Altruism?

Perhaps it’s because of two centuries of Kant, but there’s a definite tendency to hold up altruism – disinterestedness – as a moral ideal. Doing our duty can only be truly moral if it is done for its own sake, and its own sake alone. Any hint of reward is enough to call into question the most virtuous act or the most sincere religious sentiment. This is a major critique of virtue ethics – we are told that morality pursued for the sake of our own eudaimonia is no morality at all. Even the natural desire for happiness is enough to taint the most virtuous act.

We are told, in short, to be like God. He, as most of our theologians insist, gives with no thought of return or reward. All his acts are purely for the good of the other – of us – with no benefit redounding to himself. And how else could it be? God, we are assured by these same theologians, is 100% self-sufficient and self-contained. In full possession of every perfection, there’s no benefit he does receive or can receive by his actions. He can have no goal of his own; it is our good he selflessly seeks.

But what if this isn’t true? What if even God longs for something, and acts with a goal in mind – a goal for himself? In his poem ‘The Recovery’ Thomas Traherne makes this almost-blasphemous suggestion:

“Yea more, His Love doth take Delight
To make our Glory Infinite
Our Blessedness to see
Is even to the Deitie
A Beatifick Vision! He attains
His Ends while we enjoy. In us He reigns.”

Traherne’s God is not the God of Aristotle – “Thought Thinking Itself” – fully self-sufficient and self-satisfied (in the true sense of that phrase). He isn’t even Plotinus’ God – eternally pouring himself out with no need or desire of return. This is a God of mutual giving – we receive our fulfillment in adoring God, and God receives his fulfillment in our fulfillment!

So perhaps altruism is a false value; false because impossible and false because undesirable. Perhaps altruism (seeking to give with no return) is actually the vicious extreme opposite to selfishness (seeking to take with no return)? Giving to another’s benefit while also receiving benefit from that other is the place where relationship and mutuality lie.

Without mutual benefit there is no mutuality - and no relationship. We’re left only with the cold, detached altruism of Kant.

Giovanni GABRIELI= Canzon duodecimi toni

Is Virtue Ethics Selfish?

I'm a student – and teacher – of virtue ethics. I follow that trend in moral philosophy that reaches back to the ancient Greeks and Romans, who taught that the purpose of ethics is to foster human happiness and well-being by developing human excellence. Virtue ethics isn't focused on the rightness or wrongness of actions. Rather, it's focused on the improvement of the character of the actor.

This school has had a major revival over the last few decades, partly because it is seen as offering a valuable alternative to the previously dominant ethical schools of deontology (“I must do this act because it’s intrinsically right.”) and consequentialism (“I must do this act because it will have better consequences than any alternative.”) However, virtue ethics does have its detractors, and one of the critiques is that it’s egoistic and selfish.

Anyway, I once had an interesting conversation about virtue ethics and its perceived “selfishness.”

A student and I discussed how a follower of each of the three ethical schools might behave the same way but for different reasons. A utilitarian consequentialist would “help the less fortunate” because to do so would contribute to “the greatest happiness for the greatest number.” A deontologist would do so because “Doing unto others” is a moral duty, regardless of consequence. The virtue ethics thinker, on the other hand, would do so because performing generous actions would foster the virtue of generosity, improve his character, and increase his eudaimonia.

My student was bothered by that, and definitely did see such a motive as selfish. She wanted an ethic that was oriented towards others, and not towards improving herself.

So I asked her why she, herself, was moved to help the less fortunate. She said that her experience as a health care worker showed her the suffering people go through, and that she wanted to alleviate it. “So,” I replied, “can you imagine another person seeing that same suffering and not wanting to do anything about it?” “Yes,” she said. “Then,” I asked, “what’s the difference between you and that other person?” She had no answer. I replied for her, “Doesn’t it come down to the difference in your characters? You see suffering and want to help. The other person sees it and doesn’t. Isn’t that because of the kind of persons you two are?” She said, “I guess so.” “So a society filled with people of good character is going to be better – more humane, more kind, more honest – than a society filled with people of bad character, right?”

She agreed.

It seems to me that no action is more socially beneficial than the improvement of one’s own character.

Ave Maria (Byrd) Stile Antico

The Three-Fold Path

What do I want? Why do I live? For eudaimonia.





