Category: Virtue

Virtue is a word that is always highly praised, regardless if it is for daily life accomplishments or in the realm of religions. The word virtue is defined as, “behavior showing high moral standards”. When it comes to religions, virtue is a moral standard that is desired to be followed. In this essay I will be discussing Stoicism and Christianity. I will compare and contrast passages from “The teaching of Zeno” to “The early church of Christianity”. By comparing and contrasting these articles, we are able to find out that even though these two religions believe in the importance of virtue, they both prioritize them differently.

Stoicism believes that all the material things and blessings they receive on earth are a product of virtue, or lack of it. In Meditations by Marcus Aurelius, he dissects the teachings of Zeno. He states, “Every moment think steadily as a Roman and a man to do what you have in hand with perfect and simple dignity, and feeling of affection, and freedom, and justice; and to give yourself relief from all other thoughts.”[footnoteRef:1] In this quote, he is showing us what Roman Stoics believe virtue is all about. Living a good, moral life is something that every man should aim to do. They believe that the blessings are endless if you choose to live by virtue, however, if you chose to not live your life that way, you would manifest all the evil. “For the person with virtue, pain, failure, poverty, even death did not matter because the only ‘real’ thing was virtue.”[footnoteRef:2] Everything comes from the virtue they choose to live by. Virtue was considered the most important. [1: Aurelius, Marcus. “Meditation (Ce 167).” Daily Life Through History, ABC-CLIO, 2020. dailylife2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1529153. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.] [2: Aurelius et. al., “Meditations (Ce 167).]

Christianity believes in the importance of virtue, but unlike the Stoics, Christians did not place virtue on the top of their list. In traditional Christianity, virtue is considered the seventh highest order of the ninefold celestial hierarchy. In Matthew 5 of The Holy Bible it talks about how Jesus teaches the people. Jesus talks about “the blessing behind the lack of spiritual poverty and how showing mercy to others will bring mercy onto them” [footnoteRef:3]. By reading this passage, I am able to pick up on the importance of virtue. It seems like God has rewarded his people that match up with that behavior; however, the most important value in Christianity is the faith they have on God. God is the all powerful and mighty and regardless of how virtuous of a person you are, you are nothing if you do not have faith in God. [3: Aurelius, Marcus. “Meditation (Ce 167).” Daily Life Through History, ABC-CLIO, 2020. dailylife2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1529153. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.]

Even though Stoicism and Christianity are very different, they are also very similar. As religions, they are both responsible for holding onto their faith, especially since no one is able to truly prove that Gods exist. Both religions believe that virtue is a characteristic that is important to uphold and that it is important to just be a good person. We live in a world where perfection does not exist and we have to constantly go through our ups and downs in order to learn from our experiences. Stoicism and Christianity both know that these lessons make us better everyday and that allows the difference in philosophy to connect at a deeper level.

Like I stated above, both Stoicism and Christians are aware that perfection does not exist. Christians know that they are capable of sin and when that happens they are responsible for prayer and asking for forgiveness. In an apology letter, it states, “you have the most notable example of judgment to come when anyone has sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in the congregation and in all sacred intercourse.”[footnoteRef:4] This letter states that if Christians are having a guilty conscience, all they need to do is pray. Stoics, on the other hand, believe that their wicked virtue just brings troubles to their human existence and that they just have to deal with it one day at a time. [4: “What were Early Christians like?” Christianity. (April 28, 2010). www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/ ]

Virtue is of huge importance in both Stoicism and in Christianity, yet both regard it differently. They both believe morals of high standard are important but are placed at different levels when it comes to the scale of importance. Stoics believe that virtue manifests abundance and success on earth, while Christians believe that virtue is important but God is the most important. Living a Jesus like life is a reflection of the love of Christ you have in your heart. At the end of the day, both religions allow everyone to live a wonderful virtuous life filled with love and faith.

Bibliography

1. Aurelius, Marcus. “Meditation (Ce 167).” Daily Life Through History, ABC-CLIO, 2020. dailylife2.abc-clio.com/Search/Display/1529153. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.
2. “Matthew 5.” The Holy Bible, 2005, NLT. (1095-1100).
3. “What were Early Christians like?” Christianity. (April 28, 2010). www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1-300/ Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

I would argue that the real issue is that most of us do not have a correct understanding of what virtue is. When we hear the idea that happiness consists only of living virtuously, we have a very different vision than what Aristotle would want us to have. I do agree with Aristotle that living virtuously (as he defines it) is the path to happiness.

