior? That’s a question we can leave to the academics to debate.

For myself, I find my own motivation for acting morally is usually based on what other people will think of me, rather than religious motives. Not that that’s the best reason for doing anything; but at least it’s good to know how weak my moral reasoning can be.

Quick link to a BBC story on how the EU and various other national and international bodies are considering internet access a fundamental human right.

In the fourth paragraph comes a crucial distinction:

“The right to communicate cannot be ignored,” Dr Hamadoun Toure, secretary-general of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), told BBC News.

Now, the right to communicate, I think, can be argued as a fundamental human right. And, as a correllary, the right to ordinary means of communication. But much of the article blurs this distinction, and speaks of internet access as if it was a human right in and of itself.

So, anyone living before the late 1980s was deprived of a fundamental human right? One cannot be fully human without the internet?

I don’t think so.

First off, gotta say, some days it’s good to be Catholic. Here’s a report on Pope Benedict having lunch with the poor of Rome. My favorite part:

The poor — around 200 people — and the Pope enjoyed a meal of lasagna, meatballs, lentils and mashed potatoes. Candies brought by the Pope formed part of dessert and there was a toast with sparkling wine.

That’s right: Catholics know that the poor need good vino!

Next, just so’s you know, my recent post about faith wasn’t meant to say “My God can beat up your god” or anything like that. Yes, many of us (including myself on occasion) fight for some kind of victory and try to cover it with the banner of truth. But I don’t think we should let the antics of the childish distract us from the value of seeking what is true.

More on new year’s resolutions: psychologist Jim Taylor advises such things as developing good habits and overcoming bad ones, especially growing in courage and faith. Hmm… sounds vaguely familiar….

For the economics file: some links on a move to restrict payday loans, which usually charge exorbitant interest rates. Also, tangentially related, an article on why banks want us to use our debit cards like credit cards.

Okay, that’s all for now!

Some practical insights from The New Haven Register: Make the new year a clean, fresh start.

And, credit where credit is due, Peter Singer also advises Aristotelian practicality and realism, as opposed to Platonic mind games.

This may be the last time you ever see me recommend anything by Peter Singer, whose sole virtue seems to be his logical consistency. But, being the main voice of the “personal consent as the sole criterion of goodness” camp, I cannot respect his premises. The good is not something I make up in my mind, or that I simply “prefer”. What is good is based on what is. Being precedes goodness, and defines goodness. A rock and a snake and a woman and an angel, because they have different natures – different ways of being – have different goods; but they all share the fundamental good of fulfilling their actual objective nature.

In other words, a diet of all ice cream all the time will make you fat and miserable, no matter how much you “like” ice cream. And murder kills, not only another human being, but your ability to relate to other people – no matter how “worthy of death” you may deem your victim.