During the discussions in class, we came to the conclusion that being a just person by Aristotle's definition is developled through the habit of doing virtuous acts towards others. Simply doing a just act does not make you a just person because you were not doing it in knowledge. To be just you must first learn virtue, which is personal moral values.
Virtue is a skill gained by reason (theoretical wisdom) and experience (practical wisdom). It is a mean so that there is neither excess or deficiency of it. An example of virtue that we used in class today was honesty. An excess of honesty-being blunt-is not good, and a deficiency of honesty-lieing-is bad too. But honesty is a balance in between the two. As the mean it is virtuous. Once you gain virtue and apply it to how you relate to others you become a just person.
Aristotle believed that the more virtuous people would be greatly rewarded. In such a merit based society, these more virtuous people would be considered the rich and elite classes; but who is to say that the politician and businessman is more hardworking than the average Joe. A politician may have worked hard to gain his position, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he is just or virtuous. Once in office he could use his power for selfish reasons. Getting excess of a good is considered an injustice; as a result of venturing to one of the extremes of the golden mean, that politician is no longer virtuous, yet he still has the most goods. Meanwhile a hardworking plumber who does helpful deeds everyday that are not in his job description to help his community, such as helping an elderly neighbor get groceries, struggles monetarily. Is he not more virtuous than the politician? Shouldn't he get rewarded for his merit?
I don't think that virtue gets rewarded in goods. In many situations, the only reward that a virtuous person receives is a pat on the back. For those who are genuinely just, that simple sign of gratitude and the glow they get inside for helping others is all of the encouragement that they need to continue to do just acts towards others. Part of being just is lacking the vice of being selfish because it is not a mean. So the just person, like the plumber, does not expect to be rewarded for their actions.
I almost agree with what you are saying. But that "sign of gratitude" is still a reward. It is still a selfish reason for doing a good deed. Moreover, this small sign is indicative of something much larger. All of society approves of good deeds. So, when you perform a good deed, this causes other people to respect you more and to acknowledge that you are a good person. It helps you build a positive reputation. There are, of course, more admirable reasons paired with the selfish ones, but I believe there are always selfish reasons when you do a good deed. Even feeling happy or proud that you did the good deed ("the glow") is a selfish reason to do that good deed. It makes you feel good! Of course you're going to do it!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Aubrey in that their other rewards other than material ones. Something to remember is that people are different: We can all basically agree that things like money, receiving gratitute, and just seeing someone smile when we do something are good, but different people may have different opinions about what type of good is the most important. To some people, gratitude might mean more than money.
ReplyDeleteI agree that gratitude and appreciation are reasons that certain people do things, but at the same time, there are those people that do the right thing and help other people because it's their instinct. I remember someone said that in class and I definitely agree. People do things without ever thinking about what is going to happen afterwards or how it is going to make them feel. Sometimes people genuinely want to improve the lives of others without even thinking about it. They feel good about it afterwards but if that is not their intention then it is not selfish. It is hard to draw the line and determine why people are doing things but I think there are instances when people genuinely do things selflessly.
ReplyDeleteI have always taken the position that people do good deeds for selfish reasons, whether consciously or subconsciously. I held this stance for probably my entire life until this week when I attended a six day conference with college-aged activists from around the country and world who are fighting for sexual health, reproductive justice, LGBTQ equality, immigrant rights, etc. I bring up this experience not to delve into some emotional tale of opposition and victory or idealistic young people; rather, this event genuinely transformed the way I view the topics of virtue, selflessness, and righteousness, issues that will undoubtedly arise again in class and on this blog throughout the semester.
ReplyDeleteAristotle suggests that "virtue" is concerned with a person's own morality and sense of values. To be virtuous, you must not lean too far in either direction on the scale, but to find a balance in the center. Most people I have met who consciously consider themselves to be virtuous lean too far to either side, thereby tainting their reputation as virtuous. However, the people I met at this conference were literally (in my opinion) the manifestation of virtue. They strike the perfect balance that Aristotle describes, lacking self-righteousness but possessing drive and a sincere care for the state of the world and other people. I have always been hesitant to believe in anyone's "pure intentions," because as much of the class has suggested, I believed there was no good deed that was not immersed in either conscious or sub-conscious self-gratification. After meeting these activists, though, my mind has been changed. It isn't about self-gratification. I would argue that even sub-consciously, they rarely receive gratification for themselves for the work they do. Instead, they are constantly fighting against social systems that oppress others, striving to serve as allies to other humans. I genuinely do not see any selfishness in these people. So what's the point of my story? Maybe my, and others', firm stance that people do good things for self-gratification is due to the fact that we haven't yet met anyone who shows us otherwise. I based my view on genuine human righteousness and virtue (or lack there of) on my own experiences, many of which have left me jaded. So, maybe it's important to stop labeling all of humanity based on our personal past experiences and to realize that virtuous people, as Aristotle describes them, do actually exist.