In order to see why this is so, we must understand how Aristotle defines virtue. Basically, he says that doing everything to the right extent is virtue. When we do something too much, or when we have too much of some characteristic, we are without virtue and will not be happy. The same is true if we do not do something enough or if we lack some characteristic. I think that this is true.

One reason we have a hard time dealing with Aristotle’s view is that Christianity has strongly influenced our vision of virtue. We tend to think that virtue involves denying ourselves the “pleasures of the flesh.” It involves fasting and celibacy. It involves being meek and turning the other cheek. We tend to think that being virtuous involves looking to the next world and being miserable in this world. This is not how Aristotle thinks.

Let us look at things with his vision of virtue in mind. We might think that we have to be able to drink alcohol and go to parties to be happy. Aristotle would say that is fine as long as we don’t overdo it. This makes sense. Few people would think that alcoholism is fun. Few would think, in the long term, that drinking until you vomit, pass out, etc. truly makes you happy. We might also think that we would be happy if we were very attractive to the other sex. But this could be bad as well, if it is overdone. If we are too attractive, we might be sad because people would value us only for our looks. We might be sad because the person we love might get jealous of how many people are attracted to us. These same problems would also come with being too famous.

Think about it this way: is there any activity you can think of that would make you happy if you consistently did that activity too much? Is there any personality trait that you could have that would make you happy if you totally indulged it? Aristotle says there is not. I agree with him.

Thus, if we understand virtue the way Aristotle does, we should be able to accept the idea that happiness consists of living virtuously.

Opening

Lethal Autonomous Weapons, also known as LAWs, are highly controversial. Until recent years they were mostly a science fiction idea. In the 1970s the first true LAWs were introduced such as the US Phalanx CIWS. These systems were created to defend military ships from projectiles and aircraft autonomously, with the operator only setting the parameters for the targeting system. Similar systems were later adopted for use on tanks and missile defense systems. These technologies were not used to fire directly at people, but only the projectiles fired at the vehicle. The swiftness of the computer made the use of targeting algorithms much more effective than any manned solution. However, today autonomous weapons are starting to be used on people. This fact raises a lot of ethical dilemmas. This paper will cover how the virtue theory of ethics would find the use of Lethal Autonomous Weapons to be ethically unacceptable.

Claim One

The use of LAWs can lead to an increase in civilian casualties. A machine makes no judgment call before firing. It does not have consciousness or even a basic level of thinking. Therefore, an algorithm is responsible for shooting at targets without a clear distinction between combatants and civilians. The problem of the distinction between combatants and civilians is a very complicated one. A system that could distinguish between them would need to judge situations as good as a human can. Current systems are unable to judge for themselves, making complex distinction impossible. Robert Sparrow writes the following: “Before it would be ethical to deploy AWS [LAWs], then, the systems will need to be capable of making these sorts of discriminations, all of which involve reasoning at a high level of abstraction (99).” Sparrow then provides a line of examples where the situations would be too difficult even for a system designed to recognize weapons in hands of people: “For instance, not every person carrying a weapon is directly engaged in armed conflict (in many parts of the world carrying a weapon is a matter of male honor); with prior approval, foreign warships can pass through the territorial waters of another state; neutral troops or peacekeeping forces are sometimes present in areas in which legitimate targets are located, and children sometimes climb on decommissioned tanks placed in playgrounds (98).”

Claim Two

Widespread use of LAWs could lead to detachment of people from war and its consequences, thus making wars easier to start. Due to the nature of technology, people are taken out of the loop of the operation of these technologies. It means that the responsibility for the actions of automated weapons falls on virtually nobody. Andreas Matthias describes this phenomenon as the responsibility gap (1). Due to the automation of machines and their ability to change their code to adapt to the environments, the responsibility is lifted even from the programmer of the machine. Denise Garcia writes on the issue of accountability “If no one can be held accountable for what robots do, it is unethical to deploy them. Human dignity requires that humans should always be in the loop in matters of life and death (61).” This is a reflection of the responsibility gap. She also connects this issue with the possible proliferation of war: “War becomes easier to declare the greater the distance between the attackers and the attacked, as the risk to the attacker is lowered (3).”

