Virtues Versus Values

thinking.....checking dictionary - how do you define the difference, really....

for those who still abuzz

http://www.abuzz.com/interaction/s.48859/discussion

virtues= a vague and nebulous term
values= a vague and nebulous term
so, in effect Mr. Will is proposing replacing a vague and nebulous term with a vague and nebulous term= ain't progress amazing?

I would say rather that individual virtue is in short supply. I needn't subscribe to anyone else's religious/social/political beliefs to believe that i am wrong in willfully harming others. In that sense, i would certainly much prefer a concept of virtue, arising in an individual, to a concept of value, whether individual or societal. One may place value on an individual or an object, and seek to control or possess it without determining if the act is "good" or "bad" on the basis of a personal ethos. Having that ethos, however, and using that structure to guide one's actions can have, in my opinion, a very positive effect on oneself and society.

I see nothing in the definition of "values" which precludes "virtue" - or the valuing thereof.

I suppose the speaker is meaning that values is seen as a relativistic term - that its current useage implies a recognition that there is no absolute code of ethics, or morals?

Virtue seems to be a more inward-looking word - to be speaking to the character of a person and their moral strength. It seems to imply, somehow, a more absolutist ethical system - this is certainly what the speaker is implying, with his talk of virtue and vice....

I guess I see my values as being pretty solid and firm, and that I take them very seriously and try to live them deeply and seriously - I find the "virtue" term so loaded historically and religiously that I cannot be at home with it. I probably prefer to use the term "integrity" - but I do see what the speaker is saying.

it sort of depends on how much one
"values" virtues, doesn't it?

Dlowan, even though the difference between virtue and value has been pointed out to me before, it's still hard to see them as very different. Thanks for the definitions.

The idea of values seems to be more social, a person or group being influenced by their peers rather than some basic truth that lies in the (innate?) virtues of an individual?

dlowan; I'm guessing that definition is from Webster; they love to use the "defined" word in the definition.

Virtue is one of society's "power" tactic weapons, used by institutions to control and demean those to be "kept in check".

Virtue is basically the end result expected by the rigorous following of one or more (usually a spectrum of) values.
The values, unfortunately are choices guided either by unchallenged traditions, ancient texts and teachings, or arbitrary decisions.
The most prominent aspect of values is the corollary hatred engendered against those who do not share them.

Is hatred a "virtue"?

If we must be "virtuous"; we must be very cautious about the accuracy and appropriateness of our values!

dlowan; I'm guessing that definition is from Webster; they love to use the "defined" word in the definition.

Virtue is one of society's "power" tactic weapons, used by institutions to control and demean those to be "kept in check".

Virtue is basically the end result expected by the rigorous following of one or more (usually a spectrum of) values.
The values, unfortunately are choices guided either by unchallenged traditions, ancient texts and teachings, or arbitrary decisions.
The most prominent aspect of values is the corollary hatred engendered against those who do not share them.

Is hatred a "virtue"?

If we must be "virtuous"; we must be very cautious about the accuracy and appropriateness of our values!

Bo Go Wo - nah - from Lycos - which is sort of part of my browser -not the best, I agree, but 'tis easy to copy from!

I see your point - it sort of gels with mine - many religions, for instance, have seen hatred of those who do not conform exactly to their beliefs as a virtue.

This is kind a right up the same alley....

Character First

Character Defined
The stable and distinctive qualities built into an individual's life which determine his response regardless of circumstances.

American Dictionary of the English Language

Re: Virtues Versus Values


In the effort to understand what G.F. Will is saying, I do not think it will do us much good to go to the dictionary for the meaning of the words "Virtue" and "Values." I think we have to ask ourselves what Will means by them.

Virtues, in his lexicon are clearly much stronger than Values. He refers to Values as "thin gruel" and as the ethic of an age in which we are "only judgmental about being judgmental." This sounds to me like he is denouncing Pluralism and ethical relativism: the idea that all cultures and ethical systems are on equal footing in that there is no absolute standard by which they may be judged.

If this be what he means, then he most likely thinks of Virtue as being the opposite, which would be ethical standards that do reflect some absolute standard.

As I see Will's argument, he is saying, in effect, that we ought to abandon Values, which are weak gruel, and lend themselves to the spread of egalitarian and leveling democracy; we ought to embrace Virtues because they tend to undercut the egalitarian , leveling ethos of democracy. In other words Virtues have some standing that cannot be touched by the levelers (non-judgmentalists or ethical relativists).

IMO, any argument that says absolute ethical standards must exist and be adopted because otherwise the society is going to go to pot, is a weak argument. Societies that believed rigidly in absolute ethical standards have, in the past, decayed and lost their vitality.

The need for a thing does not imply its existence. The need (or supposed need) for absolute ethical standards does not imply that such standards exist.

Perhaps what we need is adherence to the best ethical standards we can devise in the absence of absolute standards.

Was this address given in April? Perhaps some sort of April Fool's Joke?
I admire George Will and respect his opinions. Although I don't always agree with his views, they are always stated in a lucid manner. This portion of his talk seems uncharacteristic in its lack of clarity, which is manifest in this thread by members searching for the definitions of value/virtue.
Perhaps Mr. Will makes himself clearer via the full text of his talk. It would be interesting and more informative if one had access to the whole speech.

Respectfully,
JM

JM

As you suggest,perhaps if we had access to the full text something of value could be gleaned in reference to these two vague words but I doubt it. I suggest that each of these words merely illuminates the limitations of our language---the meaning relative to the perception of each observer is so vague that it is meaningless to pursue a discussion of the relevance of each to the other.

BTW--welcome to A2K-----I suspect that you will add greatly to the intellectual quality of this forum.

I mean to be ironic here, but also to speak to the issue, so I have to ask: When we talk about either virtues or values, are we talking about ourselves or about others?

(Whenever I read or hear George Will, I seem always notice his self-conscious, slightly academic, rather stuffy condemnation of anything outside his personal experience...)

Tartarin

I really like the quote from Schopenhauer in your signature----there isn't much "Truth" floating around and I have never analysed what there is in that light but in view of his brilliance he probably is correct.

I will attempt to answer your question since no one else has---each of the referenced words can only be defined relative to the experience and knowledge of each person. Therefore when we speak of virtues and/or values we can only speak of them as we ourselves perceive them.

It's A Man Thing...
Virtue "L virtus - strength, manliness, moral perfection"… Conformity to a standard of right.

Value " L valere - To be strong, be vigorous, to be powerful, be effective, to avail, to be of worth." The principles of right and wrong that are accepted by an individual or a social group.

Is hatred a virtue… No! Hatred is a value of some who abide by that set of ethics or morals.

Morals " L moralis - of or relating to principals or considerations of right or wrong action or good and bad character.

Over all, "virtues" are acceptable standards of society as a whole, while "values" could be acceptable practices by an individual group.