Now, that term has usually been translated as “happiness,” which doesn’t even come close. It really means “flourishing” or “well-being.” Every human being – every existing thing of any type, actually – wants to flourish. It wants to have a good, satisfying life, not a miserable one. It wants to fulfill all its natural faculties and powers, rather than suffer through an existence of frustration. So, the issue for us is, how do we flourish?

So how do we flourish? The Greek answer is arête – excellence.  Strive to bring to full development ever human faculty. Become physically healthy and strong, intellectually wise, morally good, spiritually deep, and creative in as many of the arts as possible. Stifling or neglecting your personal development is a sure path to misery. So…get busy being all that you can be.

And this brings me to the last of my values – paideia. Also a Greek notion, this was the “program” of education and human development that was believed to be the path to arête. And don’t limit education to the kids, either. There is always something new I can learn or some talent I can develop.

So we have a great triple combination – like Tinker to Evers to Chance. From paideia to arete to eudaimonia. That’s the path I’ve chosen for myself.

I'll let you know how it goes.

Being A Non-Dogmatic Neoplatonist

Stoic or Epicurean? Cartesian or Hobbesian? Existentialist or Logical Positivist?

Almost since the day it was created, philosophy has rivaled contemporary American politics in its partisan spirit. Many (though not all) philosophers have created their own all-inclusive “discourse” about God, Man and the Universe – about What We Can Know and How We Should Live – and have attracted disciples who vigorously promote those discourses…and just as vigorously try to knock down the discourses of rival thinkers.

If you ask me, though, this is the wrong approach to take to the whole philosophic enterprise, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what philosophy is and what it’s for. I agree with Pierre Hadot that what's really important in philosophy is not this composition of discourses but the living of a philosophical life – which means seeking to actively change one's character by pursuing wisdom and virtue. The discourse has only instrumental value - it can give content and focus to one philosophical life, but that's about it.

So the particular discourse that I find most appealing and helpful is Neoplatonism - the conviction that all Being emanates from God and seeks to return to God in contemplation. But that conviction is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end – the end of becoming a person who sees the divine shining through everything in the universe, and who sees himself as naturally oriented towards the Transcendent and the Eternal.

I certainly see no need to slavishly accept every dogma in the all the discourses produced by the wide variety of Neoplatonists.

Lincoln - Anglican Cathedral: "Psalm 104 - Praise the Lord, o My Soul"

William Lawes (1602-1645) - Suite No 10 In B Flat Major

Why I'm Here

Who is my favorite philosopher? I got hit with that question the other day by a student in my Ethics class. I didn’t have to think about it very long – only a few seconds. I don’t think he got the answer he was expecting.

I said, “Thomas Traherne.”

Like your favorite book, movie, or piece of music, your choice of favorite philosopher says a lot about you. About how you look at the world. About what you think is True about God, Man and the Universe. About what you think is Important in life. So what was I saying to that student when I owned Traherne as my own personal favorite?

I take an optimistic view of things. I believe that there is a God behind this universe, and God is good. The universe is good. Life is good. Any philosopher or theologian who takes the bleak view is not going to appeal to me. I see Order, Wisdom and Beauty around me, and they fill me with joy.

Do you want to be happy? Of course you do. Everyone does. The desire for happiness - the desire to flourish and enjoy the fullness of well-being - is the most basic urge experienced by any existing thing. So now the question is, how do we achieve happiness? The path is neither hard nor obscure. Pursue wisdom and goodness. Love others, and be creative. Realize that kindness will get you farther in life than violence, and fill your soul with everything good.

As long as I continue to keep this blog, I will try to make it a thing of Beauty and Wisdom. I will try to make it a tool for the attaining of happiness.

Otherwise, what’s the point?

Oh, and about the title. That's an homage to my friend Joseph Schneider. Joe is another student of philosophy who has always had an attraction towards the more lugubrius Germans, and who likes to tease me for my inclination towards the sunnier thinkers of the Greek and the English traditions. 

One time he was recommending a book to me and said something along the lines of, "You'll like it. It's very optimistic, and you always want to dance with the universe." I couldn't deny it.

Anyway, that sort of stayed with me. So when I needed to name this blog it seemed like a good option.