All Episodes
Previous Next
March 12, 2011 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
22:30
1869 An Introduction to Virtue - Part 3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Hi everybody, it's Steph. This is an introduction to virtue, part three.
What, oh what, is virtue?
A fine question, even if I do pose it to myself on the third part of the series about virtue, I still think it's important.
Virtue is a complicated, complicated topic.
UPB, I mean, you could in a sense call it negative virtues or bans, right?
So I can walk around in my life being, you know, an isolated grouch, And I can still respect people's property and not kill and not rape and not assault and all that kind of stuff.
That doesn't make me a good person.
It just means I'm not evil.
It doesn't mean that I'm actually good.
And I think that's the difference.
So, to refrain from evil is not to be virtuous.
Just as to refrain from suicide is not to be healthy.
Not the same as being healthy.
To refrain from self-mutilation is not the same as training for the Olympics.
So, I mean, we could ask, I think we would be a hell of a lot further along in the happiness, health and progress of the world if people would refrain from evil.
But that's where UPB, I think, is important to eliminate or at least reduce some of the institutionalized evils in the world, statism and so on.
Religiosity in the realm of fraud, but positive virtue is much more complicated.
And this is well known in philosophy, right?
So you probably heard of the Aristotelian mean, which is something like, you know, if you never get angry, if you have a deficiency of anger, then you're kind of like a wimp, right?
You're self-bowed down.
If you have an excess of anger, if you're choleric or chronically irritable or whatever, Then that's not good either, right?
So a deficiency of anger and an excess of anger are neither good.
Having the capacity to be angry, you know, to a proportional degree, under the right circumstances, at the right time, to the right effect, to some degree, well, that's difficult.
That's complicated. And in the same way, to have a deficiency of courage may be termed cowardice.
An excess of courage may be termed foolhardiness.
And Aristotle would say that, you know, to have the right amount of courage at the right time, to the right effect, that's not easy.
And there's no hard and fast rule about that.
I mean, there's a hard and fast rule called don't steal, but there's no real hard and fast rule about how to be angry, or how to have courage, or how to have honesty, an excess of honesty.
It would be logaria, I suppose, like I'm going to talk.
A deficiency of honesty would be compulsive lying or something like that.
But the right amount of honesty, under the right circumstances, at the right time, it's all complicated stuff, right?
Which is why virtue is a very, very tough squid of jello to nail to the wall, constantly wriggling, and never quite wants to be very much attached.
So I think it is tough.
Now, one of the main reasons...
That it's tough is because of a lack of virtue in the world.
So because of a lack of virtue in the world, it becomes that much more complicated to be virtuous, which is sort of what ties into what we were talking about in the first show on the topic.
Which is the degree to which virtue seeks to eliminate itself.
And I got a criticism, which I think was a good one, on Facebook.
Somebody posted and said, well, wait a sec.
Rationality is a virtue, but rationality does not seek to eliminate itself.
Well, I don't think that rationality is a virtue, specifically.
I would say that integrity is a virtue.
Rationality is the process.
So, science isn't a virtue, but integrity to reason and evidence, of which science is one of the major aspects, is a virtue.
But science itself is not a virtue.
The methodology is not a virtue.
The integrity or the commitment to the truth, that is a virtue.
So, rationality is not a virtue.
I'm not saying it's bad, but it itself is not a virtue, because it's a methodology, not a virtue.
But, of course, even if we accept that rationality is a virtue, I would agree that rationality does not seek to eliminate itself, and I'm afraid this is definitional.
Whether you agree with the definitions or not, it is inescapable in the way that I have defined it, which, you know, you're free to disagree with, but at least understand the content of what you're disagreeing with.
So the way that I've worked on the problem of virtue is to say that virtue as a concept is necessary because doing the right thing is hard.
And because we are socially attacked for speaking the truth.
And therefore, we need something called virtue in order to have us do the right thing, even though it's hard.
Now, the more the virtue is accepted, the less hard it's going to be.
At some point, there's a tipping point where actually not being virtuous then becomes that much harder.
So, in this definition, virtue is necessary because of the opposition by non-virtuous or evil people, right?
So if you speak the truth, then you get attacked as a bad guy by some people, and therefore you need virtue to overcome our natural resistance to that sort of thing, and to continue speaking the truth and doing the right thing.
But if you're not attacked by anyone, but rather praised by everyone for doing the right thing, you don't need something called virtue, because that's a pleasurable and positive and good thing.
So to analogize, we need nutrition because cheesecake always tastes better than broccoli, right?
So we need nutrition because of that.
Now, if there was some Switch or flip or, I don't know, shiatsu massage technique that could make everything that was good for you taste good and everything that was bad for you taste bad, then we would no longer need the science of nutrition because we would simply follow that which was pleasurable to our palate.