Claim Three

The use of LAWs is unethical because it removes they are unable to be virtuous. As previously established, machines are incapable of reasoning and thinking at this stage of development. Without thinking and emotion, no virtue can be ascribed to them, making their actions unethical. Although war is a horrible event, soldiers have been involved in a lot of virtuous activities. They are capable of saving civilians, even when it means risking their life, they have provided supplies and connected with civilians in combat zones on a personal level, and they have become synonymous with the virtue of courage. The use of such machines would eliminate courage from war, making it a systematic killing of people on the opposite side of the conflict. By lacking virtues and morality, they are also unable to disobey their orders which could lead to unethical orders being followed without opposition. Johnson and Axinn with the following on courage: “In the use of a robot operated by an on-board computer, no soldier exhibits courage. This is an advantage toward saving lives on one side, but hardly an example of honor and courage (136).” Shannon Vallor echoes this statement by pointing out the inherent beliefs in virtues in the army: “Because armed military robots raise the prospect of handing over the most critical kinds of military service to entities that are, at least for the foreseeable future, constitutionally incapable of it; this imperils a core ethical value shaping military culture (possibly the core value, since loyalty, courage, etc. may be viewed as extensions or implications of ethical service) (173).”

Major Ethical Argument

According to these claims, virtue ethics would find the use of LAWs unethical. Virtue ethics are based on the excellence of virtue, practical or moral wisdom, and flourishing through happiness. This happiness is called Eudaimonia and reaching it was considered the goal of life by Aristotle. The first claim shows that the number of casualties among civilians in the war would increase. It means that they would never be able to reach this happiness, and therefore it would be unethical. The second claim shows that wars would be easier to start and no one would be directly responsible for the actions of machines. Just as with the first claim, people who die in these wars would be denied flourishing. The third claim directly plays against the concept of virtue, and by extension the theory of virtue ethics. Aristotle writes this about the nature of virtue: “To sum up: Virtue is about pleasures and pains; the actions that are its source also increase it, or if they are done badly, ruin it; and its activity is about the same actions as those that are its sources (21).” This statement shows that virtue lies in between two vices. However, machines do not have vices and therefore cannot have virtues.

Counterargument

An obvious counterargument to this would be to make the machines sophisticated enough to be able to make decisions by all the international laws of war and make them be able to reason so they would be able to judge the situation before acting. However, this argument denies the difficulty of creating such machines. At the moment, people are still unsure about how human brains process thoughts, so trying to create a machine that is better at reasoning than a human seems virtually impossible. Sparrow echoes this sentiment: “It is difficult to imagine how any computer could make these sorts of judgments short of the development of a human-level general intelligence – that is, “strong” AI (99).”

Conclusion

Virtue ethics find the use of LAWs unethical due to the possible increase in wars, civilian casualties, and the lack of virtue in machines. At this time, only two countries actively use LAWs directly against people: South Korea and Israel. Hopefully, this technology would prove to be too controversial for other countries to adopt.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Terence Irwin. Nicomachean Ethics. Hackett Publishing, 1999.

Garcia, Denise. “Killer Robots: Why The US Should Lead The Ban.” Global Policy, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 57-63.

Johnson, Aaron M., and Sidney Axinn. “The Morality of Autonomous Robots.” Journal of Military Ethics, vol. 12, no. 2, 2013, pp. 129-141.

Matthias, Andreas. “The Responsibility Gap: Ascribing Responsibility for the Actions of Learning Automata.” Ethics and Information Technology, vol. 6, no. 3, 2004, pp. 175-183.

Sparrow, Robert. “Robots and Respect: Assessing the Case Against Autonomous Weapon Systems.” Ethics & International Affairs, vol. 30, no. 01, 2016, pp. 93-116.

Vallor, Shannon. “Armed Robots and Military Virtue.” Law, Governance and Technology Series, vol. 14, no. 1, 2014, pp. 169-185.

Virtue is one of the most important concepts in classical political philosophy. Even though Aristotle and Confucius wrote in 300s BC and 400s BC, respectively, the topic of virtue is not archaic; on the contrary, it refers directly to modern realities. This concept reflects a fundamental attitude to the world and a way of orienting a person in life. Due to the fundamental importance of virtue, it makes sense to rely on this concept in political philosophy. Thus, it is what everyone strives for: the goal of people’s actions and activities. Ultimately, it is the raison d’être of our existence. The most natural thing for every person is to think, “Why am I living?” It is this goal (and not something abstract and very complex) that must be realized as a blessing.

According to Aristotle, not all benefits are equal: there are auxiliary ones, but there are final ones. People choose the final goals in different ways: someone strives to accumulate property, someone – for pleasure, someone strives for fame, someone – for what philosophers call happiness, for the virtue that we receive from intellectual activity.

