(February 25, 2013 at 11:24 am)ChadWooters Wrote: You might find it helpful to distinguish between what is "good" and "virtue." In so doing you can talk about what those desired ends that are beneficial to civil society and contribute to the well being of the self and those we love. These things we can call goods, things like health, wealth, and happiness. And if one is so inclined you can extend this idea to a Platonic highest good or "The Good".
With respect to virtue, I prefer Aristotle's "Golden Mean" in which one seeks to maintain an ideal level of a certain character trait. The example he uses is courage. A lack of courage is cowardice, but and excess of courage is foolhardiness. This idea can be extended to other character traits like generosity. While a lack of generosity is stinginess, its excess can also be harmful both to self (if you make yourself and your family poor) or to others (if your support enables others to continue destructive habits).
A distinction is unnecessary if you notice the rational connection between the two. As you know, I reject the idea of highest/absolute/Platonic good or "The Good". The term implies a judgement and is therefore not applicable in any absolute sense. Even the "good" you mentioned - health, wealth and happiness - are considered good in so far as they continue to serve a particular purpose. The purpose of morality is to tell you how to live your life - therefore, a "good" moral theory (as in, not morally good moral theory, but one that is in accordance with the principles and purposes of morality), would tell you how to maximize the quality and quantity of your life. Therefore, to the extent that health, wealth and happiness contribute towards that, they' be considered good by that moral theory and when they start detracting from it, they'd be considered bad.
Virtue, then, refers to a character trait that helps you achieve that 'good'. The same way that nothing can be considered good in an absolute sense, there would be no absolute or universal virtues. Given the mutable nature of reality, there wouldn't be an ideal level of virtue - a golden mean - but which trait is considered virtuous or not would depend on the time and place, i.e. its applicability towards the 'good'.