So we need nutrition because our palate leads us astray, or rather, leads us astray given the current availability of sugar and salt and fat.
So, that's why we need nutrition, because we don't want to eat broccoli, we want to eat cheesecake.
At least, I do. Broccoli, cheesecake, trust me.
I've worked at many, many angles.
Not a good combo. No way that can work at all.
So, because we receive attacks, unpleasant attacks, for speaking the truth, for doing the right thing, We need virtue, or we need philosophy.
But if instead of being punished, we are praised, and we succeed and do well for doing the right thing, then we can really follow that which is socially pleasurable, and that leads us to virtue.
We don't need a discipline called virtue.
Then the switch has been flipped so that cheesecake tastes like broccoli and vice versa.
So, in this way...
We still need virtue.
We still need the science of philosophy or the discipline of philosophy and virtue in order to overcome the bad taste of good deeds in the mouths of others, so to speak.
So that's kind of, I mean, not exactly axiomatic, but that's pretty fundamental to what it is that I'm working on.
So I would, again, I would focus more on integrity than I would focus on rationality.
Because, I mean, integrity is fidelity to reason and evidence, right?
I mean, that's really what integrity is.
And even if we accept...
I think it's pretty reasonable to accept integrity as a virtue.
I hope we don't have to go through the whole argument for it.
But if we accept that integrity is a virtue, it doesn't hugely tell us how to live.
Integrity to what? Under what circumstances?
In what situations? Which battles should we pick?
Which battles should we withdraw from or retreat from?
It's like saying to a general, you know, win the war.
I mean, okay, so win the war.
What does that mean? You know, I mean, when to attack, when to withdraw, how to do your supply lines, how to train, how to replenish, you know, which troops to expend, what butcher's bill should you accept, and which ones should you reject, and when should you sue for peace, and when should you tell the truth, and when should you obfuscate, and so on, right?
You know, it's the...
We used to kind of make fun of this.
I used to kind of make fun of this in the business world with my coders, right?
That you'd see these managers and they would be, you know, they'd have all these PowerPoints about, you know, excellence at all costs, the pursuit of quality and profitability and this and that and the other, right?
And we'd have these...
You know, in the meetings, we would sometimes make these jokes like I would lean forward and I would say, now, remember, everybody, and, you know, this is my contribution as Chief Technical Officer to this endeavor, my friends, but please remember that it is important that your code compiles and that it meets the client's requirements in a timely and efficient manner.
And that was...
I mean, we would actually...
There were so many jokes, I'm not even going to bother repeating them all because I'm sure it's not that thrilling to people, but it was actually quite a lot of fun that we would step in...
I think we called it business obvious speech.
Boss! It's business obvious speech.
You know, we strive for profitability and...
Customer satisfaction and quality products.
And it's like, yeah, okay, so who doesn't?
I mean, it's, I don't know, it's like presenting to a physics conference the importance of having rational theories that meet the evidence.
Well, of course. I mean, why else would anyone be here?
And of course, the other thing with business speech was that it made no sense of the necessary compromises of limited resources, right?
Yeah, we aim for...
There was an old Dilbert about this.
Where Dilbert's boss said, we want to have the highest quality employees in the industry.
And Dilbert says, well, but you only pay industry average in terms of salaries.
And he's like, yep, we like them bright, but clueless.
I thought that was, that's pretty true, right?
I mean, because there's not, I mean, everybody wants the best employees, right?
I mean, but if you're not going to pay top dollar, then you're not going to get the best employees.
So stop saying that, right?
I mean, we want medium quality employees based upon our medium quality remuneration package, right?
But that's putting business constraints on things.
So that was, this business optimization speech was just kind of funny.
And it is something that, um...
It shows up in a lot of ethics talks, you know?
We aim for the highest integrity possible.
And I don't know what any of that means.
I mean, are you open to people?
Like, so you hire students for tax breaks.
Do you say, is it part of your business plan that, you know, we hire students because we get tax breaks for doing so?
Or do you say, we hire students because we want to invest in the knowledge development of the next generation of talented business people or whatever, right?
No. You know, if the company employs a variety of tax breaks or tax dodges or whatever, I mean, it's that part of the integrity of the organization.
When a company ships a product that could use more testing, are they honest about that?
They deliver that with the client, which says, well, you know...
Uh, specs changed a lot, and this, uh, product has been tested pretty thoroughly, but, uh, and we'll certainly support it after the fact, but, you know, we're in no way, shape, or form going to say that it's perfect, right?
I mean, companies don't say that.
They say, here's your product. Oh my goodness, there's a bug?
All right, well, we're on it.