Confucius saw the good of society in good-naturedness, which was brought up based on traditional family values. According to Confucius, every person can become noble if he cultivates himself by studying traditions and culture. To improve himself, a person must curb his passions and impulses, living following certain principles that ensure the ideal state of society and its members. This state is achieved by moderation in everything, deliberation of actions, leisurely and pedantic execution of all rituals and rules.

The commonplace of reflections of Aristotle and Confucius is the question of the meaning of life, which is achieved through good. Their teachings are based on the natural human need for happiness, and they address many-sided issues of well-being and ethics. At the same time, both believe that moral or ethical virtues (virtues of character) are born from habits-morals: a person acts, gains experience, and based on this, his character traits are formed. Reasonable virtues (the virtues of the mind) develop in a person through learning. The philosophers analyze and demonstrate what can be considered genuine virtue instead of the superficial achievements that some people are chasing.

Reference

Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by Joel K. Thompson.

Confucius. The Analects. Translated by James Legge.

Values are the main beliefs of a person, which can either be their lifetime goal or represent their preferred behavior. These features have a significant impact on the way a person acts and their attitude. To further illustrate this concept in a more detailed manner, I will refer to a couple of the values I follow, while depicting a situation when I have broken them. Afterward, I will depict a situation where I happened to have broken them.

For my example, I will use two out of the ten motivational values listed by Schwartz and his colleagues. Said values may be differentiated by referring to two pairs of opposite dimensions: conservation and openness to change, self-transcendence, and self-enhancement (Lecture 2, n. d.). I am a strong supporter of benevolence and universalism; unfortunately, there was one case when I failed to follow these values that I consider to be important.

One day, my friend needed my help with a project for her job assignment. Unfortunately, due to a conflict that had happened before it, I instantly declined the request. During that time, I had no regard for the possible outcome of the event. However, as expected, my reluctance to help my friend with the project resulted in her losing the opportunity to get a raise at her job.

By doing so, I had broken the two aforementioned virtues: benevolence and universalism. My friend’s well-being at the time did not matter to me, as it normally would have, thus, violating benevolence (Lecture 2, n. d.). Since our conflict mattered more to me than the possible outcome of my not helping my friend, I had no regard for universalism at the time. This, in turn, is a prime example of a conflict between two opposite dimensions: self-transcendence versus self-enhancement. I have chosen power and hedonism (pleasing my hurt feelings and putting my friend in a fragile position) over benevolence and universalism.

The aforementioned situation raises the question of how I would support these values. Understandably, the conflict makes my claim quite questionable, as I had failed to follow my beliefs in that case. Fortunately, a few weeks after the conflict, I experienced two situations, where I used the opportunity to uphold these values. These two events, in a way, helped me redeem myself after what had happened.

One day, I came across a situation where my coworker needed my help in creating some contracts for his assignment. While I had some errands to finish myself, I couldn’t decline the request, so I agreed. Although my colleague’s assignment was quite hard, I successfully finished it. This, in turn, resulted in him getting an impressive raise. By doing so, I managed to uphold one of the two values: benevolence.

One week later, my coworkers and I were at a group meeting with our boss. The goal of the meeting was to brainstorm some ideas for our future project. One of my colleagues suggested an idea that I did not like, for I found it quite ridiculous. As she was sitting by the same desk next to me, she asked me if I had any ideas. Having heard my idea, my coworker told me that it was too dangerous for the future of the company and provided a reasonable explanation for this opinion. Thus, I chose not to suggest my idea to protect the company and uphold another value: universalism.

The importance of values can be defined by the role they play in one’s life. They represent realistic goals that help a person navigate through their life. Moreover, values assist people in differentiating right from wrong and help them make ethical decisions. In the two aforementioned situations, I successfully followed my two values: universalism and benevolence. These two beliefs will assist me in becoming a better person and prevent me from making the wrong decisions.

Reference

Lecture 2 – Values, Virtues and Character. (n. d.) PowerPoint.

Moral virtue is one of the things that make people human. People are not obligated to do any actions considered virtue; it is a personal morality and dedication to common good. Moral virtue is something that is not naturally developed, although it is a result of person’s character traits in combination with choices. There are virtues coming from fully natural character traits, but some might need to make efforts to gain honesty, for example. Aristotle argues if moral virtue is fully self-developed or natural.

