Arete, and Virtue Ethics

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Arete, and Virtue Ethics

Post #1

Post by 2ndRateMind »

So, broadly speaking, the term arete (pronounced a-ree-tee) may be translated from the ancient Greek to mean 'moral excellence', or more simply, just 'virtue'. Many of these ancient Greeks thought that developing arete has a lot to do with the meaning of life.

My questions for the forum are: do you think they were right or wrong? And either way, why so? And how would we know what arete is, and how do we recognise it when we see it?

Best wishes, 2RM.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #11

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Tcg wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote:
No, you are missing the point. Why should I do good? Why should I be moral?
I'd hope you'd do good, because it is good. I'd hope you'd be moral, because it is the moral thing to do.

If you need some payoff for doing good or for being moral, I'd not want to be around you if you ever became dissatisfied with your payoff.
Uh huh. But do you not think that those who cannot justify to themselves their goodness and morality somewhat less likely to sustain their rectitude?

Best wishes, 2RM

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #12

Post by 2ndRateMind »

Bust Nak wrote:
2ndRateMind wrote: No, you are missing the point. Why should I do good? Why should I be moral?
You should do good because I want you to. You should be moral because I want you to.
And why should I find what you want in any way persuasive?
Bust Nak wrote:
Because there are all sorts of people who claim that one is rewarded for virtue with heaven, and punished for vice with hell. I want to know if there is any more immediate reward or punishment, that might persuade an unbeliever.
I don't need any persuasion, I want to do good, I want to be moral.
Why?
Bust Nak wrote:
No, but again, if only disadvantages accrue to good people, that might be a sound reason not to be good. On the other hand, if there are proximate rewards for virtue, that might be a sound reason to be good.
Goodness is its own reward, any advantages are just bonus. For some it might not be enough, in which case the way to go is to look at persuasion against acting bad and immoral.
OK, why should one not be bad and immoral, if you prefer to look at it that way?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #13

Post by Bust Nak »

2ndRateMind wrote: And why should I find what you want in any way persuasive?
Just to double check, why should you or why would you? I ask because the answer "you should find what I want persuasive because I want you to" probably isn't what you were looking for.
Why?
I can give you intermediate reasons, but it ultimately boils down to taste. Take your question as an example:

Why do I want to be moral? Because it improve society.
Why do I want to improve society? Because a better society benefit all in that society.
Why do I want to benefit all in that society? Because it makes life easier.
Why do I want to makes life easier? Because it makes me happy.
Why do I want to be happy? I just do, okay!?

Every reason I give, you can follow up with another "why?" That's why I called it intermediate reasons. Eventually it comes to taste, I just like it that way, it is my personal preference and that's all there is to it. There's no accounting for taste.
OK, why should one not be bad and immoral, if you prefer to look at it that way?
One should not be bad and immoral because I want people to not be bad nor immoral.

Look, you keep asking me "should" questions - such questions can always be answered along the lines of because I want it that way, as "what should happen" is simply "what I want to happen."

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Post #14

Post by Tcg »

2ndRateMind wrote:
Uh huh. But do you not think that those who cannot justify to themselves their goodness and morality somewhat less likely to sustain their rectitude?

Once again you are displaying your need for a payout in order to be good and to practice morality. You argument is based on a willingness to do whatever it takes to receive the payout. You are advocating for a moral mercenary, sold to the highest bidder. In the argument you are presenting, it matters not what is actually moral or good, but only what provides the most benefit to you.

User avatar
2ndRateMind
Site Supporter
Posts: 1540
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2017 4:25 am
Location: Pilgrim on another way
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 68 times

Post #15

Post by 2ndRateMind »

OK, as best I can, I'll explain what the ancient Greeks thought, for your consideration and comment.

Firstly, we have to introduce into the discussion another of their concepts: eudaimonia. Literally translated, it means 'well-demoned'. The Greeks seem to have thought that one's life chances had a lot to do with the supernatural; Gods, and demi-Gods, and mythical creatures, and indeed, personal demons. But today, we might just loosely translate eudaimonia as 'favoured by fortune', or just 'fortunate'. And that is not just a matter of wealth, but of all and any contributing factors that go to make up 'a good life'.

But the Greeks did not think that having eudaimonia, being 'fortunate', was just a matter of luck, as we might today. They considered that it was the natural consequence of arete, or virtue. As they looked on the world, they noticed that those with arete tended to live fuller, happier lives than those riddled with vice. In short, they thought that for a human to flourish, he or she must have arete, or virtue. And so they devoted a lot of time and philosophical effort into examining what, exactly, virtue is, and how one might acquire it.

My own opinion is that they were on to something important. But I'm equally interested in your opinions.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Post Reply