Ferrous
When you speak of "Society as a whole" do you speak of a "global society" or a society of one country, one group or exactly what?
In an effort to understand Will's statement, the only definitions of the words that matter are the ones that he himself is assigning to them. The only way to find those definitions is to abstract them from the text.
It would help if we had the full text of his address, but there are clues in the available material.
posted by phoenix on the original question posed on abuzz, may 26, 2000
My local newspaper finally printed Will's address yesterday.There
is a part of his speech that really gets to the heart of the
matter.
"Students should learn to look up to the heroic- in thought and
action, in politics and literature, in science and faith. After
all, the few men and women who become heroes do so by looking up
and being pulled by a vision of nobility. Which makes a hero
quite unlike a "role model". A very democratic notion, 'role
model': it is something anyone can successfully emulate.
Here,then, is higher education's special purpose in a democracy.
It is to turn young people toward what is high."
In our society being "one of the boys" is valued more than
outstanding achievement. Kids are admonished to "fit in". they
are told "not to rock the boat"; to be "politically correct".
There seems to be a fear of real greatness. Observe the animosity
that is being heaped on Bill Gates, a person who, on his own, has
changed the course of the way we live our lives.Instead of being
appreciated, he is despised. It is as if people fear greatness.
Look at people's reactions to our alley cat of a president. I
have never heard so many excuses for improper behavior in my
life.
If we are to evolve and grow as human beings, we must make every
attempt to grasp higher than our present reach. We must look to
the best for guidance, and venerate not the mediocre, but the
heroic!
perception
When I speak of society as a whole, I mean exactly that. If mankind is to survive, he must learn that his actions must not take away from the whole. These would be universal accepted forms of behavior.
Lets take, for example, one of the better known rules of acceptable social behavior, "The Ten Commandments:
1. Have no other gods before me [the God of the Hebrews].
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, earth or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not vainly use the name of your God [the God of the Hebrews].
4. Do no work on the seventh day of the week.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.
Of the ten laws, I personally would hold as true, the last six commandments as to be universally acceptable, as true. These are laws that imply a social order of behavior for people to be able to peacefully co-exist, with one another.
Here's another set of laws, to live by, written 2500 years ago
"Eightfold Noble Path"
1.) Right understanding: Understanding the truth about the universality of suffering and knowing the path to its extinction.
2.) Right thought: A mind free of ill will and cruelty. (edited out "sensual desire)
3.) Right speech: Abstaining from lying, harsh language and gossip.
4.) Right conduct: Avoiding killing, stealing and unlawful sexual intercourse.
5.) Right livelihood: Avoiding any occupation that brings harm directly or indirectly to any other living being.
6.) Right endeavor: Avoiding unwholesome and evil things.
7.) Right mindfulness: Awareness in contemplation.
8.) Right Meditation: Concentration.
Siddhartha Gautama (6th Century BCE)
So when I speak of "Society as a whole," I'm speaking of what holds true in a "universal society."
As for Virtue vs Value, Virtue is much more preferable (for me, that is.)
Perception -- That wasn't quite what I meant, but to answer you I wonder whether, if values and virtues are subjective, why the heck to we persist in behaving as though our values and virtues are the correct ones and should be imposed on everyone else? In that you may be closer to my original contention than I'd thought at first! I was trying to point to the fact that we tend to take our values as self-evident truths and everyone else's as morally flawed! I'd like to live in a world in which each lived up to his/her own standards and pretty much shut up about other people's private lives. One man's adultery is another's discovery of love.
Hear hear, Tartarin--were everyone willing to submit to the rule of law, and act within the laws of one's polity to effect changes one believes necessary, the world would be a much more enjoyable place to live. Pity there is no god, because i would otherwise call upon her to save us from the self-righteous.
So perception, that answers your question about "society as a whole", right.
Following Will's coments re: "leaders", vs "followers"; what he is referring to here, is not virtues but "ideas".
Those that follow their own new, carfully considered, ideas are the true leaders, and heros; who do not hold themselves up as "virtuous".
Those who are afraid of ideas know neither virtue, or value!
(Is that a little "over the top"?)
Tartarin
I tend to think of what you are talking about as a code of ethics and morality rather than virtues and values. This is exactly why I referenced the limitations of our language. Certainly we must have a universal code of ethics. And even though I not a religious person and certainly don't condone self-righteous behavior, I do think that the 10 commandments , lacking anyother written code, are certainly worthwhile.
I think of virtues as more a personal thing and therefore very subjective in nature.
Regarding a global code of society as you imply I believe, while admirable in thought, it is not possible in reality. The various religions of the world play too great a role to ever allow this.
Down with religion!
Nor am I a fan of Ayn Rand generally, but just stumbled on this quotation, agree with Rand, and thought it would fit in nicely here:
"Civilisation is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savages' whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilisation is the process of setting man free from men."
Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead 1943).
(Women, too.)
By virtue one gains proximity to the ultimate knowledge of morality as he or she develops principled conscience.
By values one can reflect on the traditions and customs of one's own as the ethics is still limited to one's own interpretation of morality.
Moral justification is valid and sound in accordance with its factual basis; judgment is good if it's based on facts, not values. You can suspect someone's motives by scrutinizing the facts that the judgment was based on. Anyone with principled conscience is capable of presenting the knowledge that becomes everyone else's fact on which anyone can base his or her judgment. Pinnoccio can trust the Cricket when making his judgment if the Cricket is in deed the official conscience.
Any act of moral justfication otherwise made is so-called value judgment, which anyone of us would make time to time, and I believe George F. Will re-visited the danger of relying solely on our value judgment to judge others. We need to stick ourselves to the facts to be presented, and we need to present such facts by ourselves by increasing the levels of our moral knowledge and autonomy. That requires further moral development of individuals and our society.
@pueo,
It seems to me that when we attribute virtue to people it is because they are living up to certain values.
@pueo,
There seems to be a strange argument going on - which is better virtue or values? You need both. While there is some subjectivity in the way some use the word values, at its best values are very important. Even with virtue, some people stress one virtue over another to fit their subjective view. Values are the ideal to which we strive. Virtues are the what we need to ACT upon what we say we believe. If one does not act on what one believes than one does not have virtue. Both value and virtue call us out of ourselves to what is the common good. We can gain and loose virtue. Hopefully our values remain. Enough vice and our values can leave. Few people use the word values for greed, selfishness and corruption. I think some people have trouble with the fact that some one has values that they themselves don't have. Some of these may not be true values, others it may be cultural. Before you can practice virtue, you need values to live by. In the best case, it is based on your philosophy of life. If one is religious it is best to be based on what one's faith is calling from one. Don't pit one against the other. Values and Virtues need each other. Let us strive to grow in both.
Dammit! I thought maybe our little owl had returned.