Aristotle defines moral virtue as states of character, one of the compounds of the soul. He comes to this conclusion by eliminating two other things found in the human’s soul (Aristotle et al., 2009). The philosopher says a virtue cannot be faculties — we are not judged good or evil for passions. It cannot be passions, too, because they are not our choices when virtues are.

Moral virtue is believed to be acquired as a habit by repetitions and beliefs what is right. Aristotle argues that moral virtue is something that can only be acquired by hard work. His key point is that nothing can be done if it contradicts nature (Aristotle et al., 2009). As example, Aristotle talks about the rock that is doomed to fall by the gravity, and there is no way it is going to float in the air one day.

Discussion in the podcast goes about the teachers and children of public schools. The host and guests are debating about the poor learning environment of children, their future, and the teachers unwilling to help students. Aristotle’s view of moral virtue could be used to define that its solely teacher’s choice to help students or not. As known from The Nicomachean Ethics, some teachers can be rocks that are doomed to fall, and there is no possibility of them changing that fact. Moral virtue is a choice, and while it is the right thing, nobody can change perspective of others or make them do the good.

Reference

Aristotle, Ross, W. D., & Drown, L. (2009). The Nicomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Human beings live by a social code that encourages positive habits toward others and their environment to avoid negative outcomes and potential adversities. However, virtue ethicists believe that human dispositions, experiences, and the quality of their environment play a role in their standards of morality. The founding father of virtue ethics philosophies, Aristotle, categorizes individuals’ operative habits into moral and intellectual virtues. Subsequently, he clarifies that individuals may possess intellectual virtues such as wisdom and understanding; these traits are not necessarily used to do good deeds. Nevertheless, moral virtues facilitate action by leveraging reason to determine what needs to be done.

Moral virtue is associated with individuals’ practical lives rather than their thinking. According to Aristotle, moral virtue is the inherent quality of behaving appropriately or in the right manner to strike a balance between the extreme ends of deficiency and excess when considering attributes classified as vices. For example, the philosopher suggests that an individual who fears everything and runs from trouble is a coward, while a person who does not fear anything and rushes into uncertainty is rash, which is both undesirable attributes. However, a person who applies the appropriate reason to action is considered courageous. Thus, developing and understanding virtuous principles builds an individual’s morality.

Moral virtues hold the utmost importance in human society because they allow individuals to act rationally and apply the correct judgment when faced with issues. Over the course of human history, people have been exposed to ideals including compassion, courage, fidelity, self-control, honesty, prudence, and fairness, and encouraged to practice these habits. Thus, moral virtues serve to reconcile individuals’ knowledge of right and wrong with their actions and ways of living. In other words, moral virtues allow people to pursue societally-constructed ideals and achieve higher standards of self-awareness and self-actualization. Hence, moral virtues prevent society from becoming chaotic due to the adverse influences of self-serving individuals. In addition, they prevent the escalation of vices such as unfairness, corruption, and injustice.

Moral virtues are critical in mending human relations, enhancing cohesion, and encouraging collaboration toward positive developments. Humans live in a dynamic world characterized by unprecedented factors. Therefore, moral virtues allow individuals to offer a hand to others who are suffering or lack basic facilities to advance. Moreover, they allow people, governments, and nations to reconcile after conflict and disagreements, which are inevitable attributes of socialization since people have different preferences and opinions. Without moral virtues, humans would be living in turmoil and misunderstanding would come in the way of justice and development. Thus, moral virtues allow society to advance toward positive outcomes by encouraging beneficial values and good human relations.

Moral virtues are habits that people acquire as they continuously interact with their environment, socialize, and increase their knowledge. Nevertheless, the urge to do good things is an intrinsic feature of people as they strive to achieve actualization. Moral virtues bridge the gap between knowing what is right and acting appropriately. Therefore, they play a major role in society since they influence individuals to value integrity, compassion, honesty, and truthfulness when interacting with others. Moreover, it allows for mending broken relationships and reconciliation after disagreements and conflicts. Therefore, moral virtues allow people to live in peace and assist each other to advance while sustaining the environment for future generations.

Alasdair MacIntyre, as one of the prominent scholars engaged in the discussion of virtues and morality as a whole, presents his unique perspective on the subject. His views are distinguished by particular attention to the current state of society in this respect and the comparison of secularism and religion.¹ Therefore, the conflicting norms of these two structures contributing to the lack of common rules for all citizens are comprehensively provided.