We certainly did go through a testing process, but, huh, right?
Well, that's, uh, that's natural.
So, integrity is one of these things that you say it, and what the hell does it really mean?
If you, uh, It's like honesty.
Honesty about what? Under what circumstances?
To what effect? Right?
I mean, it's the old thing.
You're doing a presentation, you have an itchy ass, and somebody asks you a question, and you say, geez, I'm having trouble concentrating on this, I'm afraid, because my ass is itching up like a...
A bunch of fire ants on a hot tin drum.
And, well, no. I mean, that's, you know, is that a virtue called honesty?
I guess so. Is that, you know, necessary or appropriate or even wise?
Well, I would say probably not.
So, I mean, this is the challenge of positive virtues.
I mean, fortunately, it's not a challenge that is massively complicated because I think we can spend quite a lot of time...
Focusing on negative virtues, sorry, on UPB before we have to get into the questions of virtue.
But I think it is important because if you are a good man, then you will receive, you know, no good deed goes unpunished.
If you are a good man or a good woman, you will receive some criticisms and some attacks.
And so I think it's important to have some sense of it.
But basically, we're like nutritionists living in a land where everyone thinks that shit is broccoli and eats it every day.
And I think, well, let's at least first start Let's at least stop people from eating shit to begin with.
And then we can talk a little bit more about balancing your carbs and your proteins and your sugars and your fats and all that kind of stuff.
And your glucose levels.
Like, let's at least get everybody to stop eating the shit sandwiches before we get all kinds of complicated about nutrition.
And that's, you know, my particular perspective.
You know, we still live in a world where 40% of Egyptians after 6,000 years of statism live on $2 or less a day.
So we have some work to do before we have to worry about all of the complications of positive virtues.
And so, I know, I ask the question, sort of, what is virtue?
And I think that if I were to try and sum up virtue, I think that...
I've said that the first virtue is honesty, and I think that's true.
I still don't think that's true, but I think that virtue is more defined by justice.
I think justice. I remember many, many, many years ago.
My goodness. Let's see.
I was working as a teacher's assistant in a daycare.
I was still in high school.
So I was 16 or 17 years old.
So this is almost 30 years ago.
I just thought about this last night.
It was like 30 years. Dear God.
Massive time sphincter contraction.
But I was listening to a boy, and if anybody knows who this was, if you ever heard this, I'd really appreciate it.
It was a libertarian guy who was giving a speech.
I was listening to it on tape. I can't remember.
I think I may have picked it up at some libertarian conference or something, maybe borrowed it from a friend.
But he was saying that, you know, what do we owe our parents?
And it was sort of his argument.
And I won't go into the whole complexity of the argument, though it did leave a strong impression on me at the time.
As most libertarian arguments about families, Rands and Rothbard in particular, have left strong impressions on me, particularly the voluntary nature of adult relationships within or without the family.
But he said, well, you know, we owe our parents justice, I think, which means if they've treated as well, then I think that we owe them some sort of respect and some sort of love and You know, that that's just coin for what they have provided.
I think that's completely fair and reasonable.
I don't really like to think of it as something you owe, but I can certainly see that whatever quarrels I might have with the terminology, the sentiment, I think is good.
Well, there's a proof, eh? I think the sentiment is good.
So everybody should agree with me now.
But he said also, of course, if they've treated us badly or they've been abusive or whatever, then we, you know, we owe them the natural, quote, payment for that kind of behavior, which is certainly not respect and love.
So, you know, we owe our parents justice.
And I think justice is really the definition of virtue, right?
So let's roll through a couple of examples.
Justice is a rational, empirical, unsentimental evaluation of a transaction or interaction.
I know that's a bunch of negatives, but let me sort of say, sorry.
Let me just sort of say what I mean by that, and hopefully it makes some sort of sense.
So, you know, let's go back to our favorite iPad example, eBay.
You send me 500 bucks, well, I send you an iPad.
Well, justice is to send you the iPad if you send me the money.
Justice is not to send you the iPad if you don't send me the money.
Because that is a fair and unsentimental evaluation of the interaction.
It's empirical in that it is, you know, the 500 bucks is either there or it's not.
The iPad is either delivered or it's not.
And so that is justice when it comes to that.
If somebody cheats me on eBay and I downgrade their ratings, then that to me is a fair and true and accurate Evaluation of the interaction.
Now, you see this interaction. This is what I keep talking about.
This is what I was talking about in the last show, about how virtue is relational, which does not mean subjective.
And so justice, I think, is really the essence of virtue.
And justice, in many ways, is a form of universalization.
And justice, I mean, the opposite of justice, to me, is always hypocrisy, right?
So if...
If I, I don't know, like I hit my wife because I'm bigger, right?
