An Introduction to Ethics, for Training Colleges/Chapter 14
CHAPTER XIV.
GOODNESS AND THE VIRTUES.
§ 1. The Struggle of the Moral Life. All that we have said about the moral life shows that it involves struggle. Character is not formed by drifting with the stream of life. The fulfilment of vocation requires, as we have seen, the assertion of the comprehensive self, and the denial of such private desires and interests as may be inconsistent with it. Now assertion involves energy and perseverance, and renunciation implies pain and effort. All this means struggle. Goodness of character is not attained simply by wishing or hoping or desiring or acquiescing. It requires a constant struggle: "it is hard to be good." Perfect goodness never is completely attained. But the good man is always in process of attaining. His life is a struggle in which he is gradually realising his ideals. It is impossible for a man to stand still morally. If he is not improving, or at least trying to improve, he is deteriorating. The moment he says to himself, "I have attained," he begins to fall.
Much of our moral life has, indeed, been given over to habit, and in accordance with habit we do what is right or wrong almost mechanically. In doing such habitual actions, we are not explicitly conscious of struggle. But these habits had themselves to be formed, and they were formed by the repetition of deliberate acts. In the formation of habits, as we have seen, the struggle is often fierce; and if it be true that much or most of our moral conduct is habitual, that only means that we are now reaping reward or punishment for victories or defeats in former moral struggles. But however much of our moral life has been taken over by the automatism of habit, scarcely a day or even an hour passes without the emergence of a situation which involves moral struggle. Every day brings with it new situations and new circumstances, and however habitual our way of life may have become, we are forced to adapt it to the new conditions. Unruly desires solicit satisfaction, flitting ideas distract our attention, capricious emotions affect our equanimity. In some cases the struggle between the self and the distraction may be so slight that we are hardly aware of it at all, in others the victory may be won in a moment, for we put the intruding thought or desire from us without hesitation. In other instances the struggle may continue for days or weeks, and produce the profoundest moral anxiety. But whether the struggle be severe or not, it is in the hours of conflict that character is moulded. Goodness of character is not a talent or gift. It must be attained or achieved.
§2. The Virtues, or Aspects of Goodness. In ordinary speech a distinction is commonly observed between virtue and goodness. We talk indifferently of "virtue" and "goodness" in the abstract, but we never say "a goodness": it must always be "a virtue." Hence common usage encourages us to think that we can possess particular virtues, just as we possess clothes and houses. But a virtue is not a particular thing like a hat or an umbrella that we may acquire or cast away without affecting the self. A virtue has reference to character and conduct: it may be called-adjectival to character, though such a phrase does not emphasise nearly enough the intimacy of its connection with character. When we say, in ordinary speech, that a man has the virtue of courage, we really mean that his character and conduct are courageous. If we say that he displays the virtue of justice, we really mean that his character and conduct are just. The virtues, then, are aspects of goodness. Perfect goodness is compact of all the virtues, and the perfectly good character would be perfectly virtuous. Goodness may appear in an infinite variety of aspects: the man of good character will express his goodness in actions of the most diverse kinds, and his conduct will vary in accordance with changing circumstances. The virtues are infinite in number. But most moralists have found it convenient to classify them under four heads, viz. Courage, Temperance, Justice, and Wisdom. These are usually called the Cardinal Virtues, i.e. the hinges on which all good actions hang.[1] This classification was originally given by Plato,[2] and though it is not free from defects, and many other classifications have been suggested since his time, it still remains the most satisfactory. But we should remember that such a list is simply a statement of different aspects of goodness of character and conduct. All or none of these aspects of goodness may be exhibited by an action. The same act may be at once courageous, temperate, wise, and just. In such a case all the chief aspects of goodness are possessed by it. On the other hand, a courageous act may be unwise and intemperate and unjust, and a wise action may be neither courageous nor just. It is difficult sometimes to decide whether a man's character or conduct is good, precisely because it may exhibit one or more aspects of goodness without the others.
But, in general, the man who engages seriously in the struggle of morality tends to develop all the virtues harmoniously. The cardinal virtues are systematic, and real goodness of character expresses itself equally and naturally in all of them. The good character expresses itself whole-heartedly and impartially in its actions—and that is justice; it exhibits fortitude and perseverance—and that is courage; it exercises self-control in all things—and that is temperance; and its conduct shows insight, reflection and deliberation—and that is wisdom. The virtues appear only in actual conduct. They are not inert possessions of the self. They really exist only in activity of some kind. "No man," Aristotle said, "is virtuous in his sleep." A virtue is always an activity of character, an activity exercised in some department of the struggle of the moral life. Courage could not exist, were it not for the difficult and dangerous situations which call for its expression. Temperance or self-control would be meaningless if man had no unruly desires and inclinations to restrain.