However, this information not only serves as a theoretical basis for further analysis but also implies the need for reformation of principal societal organizations. Such institutional change seems a challenging task for the present-day entities due to the absence of clarity in moral considerations. Nevertheless, it is possible in the case if the efforts of a secular state and the religious community are combined for finding a compromise between the governmental needs and the Biblical wisdom.

The State of Virtue, as per Alastair MacIntyre

The present-day perceptions of virtue as applied to society in all its aspects are a set of beliefs of its members varying depending on their preferences of unification or separation. According to MacIntyre, they are formed under the influence of these opposing forces or, more specifically, religion and the government.² The former’s morality is presented by the notions of right and wrong stemming from the Christian wisdom and based on the comprehensive experience of humanity.³ It covers all the essential areas of societal life, thereby providing benefits for people relying on these principles. In turn, the latter’s concepts mostly include logic and reason, which clash with the ideas mentioned above when complemented by the pursuit of justice.⁴ In this way, these norms are deemed to be the two extremes, which define the citizens’ confusion in assessing their actions when participating in different activities. From this standpoint, the state of virtue in modern society, as per MacIntyre, reflects the conflict between the entities specified above.

Prospects of Reforming Political Institutions

The situation regarding the virtuousness of modern political organizations is unstable and, therefore, can be readjusted in compliance with the needs of their members. However, the prospects concerning the potential change remain pessimistic without the inclusion of guiding components in this field. The previously adopted concepts, reason and logic, are insufficient for addressing such challenges as the moral hazard problems deriving from the increasing risks for the corresponding entities due to their rapid development.⁵ In addition, they are less efficient in terms of digitalization of politics and the establishment of the image of “good” and “bad” citizens in social media without Christian morality.⁶ It states that it is vital to “reform your ways and your actions and obey the LORD your God” to promote virtues.⁷ Considering these facts, it is reasonable to conclude on the successful reformation of politics with respect to the needs of time only if the existing regulations are confirmed by the traditional approach.

Prospects of Reforming Economic Institutions

The reformation of the moral underpinning of modern institutions is critical not only for politics but also for economies of the world countries. The necessity for its establishment in this field for increasing the effectiveness of this process is explained by the fact that tax practices are significantly dependent on the evolving attitude towards accepted virtues. Their interrelation is reflected by the orientation of both in-house and public professionals in elaborating strategies in order to meet the population’s essential needs.⁸ Moreover, the welfare of the largest world economies is connected to the promotion of such values as work, collaboration, inclusion, equality, individual responsibility, and ethics in corresponding organizations.⁹ Nevertheless, in order to incorporate them into regular practices, the use of Christian virtues is required. As it was written in Philippians 4:19, “And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus.”¹⁰ Hence, the inclusion of this principle in the area alongside governmental regulations will increase the probability of a positive outcome of the initiatives.

Prospects of Reforming Cultural Institutions

The final field, which should be subject to the prospective reformation in terms of applicable virtues, is culture, and its organizations are linked to the commonly accepted morality through continuously evolving cooperation. Its patterns imply the significance of the notions of “good” and “bad” in the societal context. Indeed, this type of entity is regulated through the concepts of honesty and dishonesty and, what is more important, depends on the use of specific rules.¹¹ The researchers confirmed that they are more likely to be followed by religious citizens rather than their atheistic counterparts.¹² Hence, the former’s familiarity with the proper attitude towards others ensures their favorable perception of norms promoting prosperity for all people. These results correlate with the idea from Romans 2:11, which is: “For God does not show favoritism.”¹³ Thus, the cooperation and, subsequently, positive reformation can be facilitated through the introduction of Christian virtues.

Conclusion

To summarize, MacIntyre presents the state of virtue in modern society in a negative light since it is insufficiently reinforced by religious wisdom and excessively relies on logic and reason. The analysis of political, economic, and cultural organizations confirmed this stance with the use of the works of other scholars. Therefore, the reformation of the specified entities under the common morality stemming from Christian teachings is an optimal way to ensure its efficiency.

References

Ashraf, Badar Nadeem. “Political Institutions and Bank Risk-Taking Behavior.” Journal of Financial Stability 29 (2017): 13-35. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Jeremiah 26:13.” n.d. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Philippians 4:19.” n.d. Web.

Bible Study Tools. “Romans 2:11.” n.d. Web.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007.

Möllers, Norma. “Making Digital Territory: Cybersecurity, Techno-nationalism, and the Moral Boundaries of the State.”Science, Technology, & Human Values 46, no. 1 (2021): 112-138. Web.

