More on virtue and college life

Okay, so I am glad we are applying Aristotle and Virtue Ethics to such relevant issues. I was surprised to hear so much skepticism that collegians could not go a week without getting drunk. I doubt that this is true, except for those who are predisposed to alcoholism.

Anyway, let me broaden the issue some. MSNBC just reported on a study of college students that is leading some to use the term "Generation Me." It involves a massive survey done (not by Beck, unfortunately) by 5 psychologists. It involved 16,475 college students,

I want to get a discussion going on this survey. I'm not sure how I see the matter, but all of you, without being defensive toward the article, can react and give suggestions. So read it here and then post comments.

The study uses the word narcissim a lot. For the roots of that word, see post below...

Narcissism

It begins with the Greek legend about Narcissus, a young man who as a punishment from the gods is doomed to become obsessed with and fall in love with his own reflection, which he constantly gazes upon in the water. Thus the term refers to an excessive self-admiration. Not that we should not love and respect ourselves. But if we come to think that our life is really just about me, then we risk Narcissism and, more importantly, we risk losing true eudaimonia.

Virtue and Alcohol

To follow up on class discussion about how one might use virtue ethics to guide campus drinking rules, I went and found the '99 Harvard study on campus drinking. The study can be read here. It reports that 44% of U.S. college students engaged in binge drinking during the two weeks before the survey. Now, as some said "let bringers just face their own consequences." Problem is, often drinking affects others. When asked about effects of another's drinking....

71% had sleep or study interrupted
23% had a serious argument

57% had to take care of an intoxicated student
16% had property damaged

36% had been insulted or humiliated
11% had been pushed, hit or assaulted

23% had experienced an unwanted sexual encounter
1% had been the victim of a sexual advance, assault or "date rape"

So, what are some thoughts here? Surely it is not a fact, is it, that college just means irresponsible drinking, right?

Radical Stuff

So today in Catholic Social Teaching class we discussed that often ignored principle of "the universal destination of goods." This is not feel-good pity, but a theological claim of the Church. The Compendium, after making the point that God intends the earth's resources for all, and not just the wealthy, goes so far as to say this: "All other rights, whatever they are, including property rights and the right of free trade, must be subordinated to this norm [the unviversal destination of goods."

This reminded me of the quote by St. Basil the Great (329-379)

“The bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry man; the coat hanging unused in your closet belongs to the man who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the man who has no shoes; the money which you put in the bank belongs to the poor. You do wrong to everyone you could help but fail to help.”

What to make of all this... I had forgotten the money in the bank part. Whoa! Should disciples of Christ back down from this claim and get on the unfettered capitalist train, saying that the right to private property trumps universal destination of goods? Is there a "golden mean" on this issue? Are there small ways we can work against inequity, or is it a lost cause?

Accessing Aristotle

He lived a long time ago, and as those in my Philo class know, it is not easy to "translate" him into modern ethical dilemmas. We want answers, what to do in situation x or in case y. But the big A is not always interested in this. So the question is (literally, for my students doing their essay this weekend) does Aristotle give a sufficient "action-guiding" approach to ethics? Or, as one student put it, is it simply a focus on how to become "virtuous" but that what "virtuous" means will vary from person to person? If so, this would be a form of moral relativism. But scholars of Aristotle resist that charge. They say that he does define virtue, and that while he gives no rule like the "categorical imperative" of Kant to apply in every case, Aristotle does provide an approach to making all of our decisions. So let's get into this here for a moment, so we all can shed some more light on the questions.

Some key quotes (on pg. 414-415) show that Aristotle admits that "scientific exactitude is impossible in treating particular ethical cases." Do you agree? A also says that if we use "right reason" we can achieve "a sketch" of what good conduct looks like. So in the particular cases that people face everyday, like....

-should we stop the feeding tube for our comatose and elderly mother?
-how much alcohol should I drink, if at all?
-how much money should I keep in the bank and how much give away?
-should my partner and I have sex?
-will I be honest with a friend who needs to be challenged?

...one has to use reasoning to show one course of action is better. And how do we judge "better." Well, by which action is more in accord with the virtues. We start asking questions about how this or that virtue would be present in a course of action. It may not be math or offer a quick answer, but it would sure frame the right questions to ask ourselves.

Now, the Big Point of Aristotle is that the only way to really have wisdom (phronesis) on these matters is through formation and training (askesis) in good habits. This is why for A education is so key: people have to be trained to recognize the true, the good, the beautiful. Part of this is objective (a sunflower just IS more beautiful than a weed) but without training, A said, a person (or even a culture!) can get warped into confusing what is false for what is true.

The next biggest point of Aristotle is that the life of virtue and arete (excellence) is necessary for true eudaimonia (happiness, human flourishing). So here too we have some help in deciding how to handle particular cases. Act in such a way that we flourish and are happy. Now, the text gives many quotes as to how this is not some superficial happiness, but deep and profound happiness. So what the Big A is doing here is (in my view) brilliantly getting us to include deep happiness in discussions about mundane, everyday choices. It makes us take the long view, not just looking at "what works" or "what feels good" or "what must be done." Rather, what actions will help us realize our true end (telos) as human beings. That, says A, is what it's all about.


One last point: we still have to look at the question of pluralism. Different cultures have different accounts of virtue, even different accoutns of what it means to be happy. Let me share a story:

Each year on the Ghana trip we get to know the Holy Cross Bros. Well. last year one of them had just returned from a trip to a funeral in the northern region of Ghana. He told me he had traveled there with his mom. I asked, "who died?" "My father's wife," he responded. Uh, what? "Oh yes, Mike Kofi (my name there), my father had three wives, and it is a sign of respect and virtue that when a wife dies the others attend."

Okay, so very different notion of virtue here. Does that mean that virtue is relative? Well yes and no. What it mostly means is that particular practices (we could compile a long list, involving behavior in the area of sexuality, money, food, religion, friendship, killing, work...) take their meaning from a cultural context.

Perhaps it looks like this:

-Some principles seem to be basically objective and universal (respect for elders, aid to the poor, dignity of marriage, care for children).

-The practices that apply those principles vary, according to the moral traditions in the community of which one is a part.

-The virtues that result from being trained in those practices thus also vary some, according to the community.

-Whether an action is "moral" depends on how it relates to all of these: the universal principles, the community's practices, the shared notion of virtue.

Thus, for Virtue Ethics, a lot depends on the community. What is going on now is that the notion of "community" and "tradition" have broken down, and people are left to wonder: "Is there such a thing as 'right' and 'wrong'?" Since there is no scientific, objective agreement "out there", they say "No, morality is all just a matter of opinion."

But they say this because we have largely lost one of the above mentioned three pillars of Virtue Ethics: the moral tradition of a community. Maybe this is why some say Aristotle is not "objective" enough and that all he can give is "a sketch." I mean, he WAS part of a community that had traditions and practices; there was a consensus about what virtue was, or at least a common set of terms to debate it. Now, we lack that; everyone has different assumptions. We mainly try to "go it alone" in ethics.

And this, in my view, is why deontology and (esp) utilitarianism are so popular. They give ME a way to figure things out. But what gets lost in this is a shared sense of virtue and happiness that I simply cannot find alone. To find such meaning, at least according to Aristotle, we need communitty and tradition. It is a kind of midpoint, a "Golden Mean" if you will, between individualism on one hand and total world-agreement on the other. Okay, so those are some thoughts that I hope help frame the discussion.