Naturalness and Selflessness of Virtues - Essay Example

One may want to shop because of the products in concern or the emotional satisfaction, or both. One might want to cook to appease hunger or gain compliments from a spouse or save money that would have been spent ordering food. In keeping with this cause-effect relationship, it does seem very easy to advocate that yes, we only do what we want to do.

There is a complication, however, which might also be considered an exception; fear. One may also do an act out of fear of the consequences if it were not done. For instance, an all too common phenomenon is thousands of people trudging to their workplaces daily out of fear of being fired or the fear of their wages being cut, or fear of awaiting bills. One may cook at home, continuing from the above example, also out of fear of extra calories or germs that outside food may contain. In such cases, strictly speaking, the individual does not want to act, but does so since not performing the act would result in an unpleasant situation.

Another consideration when attempting to figure out whether we do only what we want to do is the conflict between rationale and emotion. As Hume states, “Nothing is more usual in philosophy, and even in common life, than to talk of the combat of passion and reason.” The concept of what one wants to do then, would fit into the realm of passion or emotion rather than logic or reason. Hume emphasizes that reason alone can never be a motive for any action, nor can it oppose action in the direction of the will. The reason is simply the discovery of the link between a driving emotion and its eventual desired consequences. (Hume, 1882) It is the knowledge of the fact that a particular thing is desired and will be achieved if acted upon in a particular manner. Thus, if reason figures only as a connection and not a cause of action, and emotions translate as ‘want to do’, it is easily concluded that eventually we only do what we want to do.

In any case, whatever the source of action, the individual’s primary concern is a selfish one. Whether an action is performed to create a pleasant consequence or to avoid an unpleasant situation, the basic driving force is a self-centered one. This brings us to the second part of the essay – whether there exist any natural virtues, which do not depend upon consequences or convenience, but yet instigate one to act in a particular manner. Strict empirical scientists would say no; it does not make logical sense for people to utilize their energies and resources without any benefit. Furthermore, it goes contrary to the survival instinct which pushes one to behave to obtain maximum advantages. Added, such behavior, which social scientists now recognize as altruism, if engaged in often enough and by too many people, would completely overhaul the wheels of societies and economies that are governed by gain-oriented cause-effect relationships.

James Fieser emphasizes that natural virtues, (which include benevolence, meekness, charity, and generosity) “are instinctive character traits of the agent which give rise to passions which in turn motivate the will to action.” (Fieser, 1997)  Artificial virtues, which are learned or developed include justice, keeping promises, allegiance, and chastity, and are evident to different degrees in different people, as Hume professes. Since natural virtues are instinctive, they would also be common to all humankind, irrespective of nationality, sex, race, education, socio-economic status, and other factors. They are different from instincts like hunger or thirst by the attribute of being other-centric rather than self-centric.

Keeping the above distinctions and definitions in mind, we proceed to understand whether there exist any natural virtues. Certainly, there do exist men and women who are meek, benevolent, charitable, and generous; the question is how natural, instinctive, and other-centered are these traits in them. Further, if these traits are natural i.e. instinctive, why aren’t more people displaying such qualities?

I believe that the traits which Hume classified as natural are not instinctive at all – instead, the selfish need for self-preservation is what has guaranteed human existence all through the ages. This applies not only to several hundred years back when existence was threatened by nature and fellow humans both, but even in our contemporary competitive world. Of course, at some stage, the need for cooperation and peaceful coexistence was recognized and followed, however – and this is important – cooperation is practiced not out of benevolence and generosity, but because of the self-centered need of a prosperous existence.

Added, at a more individual level, although people who practice generosity and charity do eventually benefit others, however, it would be incorrect to state that there is no personal gain at all. These people may be giving material things to others, however, they do simultaneously satisfy an important emotional need – that of being liked, being considered large-hearted, and not only other people’s opinions but also their own. At some level, such acts make a person like himself or herself more and create a feel-good effect, which again points to a self-centered emotional gain.

Hence, although the virtues described as ‘natural’ do exist, their naturalness and selflessness are greatly debatable.