Purzycki, Benjamin Grant, Anne C. Pisor, Coren Apicella, Quentin Atkinson, Emma Cohen, Joseph Henrich, Richard McElreath, et al. “The Cognitive and Cultural Foundations of Moral Behavior.” Evolution and Human Behavior 39, no. 5 (2018): 490-501. Web.

Radcliffe, Vaughan S., Crawford Spence, Mitchell Stein, and Brett Wilkinson. “Professional Repositioning During Times of Institutional Change: The Case of Tax Practitioners and Changing Moral Boundaries.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 66 (2018): 45-59. Web.

Taylor-Gooby, Peter, Bjørn Hvinden, Steffen Mau, Benjamin Leruth, Mi Ah Schoyen, and Adrienn Gyory. “Moral Economies of the Welfare State: A Qualitative Comparative Study.”Acta Sociologica 62, no. 2 (2019): 119-134. Web.

Footnotes

1. Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2007), 29.
2. MacIntyre, After Virtue, 29.
3. MacIntyre, 39.
4. MacIntyre, 88-89.
5. Badar Nadeem Ashraf, “Political Institutions and Bank Risk-Taking Behavior,” Journal of Financial Stability 29 (2017): 32. Web.
6. Norma Möllers, “Making Digital Territory: Cybersecurity, Techno-nationalism, and the Moral Boundaries of the State,” Science, Technology, & Human Values 46, no. 1 (2021): 132. Web.
7. Bible Study Tools, “Jeremiah 26:13,” n.d. Web.
8. Vaughan S. Radcliffe, Crawford Spence, Mitchell Stein, and Brett Wilkinson, “Professional Repositioning During Times of Institutional Change: The Case of Tax Practitioners and Changing Moral Boundaries,” Accounting, Organizations and Society 66 (2018): 52. Web.
9. Peter Taylor-Gooby, Bjørn Hvinden, Steffen Mau, Benjamin Leruth, Mi Ah Schoyen, and Adrienn Gyory, “Moral Economies of the Welfare State: A Qualitative Comparative Study,” Acta Sociologica 62, no. 2 (2019): 132. Web.
10. Bible Study Tools, “Philippians 4:19,”n.d. Web.
11. Benjamin Grant Purzycki, Anne C. Pisor, Coren Apicella, Quentin Atkinson, Emma Cohen, Joseph Henrich, Richard McElreath, et al., “The Cognitive and Cultural Foundations of Moral Behavior,” Evolution and Human Behavior 39, no. 5 (2018): 499. Web.
12. Purzycki, Pisor, Apicella, Atkinson, Cohen, Henrich, McElreath, et al., “The Cognitive and Cultural Foundations of Moral Behavior,” 497.
13. Bible Study Tools, “Romans 2:11,”n.d. Web.

Introduction

The questions surrounding moral values have always been topical in the history of humanity. However, in the contemporary environment, these issues have acquired particular importance due to the increasing complexity of the social and political landscapes. Ideas inspired by the dogmas of religion dominated the world for centuries, but the situation has changed. Modern virtues are mostly secular in nature and dictated by the state. While some of them correspond to the paradigm of thought of the Christian worldview, the general policy direction often diverges from previously established values. The purpose of this paper is to examine the secular virtues promoted by the state in the 21st century.

Main body

The issues of morality and values have become the reason for heated debates in the current environment. Therefore, such matters often serve as an area of intense interest for researchers, aiming to compare the prevailing worldview to the previously established paradigms. Macintyre (2007, 6) states that “the most striking feature of contemporary moral utterance” lies in its focus on expressing disagreements. By the 20th century, humanity became highly militarized, promoting ideas of conflict and fighting to defend the interests of the state. In this regard, the concept of a just war has been introduced and promoted by various states, meaning that fighting for a noble cause is justified. In a way, it remains a virtue of protecting one’s soil and interests. However, Macintyre (2007) states that the scale of modern wars and the power of weapons lead to high numbers of civilian casualties, making any war inherently unjustified. Therefore, the concept of holy, just warfare misrepresents the reality of the era.

The idea described above may be viewed in a close connection to the notion of justice. This concept is a multi-faceted one, and it has been central to the contemporary societal discourse. From one perspective, social justice is a matter of paramount importance, as it aims at ensuring equality of people in all aspects. The ideas of the Scripture correspond to this philosophy, as “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27 English Standard Version). In other words, the Lord does divide people into races or classes, as all are made equal and in his image. Porter (2016) writes that justice is a crucial concept, which, in turn, may transform into the ultimate virtue of charity. Therefore, the ideas of the secular state and the Christian worldview intersect with the notion of justice as a key virtue.

