My Philosophy Part 2: Virtue And Vice

If one has not read the first part of this series, I recommend reading it before reading this one.

This first part of my philosophy discussed human nature. In summary man is a rational, independent, individual, and these three characteristics entitle him to the natural rights of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and property. Therefore, any man can live his life in any way he pleases as long as he does not infringe upon the natural rights of any other man. However, just because man has the right to live in any way he pleases without violating others' natural rights does not necessarily make his life moral.

First though, it must be explained as to why man should care about morality, care about being virtuous, care about avoiding vice. Since this is man's only life and it completely belongs to him he should live to be happy. The purpose of his life is personal happiness, and happiness is the realization of one's values, or living one's values, or living virtuously. Thus, man should care about morality, care about being virtuous, care about avoiding vice because the purpose of his life is to be happy. Therefore, a man's concern with morality is a rationally selfish concern.

Of course, now must uncover what is virtuous and what is vicious. If one cannot discern the difference he may be living a miserable life, even if he will not admit it to himself. Unfortunately, knowing what makes one happy is not obvious, it requires much introspection. My favorite example is the promiscuous man. He will state that he is happy, he may even believe he is happy; however, he is not happy, he is absolutely miserable. That will become more evident by the end of this post.

One more point before I continue: morality, virtue, and vice, are objective. There is a true morality, there are true virtues, and there are true vice. I did use the word "one" earlier stating that happiness is the realization of "one's" values. This does not mean the values are subjective. That each individual has their own personalized virtues and vices. If virtues and vices were subjective there would be no virtue or vice. One man could regard murder as a virtue, and another man regard it as a vice. If morality were subjective the murderer could kill anyone without fear of being vicious, immoral, wrong, incorrect, etc. Furthermore, arguing that morality is subjective negates itself. It is the argument that there is absolutely no absolutes, or that there truly are no truths. However, that statement depends on a truth or absolute to exist, yet argues there are no truths or absolutes. The reason that I used the word "one" was to emphasize that happiness is individual. Individual happiness is not realized through collective happiness. Happiness is achieved independently of others.

In order to discover virtue and vice one must look back to man's nature. At his foundation man is a rational, independent, individual. Therefore, happiness is achieved by living to the fullest of his nature. The man who tries to live contrary to his nature will be miserable, for he is not constructed in that manner. Thus, the most basic and highest virtuous are reason, independence, and selfishness.

Reason is obviously derived from the rational nature of man. Some will argue that man is an animal. Though man evolved from an animal and is constructed similarly to animals, man is no longer an animal. Man's reason is what sets man a tier above animals. As I have stated before, animals are shackled by instinct. They do not think to act, they do not concern themselves with virtue and vice, they do not have likes and dislikes. Animals only live according to a predetermined set of codes and responses that keep them alive. This is called instinct. My favorite example is: Crow A found a worm. Crow B takes the worm from crow A's mouth. Crow A only knows that he must look for another worm. However, if man A finds an apple. Man B takes the apple from man A's mouth. Man A labels man B as bad or vicious, labels the act as stealing, and tries to seek justice through some form of compensation and separating man B from his life. It is important to see that man's nature is not of the nature of animals because on a spectrum of thinking or reasoning man is at the high end of virtue and animal is at the low end of vice. Since reason is part of man's nature to think, to search for truth, to learn, any action that uses reason is a virtue. Simply, reasoning is virtuous. However, if one does not think, does not search for truth or worse does not care for truth, does not attempt to learn anything, and does not use his reason, he is vicious. Not thinking is for the animals. Their nature does not include reason. Man's nature is reason. It is the greatest defining mark separating him from animal. Man should reason because that is who he is.

There are two points concerning the virtue of independence. First, there independence from relying on others, and second, there is independence from others' reliance. Basically, because man is independent he must neither depend on others nor fulfill others' dependence on him. This seems relatively straight forward; however, it will often be argued that no one is actually independent. No one grows his own food, cooks his own food, makes his own products, makes his own electricity, retrieves his own water, etc. This does not make a man dependent. Dependence is relying on others, not exchanging products. The independent man labors, makes money to extend his labor, and then uses his money to purchase goods with his labor he has already performed. The dependent man is the one who does not labor, has no money, and expects others to pay him, feed him, clothe him, shelter him, without exchanging his money, or his labor, for their goods.

However, it is often forgotten that man can be dependent in other ways than through services and goods. Man can depend on others for happiness. One must be suspicious of the man with many friends, for it is the man who can be alone that is truly happy. If one must constantly be around others to feel fine, or attend social gathers to have fun and be happy he is a vicious man, and thus, not a happy man. These people are dependent on others to make them happy, for they cannot make themselves happy. The one who likes to be alone or with a few friends is independent, virtuous, and truly happy.

Furthermore, one must be selective as to how he chooses friends. This actually encompasses all the basic virtues, reason, independence, and selfishness; however, it may be best to address it here. The man with many friends and constantly in attendance at social events is not only vicious because he is dependent. This man is also vicious because he probably has vicious friends. The dependent man and overall vicious man believes friends are an end in themselves. He believes that having many friends is inherently good. He is also the man that will not judge his friends. This unwillingness to judge is a vice. Man must discriminate.