Every age must construct its virtues for itself. In every age character must react in new ways to the difficulties of the situations which face it. The moral life is not stationary. It is a constant progress, and the virtues in which it is expressed necessarily alter from time to time. The virtues required in one age are not those whose activity is most valuable in another. Thus we find that the precise meaning of the four cardinal virtues changes from age to age. Virtues are relative to the society in which they are displayed. The interpretation which we give to the cardinal virtues to-day differs from that which they bore in Plato's time. Yet they are fundamentally the same aspects of goodness.
The cardinal virtues are closely connected with the idea of vocation. All without exception are involved in loyalty to vocation. It might perhaps be said that while wisdom and justice are chiefly concerned with the choice of vocation, courage and temperance are mainly displayed in the process of devotion to it. But such a distinction is only a relative one, for the choice of vocation may require real courage and self-control, and wisdom and justice are constantly called for in the actual progress of the moral life.
§ 3. Courage. Courage is probably the first virtue to appear in the childhood of the individual and the race. The first definite quality which character develops is courage. The child and the savage learn to be brave, to bear pain and discomfort, while as yet the other virtues have not emerged. Courage may be said to be the virtue from which all the others are developed. It is significant that the word virtue is derived from the Latin virtus, which originally meant manliness or courage. The special virtue of man was considered to be courage, and from it all the others were supposed to have grown.
In a primitive community courage meant simply physical bravery in face of danger, but as opportunities decreased for displaying such bravery in conflicts with wild beasts and the forces of nature, and in fighting against enemies, the meaning of the virtue was gradually extended. It was recognised that mere physical boldness is not the only kind of courage, and that other callings besides warfare call for the virtue. Courage thus becomes immeasurably more comprehensive. Under the general name courage are grouped the specialised aspects in which it is manifested in various vocations. The obstacles to be faced and overcome vary in different callings, and the precise kind of courage required to meet them differs accordingly. The sailor, the soldier, the business-man, the doctor, and the minister have to face very different forms of danger and difficulty. We claim that they should show the kind of courage appropriate to their occupation, and if they fail in this, we account it a much more serious delinquency than, if they are found wanting in a kind of courage that is not needed by their calling. The sailor is expected to be brave in a storm at sea, but he is not expected to tend the sick in a small-pox hospital. The soldier is expected to be unflinching in battle, but he is not impugned for his lack of courage if he loses his nerve entirely on being asked to "testify" at a church meeting.
Though the manifestations of courage vary, it is fundamentally the same virtue in whatever calling it is displayed. In every case, a difficult situation is faced unflinchingly, risks are run with boldness, and obstacles are overcome with fortitude and perseverance. Courage involves firmness in facing moral duties, and efficiency in performing them.
§4. Temperance. By temperance we mean the virtue of orderliness and moderation in conduct. A character is temperate if it arranges and orders all its conduct in accordance with its dominant purposes. Temperance has both negative and positive aspects. On the one hand, it involves self-control and self-possession. The virtue of temperance is displayed by the man who disciplines his impulses and desires, and organises his emotions and sentiments in a stable character. But temperance does not mean the total annihilation of desires and emotions. It manifests itself in the operation of the will in strengthening and organising those that are good. Hence temperance is positive as well as negative. It involves concentration of purpose and determination on the part of the self to master its natural impulsive energy, and divert it into the socially valuable channels of the vocation which it has chosen. Temperance is inconsistent with the waste of human powers and the dissipation of human energy. It strives to reform the ugly disproportion of unregulated conduct. The temperate man governs and regulates his life in accordance with his own self-imposed end. Temperance is thus a very comprehensive virtue, which is fully exhibited only by the character whose every activity is rationally controlled, harmonised, and concentrated.
The word temperance has come to be used almost solely in connection with the control of the passion for strong drink. This sense is obviously much narrower than its meaning in ethics; self-mastery in the matter of strong drink is only one aspect of self-control. But it provides a very useful illustration of the need of self-mastery in general. The intoxicated man has very clearly lost his self-control. He is unable to master his words or his actions. His conduct is no longer organised. Intemperance has relaxed the system of his life, and it has fallen apart in disorder. Intemperance may, of course, be manifested in many departments of conduct. A man may be intemperate in eating or in working or in sleeping or in indulging his sexual appetites. Whenever these appetites and inclinations and needs usurp more than their proper place in a man's life, he is intemperate.