And then she works out, gets really strong, and I don't know, I get fat and weak or whatever.
And then now she's stronger than me, so she hits me, and I'm like, well, that's terrible.
That's horrible. You know, that's horrible behavior, right?
Well, um... That's hypocrisy, right?
Because I've got a standard that when it's universally applied, in other words, it bounces back to me.
I've got a standard which I claim is very good, and then when it bounces back on me to my negative advantage, or my disadvantage, I say now that that standard is really bad.
And that, to me, is hypocrisy.
It's the same hypocrisy of governments having laws against stealing, right?
I mean, that they pay for through theft of taxation.
This is terrible hypocrisy.
And hypocrisy is the opposite of justice, because justice is a fair and rational evaluation of the interaction, right?
So, with regards to the state, okay, so the state points guns at you and tells you to give money, or it's going to kidnap you and throw you in a Okay, so that is the unsentimental, unmythological evaluation of the facts, of the truth, of the reason and evidence of the interaction.
And so, am I going to stand when the national anthem is played with a hand on my heart and a tear in my eye?
Well, no, of course not, because I get...
I'm unsentimentally evaluating the truth of the relationship, of the interaction.
And, of course, when you point this out, then people get very upset, because the greatest theft is mythology, it's not force, because force is always shrouded in mythology when it is at its most effective in the realm of religion and in the realm of the state.
So, justice, or the clear-eyed, unsentimental, reason-and-evidence-based, empirical understanding or acceptance of a particular interaction or relationship, justice is very much, I think, the definition of virtue, right?
So, if someone cheats you, I've used this example, not in this series, but in the past.
So someone steals your bike, and then you get a chance to steal it back.
Well, stealing is wrong, but you're stealing your bike back.
You know, assuming you know for sure it's euros and blah blah blah.
Well, then you steal your bike back.
You take the bike without permission.
That's not on your property, because it is, in fact, your bike.
So, that is a clear-eyed evaluation of the situation.
An excess of virtue, so to speak, would be to say, well, I'm not going to take something without permission, so I'm not going to steal my bike back.
Well, that to me would not be particularly rational.
Or helpful. I mean, you could always choose not to take your bike back, of course, but let's, you know, to pretend that it would be a virtue.
You could say, well, I'm afraid the big guy who stole it is going to see me and beat me up.
Well, that's fine. Then you can leave your bike there.
But again, that's a fair and rational and sentimental approach.
But if you are afraid to steal your bike back and then you say, well, but I have too much respect for property to steal my bike back, that, of course, I mean, it's a silly example, right?
But that would be hypocritical, right?
Because it would be a false and dishonest Reporting of the interaction or of what was being experienced that would have you not steal the bike back.
So Justice is, I think, composed of a number of things.
Obviously, it has to be a clear-eyed, non-sentimental view of the situation, right?
And it's empirical, right?
So, gun in room, taxation is theft, and so on, right?
That's the basics of it.
And to layer on, well, it's a social contract, and I get to vote, all of that just becomes hypocritical, because you're claiming universal values that are in no way, shape, or form universal, and it's completely obvious that they're not universal, but that's the story that is being told.
Not everyone gets to make a social contract, and you don't get to vote for everyone and everything, and not everyone gets to have the powers that politicians do.
So that's an example to me of, you know, a sentimental mythology that is designed to drape hypocrisy in a form of quasi-justice.
Ooh, there's a sentence for you. Enjoy that one in slow motion if you like.
So that's the first component of justice.
I think the second component of justice is to recognize that it is most often a form of cowardice to pretend to have higher values than those you're interacting with.
To pretend to have more integrity than those you're interacting with.
That is a form of exploitation and a form of cowardice.
As I've always cancelled, and I think there's really good reasons for this, as I've always cancelled, it's very important to not hold yourself to higher standards than those you're interacting with.
That is a form of exploitation for sure, and that is pretty wretched.
So I think justice, also, in terms of like a clear-eyed view of the truth and reality of the interaction, is that if you are working a whole lot harder than those you're working with, then you're being exploited.
And, I mean, you may choose to do that for certain reasons, and maybe certain practical considerations behind that, but, you know, to pretend to yourself that it's anything other than exploitation that you may have some good reason for is, I think, quite foolish.
So I think that's another very, very important aspect of justice.
And all of these things are focused around virtue.
In virtue, in many ways, it's just a form of realism and a form of self-protection and a way of ferreting out and rooting out exploitation and exploiters and either hoping to reform the exploiters or getting them out of your life.
So I hope that that makes some sense, that honesty is the first virtue, but virtue in itself is basically defined by justice, by affair dealings and retribution where necessary, and also restitution where you've done wrong.
▲
Export Selection