Friends are the icing on the cake. One must be able to make himself happy, and only add friends as an addition. Additionally, one chooses a friend because he values them more than others. The basis of friendship is selfishness. It is also the basis of love. The man who is friends with great numbers, wants to be friends with everyone, loves everyone even strangers, is not selfishly choosing these people over others. He values them all equally. Thus, obviously he does not value any man more than any other man. Consequently, he does not actually value any of them, since they are all valued equally.

As I stated before, in order to selfishly choose a person as a friend, one must selfishly value the person. One values another based on more than his existence. The man with many friends has friends because they exist. The fact that one was born does not make him good enough to be a friend. One chooses another as a friend because he values the standards the other lives by. Therefore, one chooses another as a friend because the other lives by the same standards as him. A man who is a capitalist does not have communist friends. They have fundamentally opposing view points. One fundamentally believes the other is wrong. Therefore, the communist cannot value the capitalist's standards and vice versa. Valuing another is valuing one's self. It is choosing a person who is virtuous, and one recognizes the person as virtuous if he lives by the same standards. A virtuous and happy man does not choose to be friends with vicious men. He chooses to be friends with equally virtuous people.

The last point concerning independence is that the virtuous man does not fulfill dependent men. This is somewhat similar to friendship. The virtuous man does not associate with vicious men; therefore, the virtuous man should not fulfill the reliance of viciously dependent men. It is vicious to be dependent, for it violates the nature of man. Therefore, no one should be rewarded for their vices. The virtuous man ignores the reliance of the beggar. Not because it is the best thing for the beggar. Not because the beggar will learn that dependence is wrong if no one satisfies his reliance. The virtuous man ignores the reliance of the beggar because it would be vicious for the virtuous man to satisfy that reliance. The virtuous man is preserving his virtues, not trying to make the vicious virtuous.

This leads to the final highest virtue, selfishness or egoism. As previously stated, since one's life is one's own, and this is his only one, he should live for his own happiness. He should selfishly and egoistically live for himself. The man who is selfless, the man who lives for others, sacrifices his life and thus happiness for the lives and happiness of others. To destroy one's only life in any quantity for others' lives is a vice.

Of course, some will then argue that this is incorrect because the man who takes a bullet for his friends is the virtuous man. Firstly, it depends how valued this other friend is. If the friend is a mere acquaintance or one tier above acquaintance, it is most certainly a vice. Like it is most certainly a vice to take a bullet for a mere stranger. If one is going to allow his life to be destroyed for another, it must be for another he values most highly. One should only be willing to destroy his life for a few. To die for another should not be to recognize that the other's life is worth more than one's own. That is self-loathing, a vice. It is also an action for the greater good, also a vice. One should die for another because he values the other as the highest, next to himself, and because he is interested in selfishly protecting the virtuous and standards he values in himself and the other.

Some will also argue that the virtue of selfishness condones promiscuity, which I vehemently oppose. I have made this distinction several times between rational selfishness and animal or absolute selfishness. When I speak of the virtue of selfishness I am speaking of rational selfishness. I speak of a selfishness concerned with the true. I speak of a selfishness that regards reason, independence, and egoism as the highest virtues. The man who is promiscuous is not rationally selfish; therefore, he is not acting in accordance with the first virtue, reason. A man who violates one virtue for the sake of another is vicious. None of the three should be ignored to act more in accordance with another. They are all virtues. To ignore any is a vice.

Since reason, independence, and selfishness are the three highest virtues the three worst vices are their opposites: ignorance, collectivism, and self-loathing. I will not explain each of these. Once one understands the virtues he can easily understand the vices. However, in short:

Ignorance is clearly the polar opposite of reason. It is an unconcern for truth and thus reality. It is essentially unconcern for knowledge in general.

Collectivism is the same as dependence; therefore, it clearly opposes independence. However, collectivism actually goes one step further than dependence. Collectivism attempts to link man together, even though his nature is of independence from other men.

Finally, self-loathing is the hatred of one's self. One that is self-loathing is willing to suffer, is willing to be absolutely miserable. Consequently, this man is also willing to destroy himself. To him suffering and misery are virtues because he believes his is an awful man. Most ideologies that embrace this vice argue that man is awful because he was born, not because of his actions. Since he is awful, since suffering and misery are virtues, the most virtuous act is to destroy one's self for others. Therefore, self-loathing is directly linked to selflessness, which directly opposes selfishness.

I have a few points in closing. Firstly, once again, reason, independence, and selfishness are the most basic virtues. They can lead man to understand any virtue or vice. It would be impossible for me to go through every action and classify it as a virtue or a vice. That is why I have not discussed natural rights in depth in this post. Those three virtues are directly related to the three basic qualities of man's nature, which lead to natural rights. Therefore, the violation of any other man's natural rights is clearly a vice, and violating other natural rights would relate to the three vices, ignorance, collectivism, and self-loathing, and also the three virtues, reason, independence, and selfishness.

Finally, it is important to understand that morality is not solely lived in one's mind. One is not virtuous just because he understands this, because he believes it in his mind. Actually, I would argue one that only lives these virtues in his mind does not truly understand these virtues. In any event, the mind and body are not separable. The body physically represents the mind. Therefore, every action is a moral action. Every action is concerned with virtue and vice. The promiscuous man who understands all this is still vicious because he acts viciously. A man is defined as virtuous or vicious not by his thoughts, but by his actions.