Forum: Featured Discussions: Virtue: A Normative Concept

By Gilbert Meilaender, Science of Virtues Scholar Valparaiso University In order to think about the possibility of a science of virtues, we must, of course, reflect on what we mean by virtue. In the simplest sense virtues are dispositions to act in certain

By Gilbert Meilaender, Science of Virtues Scholar
Valparaiso University

In order to think about the possibility of a science of virtues, we must, of course, reflect on what we mean by virtue.  In the simplest sense virtues are dispositions to act in certain morally good ways.  Thus, a courageous person is disposed to face danger without fleeing, and we would be hesitant to characterize as courageous someone who runs away from danger.  Yet, strangely enough, a person characterized by courage might in some circumstances flee from danger without causing us to doubt that he possessed the virtue.  Although fleeing is not itself a courageous act, the one who flees might nonetheless have the virtue.  And, on the other hand, a person who lacked the virtue of courage might on occasion face danger without fleeing.  Sometimes, therefore, we will discover no perfect fit between virtuous character and a disposition to act in specific ways.

 

A little better characterization of virtues is to think of them as something like skills that we acquire through habituation.  The pitcher who throws a low strike over the outside corner of the plate may just be lucky.  If, however, he can do it time after time--habitually--he has acquired a skill.  Virtues are something like that, though also a bit different.  They are not simply skills that, like technical competence, enable us to carry out a particular task with proficiency; rather, they are skills that fit us for life generally.  Acquiring virtues is more like learning to drive a car than it is like merely being able to parallel park.  Driving requires a capacity to respond in fitting ways to countless circumstances that arise along the way, not just the ability to carry out a single maneuver.

 

This account of virtues as something like skills more closely approximates a reasonable description of what we mean by virtue, but even habituation cannot be the complete story.  It is hard for a pitcher to become skilled, because throwing that low, outside strike is inherently difficult, no matter how badly he wants to throw it.  In virtuous action, however, much of the difficulty may come precisely from what we want, from our own contrary inclinations.  If I deliberately throw a pitch outside the strike zone, that does not mean I lack the capacity to throw a strike.  But if I deliberately cheat the opposing team, I seem to lack a certain virtue.  Thus, virtues are not only habitual; they also, as Philippa Foot put it, engage the will in a way that skills do not.[i]

 

We should not pit habit and will against each other, however.  If time after time I willfully cheat the opposing team, a day may come when I do so habitually--and can no longer find my way back to virtuous behavior.

 

Perhaps, then, we should say that, as skills engaging the will, virtues are traits of character that shape who we are and what we see.  Virtue and vision will be inextricably intertwined.  As Stanley Hauerwas once put it, “as persons of character we do not confront situations as mud puddles into which we have to step; rather the kind of ‘situations’ we confront and how we understand them are a function of the kind of people we are.”[ii]  On the one hand, our vision of human flourishing will be shaped by the virtues or vices that mark our character.  On the other, we will regard as virtuous only those traits that help to form a life we think praiseworthy.  There is no normatively neutral ground to be found here.

 

Take, then, a simple question at the heart of my own project, a question that becomes more rather than less puzzling the longer I think about it:  Should we devote our energy and resources to work that aims to retard human aging and to extend indefinitely the maximum life span of human beings?  Vision and virtue will intertwine as we puzzle over such a question.  If we are formed by virtues such as patience, hope, and love, how will they shape our sense of what goals are worth seeking?  And will not our vision of what constitutes a flourishing human life help, in turn, to determine whether we think such traits are virtues or vices? 

 

So, I've been thinking a good deal about the questions you raised in your excellent presentation in Chicago two weeks ago, Gil. Specifically, I been mentally searching for one single example in any piece of (fiction) literature where immortality is

So, I've been thinking a good deal about the questions you raised in your excellent presentation in Chicago two weeks ago, Gil. Specifically, I been mentally searching for one single example in any piece of (fiction) literature where immortality is considered a good (and/or virtuous) thing. I simply cannot find it--perhaps others might. In the meantime, an interesting exchange happened between me and my 13-year-old son at home. I only really watch one television show with the kids (and only Ian knows what that is :-), but Tate suggested that I watch "The Event" with him last week "because it's really a pretty good show, Mom." How could I refuse? For those of you not familiar with the plot (and I am assuming that is--like me--most of you), this show is about a group of aliens who come to Earth because our planet's life-sustaining systems are so similar to their own. Now, on their planet, these aliens age; but an interesting phenomenon occurs when they hit Earth--they stop aging. So, whatever ages they were when they left their planet become their ages for, presumably, all of eternity--or until they return to their home planet or die here.

This, as you can imagine, sets up some really interesting philosophical conundrums: What exactly is the perfect age to become immortal? If we could, as Gil put it, have just one more day, what "day" would that be? And if we are capable of defying death and extending the end of life, do we really just want to extend the aging process forever? (For those of you who have walked with family or friends through this sometimes debilitating and discouraging process to the very end, I believe you would emphatically say "No!") We also need to be cautious that we are not confounding immortality with invincibility (which the producers of this show have carefully achieved). That is, just because we could live forever, this would not necessarily mean that we might not die of other causes--like a gunshot wound. The characters in "The Event" are vincible yet immortal; those in Natalie Babbit's Tuck Everlasting never die and cannot be killed. This is rare; even immortal vampires can be "killed," although it takes a good deal of effort (most authors use dismemberment and fire). Yikes! Who wants to go that way?!

Still more questions arise: Will everyone live forever, or just a select few? Who will control these choices? We all can imagine situations where this kind of power could be devastating to all of humanity (indeed, on "The Event," the immortal aliens may bring the end of Earthly humanity). Still other questions are out there, but I've gone on long enough. I do think that those of us in the ivory tower need to pay close attention to what people in the "real world" are doing with these topics, and literature, film, and television can help us obtain a glimpse into the philosophical musings of others.

Clearly I'm still not convinced that there is no selfish ambition in our quest for immortality. I do believe this is, at its heart, a theological issue of faith and the question of spiritual eternity. But perhaps, Gil, you could pick that up. I don't think we need aliens, though, to convince us that immortality is not a good thing; we've amassed ample evidence all by ourselves.

Alesha

A quick response to Alesha, though she has raised more questions than I can adequately answer: I’d want to be a little careful about how I framed the claim that there’s no piece of literature in which immortality is considered good and desirable. There

A quick response to Alesha, though she has raised more questions than I can adequately answer: I’d want to be a little careful about how I framed the claim that there’s no piece of literature in which immortality is considered good and desirable. There is, after all the last book in the New Testament. That’s probably not the sort of counter-example Alesha has in mind, but it does remind us that before we commit ourselves to the view that an endless existence must be undesirable we might ask what that implies with respect to a hope (many have) for heaven. (But I grant that, whatever exactly a heavenly existence would be like, it would not just be more of the same life we enjoy here and now.) Of the sort of literature Alesha probably has in mind, one might consider Lost Horizon, though it would be a somewhat ambiguous example. Likewise Shaw’s Back to Methuselah play cycle, though the sort of disembodied existence at which the plays end may not strike us as genuinely desirable. One other point: Alesha frames the issue in terms of immortality (and, rightly, not invincibility). But perhaps it would make more sense to think not of immortality but of a considerably prolonged life. Whether that’s desirable or not is, in my view, quite puzzling, but we can at least think about it. At what age, Alesha asks, would we want it to begin? I think there is and should be no single answer to such a question. That’s because I don’t think there’s any optimal time in life, no prime of life. Every age is equidistant from God, and any age is one at which a human being can flourish. Or so it seems to me.