In spite of the predominantly secularized discourse of today, the influence of traditional virtues has persisted. Vincent (2018, 226) confirms that the contemporary moral framework promoted by the state through education retains the signs of a strong influence of religion. However, these religious elements are implicit in the secular environment, being woven into the general paradigm of thought by centuries of philosophical evolution. Similar to the Christian dogmas, the state recognizes the crucial status of human life as a central concept of society (Macintyre 2007). However, this particular point raises controversy because the announced respect for the miracle of life itself often conflicts with the disagreement-centered discourse discussed earlier. This duality is related to the unprecedented complexity of the contemporary social landscape, which allows for various interpretations of the state’s view of virtues.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the moral framework of humanity has undergone major changes throughout history. While religious philosophy dominated the landscape in previous centuries, the modern age is characterized by the secularization of thought. Nevertheless, the ideas of the Scripture permeate profound levels of public thought, remaining implicitly embedded in modern moral principles. This tendency is reflected in several key virtues taught by the state in the 21st century. Nevertheless, divergences still occur, as observations suggest that the focus of the moral paradigm has shifted toward a conflict-centered one, contributing to the overall controversy surrounding the matter.

References

Macintyre, Alasdair. 2007. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. 3^rd ed. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Porter, Jean. 2016. Justice as a Virtue: A Thomistic Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Vincent, Carol. 2018. “Civic Virtue and Values Teaching in a ‘Post-Secular’ World.” Theory and Research in Education 16 (2): 226-243.

Morality is the principal condition for the emergence of the community as well as the grounds for a prosperous society regardless of the time. However, the perception of this aspect of human life differs depending on the structure instilled by the world governments. What is more important, the true meaning of the term is distorted since it relates to unity in the first place in contrast to the current preference of separation (Macintyre 2007, 37). The same applies to the existing division of fields under the concept of secularism. Hence, the modern state teaches justice, logic, and reason as its main virtues and thereby confirms its seeming suitability to the present era while neglecting the moral considerations.

The first notion is justice, and it is primarily emphasized by political leaders who strive to ensure everyone’s equality concerning opportunities and, consequently, self-development for the progress of society. Such an individualized approach implies the orientation on one’s talents and other potentials compared to the previously valued combined efforts of all citizens in the initiatives (Macintyre 2007, 7). Meanwhile, highlighting the significance of this virtue does not indicate its suitability for the targeted areas, including healthcare and education (Macintyre 2007, 7). In this way, the authorities aim at providing everyone with access to corresponding services while ignoring the infeasibility of this idea without uniting people for the achievement of common goals.

The second term presented by the secular state as a virtue is logic, which is deemed to be useful for demonstrating the phenomenon accompanying the world population’s trends. It is also widely implemented in science, which attempts to analyze all social events through the lens of generalizations (Macintyre 2007, 88). In other words, this concept is believed to be a solution to all types of problems and, therefore, greatly appreciated by the authorities.

Nevertheless, the particular attention paid to logical explanations as opposed to moral principles inevitably leads to the failure stemming from biases and the lack of precision in the outcomes (Macintyre 2007, 88). From this point of view, the low predictive power of this method, when complemented by justice, results in the promotion of policies based on inaccurate and inappropriate assumptions.

Finally, the third virtue enhancing secularism as the predominant type of the structural organization of society is reason. It indicates the need for justification of moral beliefs for their successful adoption by the citizens (Macintyre 2007, 38). The model deriving from this practice means creating new standards, which can be empirically confirmed while neglecting the wisdom of many generations of people and the Biblical teachings. The latter states that it is critical to comply with the rule “over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity” as per Colossians 3:14 (Bible Study Tools, n.d.). Undoubtedly, the state in its present form does not address this aspect and fails to provide a sufficient basis for developing morality.

To conclude, the main virtues under the concept of secularity are justice, logic, and reason, and they are revealed through the practical implementation of various objectives. The first idea is intended for ensuring everyone’s equality, whereas the second principle is used for explaining current realities. In turn, the third notion is unsuccessfully applied to the task of creating moral guidance for people. Nonetheless, their combination cannot substitute Christian morality due to these points’ lack of clarity and disagreement between the members of society regarding their definitions and applicability.

References

Bible Study Tools. n.d. “Colossians 3:14.” 2021. Web.

Macintyre, Alasdair. 2007. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.