That said, I still find myself grappling with the nature of ethics and how—if at all—it differs from good and evil. Whenever we attempt to define these concepts, we seem to arrive at a place of subjectivity. Take the word "virtue," for example—it can just as easily be invoked by ISIS members sharpening their swords before a beheading. From their perspective, eliminating infidels is a virtue, a moral good.
Dovid Campbell describes the "vagueness of virtue ethics" as a strength, likening it to aiming at a point in the distance. I see the value in this—the flexibility, the benefit of not being constrained by rigid rules. And yet, "out in the distance" feels like kicking the can down the road. Terms like good, proper, right, just—they all leave me somewhat bereft.
As an Observant Jew, I have a framework of clear guidelines, but even within that framework, there's room for interpretation. One phrase that comes to mind as a potential guiding principle is the familiar adage: Do not do unto your neighbor what you would not want done to yourself. But even here, I find myself questioning—what if someone is a masochist and desires suffering?
As you can see, I've truly taken your piece to heart!
Hi Peter, thanks for this comment, there are so many good points in it!
On moral relativism: there is certainly a danger of that, in forms of virtue ethics holding that the good life (which the virtues are meant to help us attain) is defined purely by social context or ideology. This is best avoided, for exactly the reasons you give (e.g. ISIS think the good life is ridding the world of infidels). However for Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, who tried to fuse virtue ethics with Christianity, the good life is defined by something objective: human nature for Aristotle (the idea that we are rational social animals), and communion with God for Aquinas. So you're right to sense the danger here, but fortunately most contemporary virtue ethicists try to follow Aristotle or Aquinas by looking for an objective standard. (For reasons of space I didn't explore this deeper issue - perhaps in a future piece!)
As to your point about the lack of clear rules, I do get why some people might find it dissatisfying! As you say, perhaps the Judaic tradition of moral rules + interpretation/application to life (which clearly involves wisdom and other virtues) is the ideal fusion. I can certainly see the attraction of that - in philosophical terms, Kant tried to achieve something very similar. Something more to think about, so thank you again!
You chose your hero well; I have always adored Anne Frank. My heroes of character are Pete and Chasten Buttigieg. Both use their gifts to uplift humanity and are true advocates and leaders.
Thanks Billie! I remember you mentioning Pete Buttigieg before, and although I know of him (I think I possibly saw him interviewed by Jon Stewart?), I don't know very much. I seem to recall him being described as a Democrat rising star, so I'll have to investigate further!
Pete ran for POTUS in 2019 and early 2020. He used to be the Mayor of South Bend, Ind. He was chosen and confirmed to be Secretary of Transportation in the Biden administration. Chasten is Pete's husband. Chasten has written 2 popular books about his coming out journey and he has a children's book coming out soon. Pete wrote 2 books also, one about his trajectory out of and back to South Bend and the other about how our government could restore trust in politics. The Buttigiegs have twins that they adopted and currently live in Traverse City, MI, which is close to where Chasten's parents live. Pete is considering whether or not to run for the MI senator race or to run for POTUS in 2028. Hope this little bio is useful. Just Google Pete's name and you will find a weath of information--articles, reels, and videos.
You are from London, England, right? Pete is from the USA. But a lot of what he says is extremely insightful. He is preternaturally AWARE of almost everything I can think of. He is a Democrat, yes. And he is one of my heroes.
Thanks for getting back in touch Billie! So I grew up not far from London and am largely English (but with some Scottish family too), and I live in the south-west of England now. I try to follow American politics reasonably closely, and actually since you wrote your comment above I saw an interview with Pete Buttigieg! I was very impressed by his communication skills - really smart and articulate. Easy to imagine him going on to greater things.
He is absolutely brilliant. He has a great awareness of many things. I find him very spiritually advanced. Whatever he does, it will be a blessing for so many people.
Beautiful piece, I especially appreciated your point about the vagueness of virtue ethics as a strength, not a weakness. In Lorraine Daston's book on rules, she notes that until about 1800, the primary meaning of a "rule" was a paradigm or model, e.g. Socrates is the rule of a philosophical life. Over time, we've shifted to a more algorithmic, left-brained understanding of rules, with broad social consequences.
When you first learn to drive, you grip the wheel neurotically and attempt to remain precisely between the dotted lines. But eventually you learn to just aim at some point far in the distance, and it becomes much easier to stay in your lane. To me, that's the benefit of virtue ethics.
Thanks Dovid, very kind of you! I agree with your characterisation.
Funnily enough, I also occasionally think of driving in terms of virtue, rather than algorithmic-type rule following. We have speed limits on roads, and for good reason, but those limits only tell us the maximum speed at which we can drive - they don't tell us what the right speed is in a given context. To ascertain that we need to firstly be perceptive, and gain a sense of the car we're driving, the type of road we're on (straight, bendy, pothole-ridden), the weather conditions etc., and then secondly we have to use good judgement (aka wisdom) to work out what the right speed is.
Always did admire Anne Frank. I delved deeply into learning about the Holocaust because of reading her diary. My current pantheon of moral heroes are Pete Buttigieg, Chasten Buttigieg, Peter Himmelman, and Joseph Kibler. Each of these people have the courage to think outside the box and, yes, think CONTEXTUALLY! As I like to say, "context is all." The Buttigieg men face the headwinds of homophobia in our Trumpland. Himmelman remains a committed mystical Jew despite all of the antisemitism in today's world. Kibler deals with his tough disabilities and the stigma of HIV+ status. Each of these speak truth to power--whether that power simply be the human souls or the heads of state--often. Well-done Lewis. Well-done.
Louis, I always learn from you.