§ 5. Justice. The virtues of courage and temperance mainly concern the individual. Of course, they imply that the individual is a member of some community, and in their higher forms they react powerfully on the general level of the morality of the society as a whole. Yet they are primarily individual virtues. On the other hand, justice is essentially a social virtue. It arises in the relation of individual to individual in a society. The just man observes the principles of social harmony and equity, and practises fairness and honesty in his dealings with all men. And justice is manifested by the state which has so organised its social life that all its citizens live in harmony.
Two aspects of justice were distinguished by Aristotle—justice as distributive and justice as corrective. Distributive justice in the state demands that all men should be, treated equitably in accordance with their merits. All men are not equal in capacity, and all men do not deserve equally well of the community, so distributive justice does not claim an equal distribution of goods to every man; but it does try to secure that all men shall be treated equitably and fairly. The just state will distribute goods to its citizens in proportion to their deserts.
Corrective justice becomes necessary when distributive justice has failed or has been overridden. If one citizen has obtained more than his due proportion of goods, either by such obviously unlawful means as theft or by subtler illegality or unfairness, it becomes the duty of the state to correct the disproportion. Thus justice in the strict legal sense is almost wholly corrective justice.
Justice should be understood in a sense wide enough to comprise benevolence and mercy. True justice should be so comprehensive that benevolence and mercy will become simply aspects of it. Mercy apart from justice is necessary only because justice has failed. The poor and the distressed are constantly reminding us that what they want is not mercy and charity, but justice. A true conception of moral justice would recognise that much of what is still regarded as charity or philanthropy, as works of mercy or grace, is really simply justice. Doles given to the aged poor used to be considered to be charity:
now it is realised that it is simple justice that the poor should have old-age pensions. Justice is not inconsistent with sympathy. Justice must, indeed, be impartial, and if a man allows sympathy to get the better of his judgment, he is not really just; but an impartial sympathy is possible, and seems indeed to be of the essence of social justice.
§6. Wisdom. The virtue of wisdom should perhaps be regarded as the foundation of all the virtues rather than as a virtue in itself. There would seem to be no virtue without some wisdom or knowledge. We have pointed out that reason forms the basis of moral judgment, and that every right action involves some awareness or knowledge or conscientiousness in its performance.
The two aspects of wisdom of greatest importance in connection with virtue are insight and reflection. The wise man is the man of insight. In treating of duty, we pointed out that the value of moral rules is very limited: they must be applied by the man of insight who has a conscientious attitude to life. Moral insight is one of the most distinctive marks of the good man.
The other ethically valuable aspect of wisdom is reflection. Virtuous action is not simply a matter of insight. Morality, as we have seen, involves reflection. All good moral actions are voluntary, either in the sense that they are definitely willed, or that they are performed in accordance with habits which have been formed by the repetition of willed actions. And every voluntary action involves reflection and thoughtfulness. The virtuous man does not act in obedience to every impulse and in order to enjoy every emotion: he reflects on alternatives, and thinks over prospective courses of action, and his character is formed by reflection and thoughtfulness. Wisdom is the foundation of all virtue.
§ 7. The Education of the Virtues. How far is the child capable of being educated in virtue? Can the child be trained to be courageous and temperate and just and wise? Most certainly he can. The virtues, as we have seen, are simply different aspects of goodness of character, and goodness of character is acquired by training. A man's character becomes virtuous only by the habitual doing of virtuous actions. He acquires the virtue of temperance only by constantly practising self-control; and he becomes courageous by habitually acting bravely in the difficulties and dangers of life. The possibility of sound moral education depends on the fact that goodness of character is a unity; and the several virtues will develop most naturally and truly if they grow from the character as a whole. Hence the task of moral education is to train character as a whole, rather than to attempt to impose peculiar virtues on it from the outside. The education of character is on precisely the same footing as the education of the mind. It has long been recognised that education does not aim at filling the mind from the outside with knowledge, whether "useful" or "useless." Education insists that its task is to train the mind to develop its own powers by attending to and observing the world, and by assimilating what enters into its experience. Precisely the same thing is true of the education of character. The attempt to instil particular virtues from the outside is foredoomed to failure. The development of character should be an all-round development, from the centre outwards.
