A Discussion of Mark O’Keefe’s Virtues Abounding “Introduction”
I am reading Virtues Abounding to understand the importance of each of us developing virtues for our economy, and overall society, to function at its best. That is, many of the critiques of capitalism are really stemming from character flaws in the people practicing capitalism and would still be there under any other system.
I have heard of virtues over the years but never really had them presented formally as they are in this book. Aesop’s Fables and fairy tales were about as clear of a presentation as I got of virtuous behavior.
During my chapter review of Dierdre McCloskey’s Bourgeois Equality, she laid out the 7 virtues. The four cardinal virtues are courage, prudence, justice and temperance. The three Christian, or theological, virtues are love, faith and hope.
She posited that Adam Smith was one of the last virtue ethicists before that school of ethics fell out of favor, which causes us today to misread Smith.
She said much of our ethical systems today fit into Kant’s focus on motivations or Bentham’s focus on consequences.
While they have different answers for what is ethical behavior, both of those apply a rule to answer moral questions. You can wrestle with some of these issues with the trolley problem that had its viral moment not too long ago though it dates back to a 1967 article.
Virtue ethics, however, does not rely on rules when faced with moral dilemmas.
But in a society in which there seems to be so little agreement about rules and actions that can be seen as right and wrong, a turn to virtues makes sense. Even if we can’t agree about rules, most of us surely can agree on fundamental attitudes and dispositions that would characterize a morally good person. We can all agree that every person should strive to have enduring characteristics like being honest, just, prudent, courageous when necessary, and balanced. (p. viii)
O’Keefe notes we may not all agree on the specific action each person may take in a situation to live up to those virtues, but that we could at least agree that these virtues could define “good moral living in a good society.” (p. viii)
So how do we come up with this list? Fortunately, this discussion has been ongoing since the days of Aristotle.
O’Keefe is relying on the works of St. Thomas Aquinas who synthesized the Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology in his book, Summary of Theology.
…[Aquinas] tells us that the virtues are the essential dispositions or abiding attitudes that move us to act rightly. But the sheer volume of his reflections on the virtues demonstrates that he is more concerned with the abiding tendencies that must mark the truly good human person than he is with either law or particular actions. In contemporary moral terms, we say that he is more concerned with the kinds of people that we are (our moral character, our “being”) than with the specific actions that we perform (“doing”). (p. viii)
Aquinas teaches that there are the seven theological and cardinal virtues as mentioned above in McCloskey’s work. O’Keefe explains that cardinal comes from a word that means “hinge.” (p. x) That is, other virtues can hinge from these four.
To develop the virtue of courage, for example, will also require developing subsidiary virtues like confidence, endurance, patience, and perseverance.
O’Keefe is going to start with the cardinal virtues and then discuss the theological virtues, the reverse of Aquinas’ approach. Aquinas saw the theological virtues as ones given to us by God, and the cardinal virtues as ones we need to develop through our own efforts.
This book focuses our attention on the cardinal virtues that guide our moral lives…in the hope of arriving at a clearer understanding of them. In fact, we live in a pluralistic society in which an understanding of the natural virtues is what we can reasonably hope to share with those around us. It is important then to be able to appreciate these virtues on their own terms (even knowing that, without what faith offers, we do not yet have a complete picture.) (p. x)
An interesting point O’Keefe is making since the mention of Christian virtues, or the less polarizing term, theological virtues, could activate defensiveness in our pluralistic society. However, it reminds me of a criticism McCloskey had of Smith’s attempt to maneuver around the theological virtues.
He wanted to be a part of the Enlightenment that enshrined reason over religion. In part motivated by the horrors that had happened in the name of religion, he wanted an ethics without God.
However, it would have been better to demand religion live up to the theological virtues of love, faith and hope than to throw God out. Without God, or a higher power, there is no source of right and wrong, which is increasingly the world we live in today.
It would seem then O’Keefe is potentially flirting with that same outcome, but he will address the theological virtues in his final chapter after devoting a chapter to each of the cardinal virtues.
One last note on O’Keefe’s approach for which I am glad is the simplification of Aquinas’s presentation.
It must be noted that Aquinas’s thought is extraordinary for his breadth and for its detail and precision. He wrote in a different time — in a different language but also in a largely different philosophical and theological world. For contemporary readers, his writings can be difficult to understand, and his tendency to divide, subdivide, and draw multiple lines of thinking into a comprehensive whole can be maddening (even when he is most insightful in doing so.) (p. xi)
O’Keefe then will cite the volume, section and question that he is pulling from for anyone interested in finding the original source material. I appreciate that option while even more appreciating the translation, as a “contemporary reader.”
We will examine what comprises a virtuous life in the first chapter and then explore each cardinal virtue in depth in the following chapters.
Reference: O’Keefe, Mark, 2014. “Introduction,” Virtues Abounding, Cascade Books.