That said, I still find myself grappling with the nature of ethics and how—if at all—it differs from good and evil. Whenever we attempt to define these concepts, we seem to arrive at a place of subjectivity. Take the word "virtue," for example—it can just as easily be invoked by ISIS members sharpening their swords before a beheading. From their perspective, eliminating infidels is a virtue, a moral good.
Dovid Campbell describes the "vagueness of virtue ethics" as a strength, likening it to aiming at a point in the distance. I see the value in this—the flexibility, the benefit of not being constrained by rigid rules. And yet, "out in the distance" feels like kicking the can down the road. Terms like good, proper, right, just—they all leave me somewhat bereft.
As an Observant Jew, I have a framework of clear guidelines, but even within that framework, there's room for interpretation. One phrase that comes to mind as a potential guiding principle is the familiar adage: Do not do unto your neighbor what you would not want done to yourself. But even here, I find myself questioning—what if someone is a masochist and desires suffering?
As you can see, I've truly taken your piece to heart!
Hi Peter, thanks for this comment, there are so many good points in it!
On moral relativism: there is certainly a danger of that, in forms of virtue ethics holding that the good life (which the virtues are meant to help us attain) is defined purely by social context or ideology. This is best avoided, for exactly the reasons you give (e.g. ISIS think the good life is ridding the world of infidels). However for Aristotle or Thomas Aquinas, who tried to fuse virtue ethics with Christianity, the good life is defined by something objective: human nature for Aristotle (the idea that we are rational social animals), and communion with God for Aquinas. So you're right to sense the danger here, but fortunately most contemporary virtue ethicists try to follow Aristotle or Aquinas by looking for an objective standard. (For reasons of space I didn't explore this deeper issue - perhaps in a future piece!)
As to your point about the lack of clear rules, I do get why some people might find it dissatisfying! As you say, perhaps the Judaic tradition of moral rules + interpretation/application to life (which clearly involves wisdom and other virtues) is the ideal fusion. I can certainly see the attraction of that - in philosophical terms, Kant tried to achieve something very similar. Something more to think about, so thank you again!
Thank you Lewis. You think about, and write about non-trivial things. A gift.
So kind, thank you Peter!
You chose your hero well; I have always adored Anne Frank. My heroes of character are Pete and Chasten Buttigieg. Both use their gifts to uplift humanity and are true advocates and leaders.
Thanks Billie! I remember you mentioning Pete Buttigieg before, and although I know of him (I think I possibly saw him interviewed by Jon Stewart?), I don't know very much. I seem to recall him being described as a Democrat rising star, so I'll have to investigate further!
Pete ran for POTUS in 2019 and early 2020. He used to be the Mayor of South Bend, Ind. He was chosen and confirmed to be Secretary of Transportation in the Biden administration. Chasten is Pete's husband. Chasten has written 2 popular books about his coming out journey and he has a children's book coming out soon. Pete wrote 2 books also, one about his trajectory out of and back to South Bend and the other about how our government could restore trust in politics. The Buttigiegs have twins that they adopted and currently live in Traverse City, MI, which is close to where Chasten's parents live. Pete is considering whether or not to run for the MI senator race or to run for POTUS in 2028. Hope this little bio is useful. Just Google Pete's name and you will find a weath of information--articles, reels, and videos.
You are from London, England, right? Pete is from the USA. But a lot of what he says is extremely insightful. He is preternaturally AWARE of almost everything I can think of. He is a Democrat, yes. And he is one of my heroes.
Thanks for getting back in touch Billie! So I grew up not far from London and am largely English (but with some Scottish family too), and I live in the south-west of England now. I try to follow American politics reasonably closely, and actually since you wrote your comment above I saw an interview with Pete Buttigieg! I was very impressed by his communication skills - really smart and articulate. Easy to imagine him going on to greater things.
He is absolutely brilliant. He has a great awareness of many things. I find him very spiritually advanced. Whatever he does, it will be a blessing for so many people.
Beautiful piece, I especially appreciated your point about the vagueness of virtue ethics as a strength, not a weakness. In Lorraine Daston's book on rules, she notes that until about 1800, the primary meaning of a "rule" was a paradigm or model, e.g. Socrates is the rule of a philosophical life. Over time, we've shifted to a more algorithmic, left-brained understanding of rules, with broad social consequences.
When you first learn to drive, you grip the wheel neurotically and attempt to remain precisely between the dotted lines. But eventually you learn to just aim at some point far in the distance, and it becomes much easier to stay in your lane. To me, that's the benefit of virtue ethics.
Thanks Dovid, very kind of you! I agree with your characterisation.
Funnily enough, I also occasionally think of driving in terms of virtue, rather than algorithmic-type rule following. We have speed limits on roads, and for good reason, but those limits only tell us the maximum speed at which we can drive - they don't tell us what the right speed is in a given context. To ascertain that we need to firstly be perceptive, and gain a sense of the car we're driving, the type of road we're on (straight, bendy, pothole-ridden), the weather conditions etc., and then secondly we have to use good judgement (aka wisdom) to work out what the right speed is.
In a way, life is quite like that I think!
Always did admire Anne Frank. I delved deeply into learning about the Holocaust because of reading her diary. My current pantheon of moral heroes are Pete Buttigieg, Chasten Buttigieg, Peter Himmelman, and Joseph Kibler. Each of these people have the courage to think outside the box and, yes, think CONTEXTUALLY! As I like to say, "context is all." The Buttigieg men face the headwinds of homophobia in our Trumpland. Himmelman remains a committed mystical Jew despite all of the antisemitism in today's world. Kibler deals with his tough disabilities and the stigma of HIV+ status. Each of these speak truth to power--whether that power simply be the human souls or the heads of state--often. Well-done Lewis. Well-done.
And special thanks to Adam Jacobs for Feed Your Head where I found Lewis and Peter Himmelman.