In particular, it is no part of the task of moral education to train the child in that specialisation or particularisation of the virtues to which we have already referred. We have seen that the virtue of courage, for instance, appears in different forms in the soldier, the teacher, the sailor, the doctor, and the worker in the explosives factory. Now the child's courage will not be developed any the better, if he knows what specialised courage these vocations require. The child's concern is primarily with such courage as he needs and is called upon to display as a child. If he learns to bear himself with courage as a child, he will not be found wanting when he is called upon to display the particular variety of that virtue which is required by the vocation which he follows. Some schemes of moral education certainly leave upon the child the impression that the virtues are needed only in after-life. Nothing could be more pernicious. The possibility of sound moral education depends upon the presumption that if the foundations of character are well and truly laid during school life, by the habitual doing of virtuous actions in those departments of life which are open to the child, the character in after-life will naturally express itself in conduct which reveals these virtues in any situation in which it may find itself.
Hence it is important to note that ordinary school life affords real and great opportunities for training in the virtues. Courage is needed by the child at the beginning of its school life, courage to leave its home, whether for a few hours or for a whole term, courage to associate with strangers, courage to face ridicule and practical joke. Courage in the form of attention and concentration is needed to overcome the initial difficulties of lessons; and as perseverance the same virtue of courage is constantly being tested throughout the whole of school life, whether in work or at games. Courage is needed, also, to enable the child to make a stand against the force of its fellows' opinion, in schools where the tone is bad. And, of course, the child's courage may be tested also by the traditional bully, whether he be boy or teacher.
Temperance also finds a field for its exercise in the school. The child must learn to control his whims and fancies, his impulses and inclinations, all of which are probably regarded with much indulgence at home. It has always been recognised that one of the chief functions of the school is to train the child in habits of obedience and order. The child is placed under the discipline of the school, in order that he may learn how to discipline himself. School-discipline is valuable only in so far as it is really training the child to govern himself. An external authority which is not inwardly acknowledged by the child is worse than useless, because, as soon as the child secures his freedom from what he conceives to be the bonds of such an authority, reaction is apt to set in, and he will glory in showing that he can now "do as he likes." Such "doing as he likes" is simply intemperance. Discipline will fail of its lessons, unless its principles are so appreciated by the child that he will come to apply them himself in the control of his own life. And the child very early learns the necessity of self-discipline. He finds that the exhortation "Yield not to temptation" is no empty one. Temptations as real if not as violent as those of later life beset him—temptations to cheat, to tell lies, to use bad language—and in presence of such temptations he must learn to control and govern himself.
Justice is a virtue to which most children are exceedingly sensitive. The child is alert to notice any suspicion of favouritism on the part of the teacher. If the teacher pays special attention to any one pupil, the rest are apt to think that this one is a "pet," and that the teacher's attitude is "not fair." Partiality is quickly seen by the children to be inconsistent with justice. None of them want to be "pets" ; but they all want to be treated fairly. The ethics of childhood is very largely based on this virtue. In the view of the child, it is wrong to carry tales, because it is "not fair"; it is wrong for a big boy to bully a small one, because it is "not fair"; it is wrong to cheat, because it is "not fair." In the child's work, as in his games, a practice is immediately and universally condemned if it is seen to be "not fair." The school offers an admirable training-ground for the child to cultivate the virtue of fairness and justice.
Little need be said of the place of wisdom in the school. The school primarily exists to teach wisdom in the best sense. It is now universally recognised in theory, however imperfectly that theory may be carried out in practice, that education which merely supplies the child with pre-digested knowledge of facts succeeds only in producing obtuseness and stupidity in the child. The aim of the school is to develop the natural insight of the child, to enable him to make the best use of the capacities with which he has been endowed, to train him in habits of observation and reflection, and to encourage him to think and reason for himself. In so far as the school is successful in this, it is helping to educate the child in virtue, for it is making it easier for him to acquire the habit of what Arnold of Rugby termed "moral thoughtfulness." And a sane moral thoughtfulness, free from cant and priggishness, is the foundation of all virtue.
For further reading: C. F. D'Arcy: Short Study of Ethics, part ii. ch. x. and xi.; S. E. Mezes: Ethics, ch. ix.-xiv.; J. Dewey and J. H. Tufts: Ethics, ch. xix.; T. H. Green: Prolegomena to Ethics, §§ 240-285.