On the Nature of Virtue

What is Virtue?

EZEKIEL: What is virtue?

BARTHOLOMEW is surprised. He pulls out his phone and searches for the definition.

BARTHOLOMEW: Behavior showing high moral standards.

EZEKIEL: Well, surely it’s more than that, right? Virtue is just the way we act?

BARTHOLOMEW: Maybe not–I have heard it said that “patience is a virtue.”

EZEKIEL: So virtue isn’t just another character trait or method of action. It’s gotta transcend that somehow.

BARTHOLOMEW: Maybe it’s a set. Like a group of traits that are…

EZEKIEL: No, no. It can’t just be a set. It just seems like a reduction of the… perceived value of the idea to

call it only a set. Even then, would the things in the set be defined by what virtue is, or would virtue just be

the sum of what’s in the set?

BARTHOLOMEW: It has to be the first. How could we know what to put in the set if the set itself were

defined by its contents?

EZEKIEL: True.

BARTHOLOMEW: So… all we know is that virtue is defined in itself, and that it has to be more than just a

set of things.

What is Goodness?

EZEKIEL: Virtue is that which is good.

BARTHOLOMEW: Alright. Then what distinguishes good from virtue?

EZEKIEL: Well goodness is the… untouchable standard by which all men strive to abide. And when this

standard is adhered to, it results in the flourishing of all.BARTHOLOMEW: And virtue?

JOSUHA: Virtue must be a descriptor ascribed to that which approaches or resembles goodness.

BARTHOLOMEW: Makes sense. That’s why you can call both a man virtuous, and something as abstract as

patience a virtue.

EZEKIEL: Yes. But if virtue is that which approaches goodness, then what is goodness? Besides just a

standard of action.

BARTHOLOMEW: Well, goodness is just… goodness. I don’t know. How about that which is morally right?

EZEKIEL: You know what I’m going to ask. What is morally right… I suppose what is morally right is what

benefits the most people at the lowest cost.

BARTHOLOMEW: Really?

EZEKIEL: Yeah.

BEAT

BARTHOLOMEW: Do you suppose this would be morally right? You’re standing on a bridge next to a very

fat man. A train barrels along the track under the bridge toward five unknowing workers. Realizing that you

have the option to save five at the cost of one, you push the fat man off of the bridge, stopping the train and

saving the workers.

EZEKIEL: Something about that doesn’t sit right with me.

BARTHOLOMEW: Well yes, you have saved five at the cost of one earthly body. But you’ve also sacrificed

something else. Something of infinite value. Your soul… your clean conscience.

EZEKIEL: So what, am I to let the five perish?

BARTHOLOMEW: Maybe the answer is to throw oneself off of the bridge.

EZEKIEL: I guess the metaphor breaks down a bit there.

BARTHOLOMEW: You get the point.

EZEKIEL: So ultimately, you still save five at the cost of one, but the soul is not tainted.BARTHOLOMEW: Yes, that’s right.

EZEKIEL: So that means that what is morally good is not only what benefits the most at the least cost, but it

also must not taint the soul, which is the ultimate cost.

Taint the Soul

BARTHOLOMEW: True…. What exactly do we mean by “taint the soul?”

EZEKIEL: Somehow, I feel like we just know when something does.

BARTHOLOMEW: Maybe… it’s not something purely intellectual. The soul yearns to be untainted. It pokes

and prods at us, does it not?

EZEKIEL: You mean guilt?

BARTHOLOMEW: Yes, guilt. And regret. And anger and sadness when others taint their own souls.

EZEKIEL: How can I be sure that what your soul longs for is the same as what mine longs for?

BARTHOLOMEW: It’s got to be that way, no?

EZEKIEL: I suppose it must.

BARTHOLOMEW: Yes, otherwise, we would have many more people who truly believed in things opposed

to what others believed.

EZEKIEL: But people in politics are always opposed to each other's ideas?

BARTHOLOMEW: What is politics but the collective striving for man to create an optimal society?

EZEKIEL: That’s true. And I guess no one wants an “optimal society” that consists of child sacrifice or

stealing or murder.

BARTHOLOMEW: Well, I’m actually not so sure about that. Take the Aztecs. Didn’t they sacrifice

themselves and eat each other to keep the sun in motion?

EZEKIEL: Yes. That’s kind of tricky.

What is the Natural State of Man?

EZEKIEL: What is the natural state of man? Virtuous or not?

BARTHOLOMEW: I think man is virtuous by nature.

EZEKIEL: So do you reckon that you are a virtuous man?

BEAT

BARTHOLOMEW: Well, if you put it like that… I’d say that I’m in pursuit of virtue.

EZEKIEL: Ah. Would a virtuous man need to pursue virtue?

BARTHOLOMEW: I suppose not. If it were the natural state of man to be virtuous, it would only be natural

to act virtuously.

EZEKIEL: Precisely. So man is by nature not virtuous, but in pursuit of it.

BARTHOLOMEW: So of course it would be natural for some, or many, or all, to fall short of being virtuous.

EZEKIEL: Hence, societies like the Aztecs.

BARTHOLOMEW: Mm.

Universal Morality

EZEKIEL: How could it be the case that man collectively strives for the same goal? We don’t really

communicate our values and morals to each other, yet we seem to know what each other wants.

BARTHOLOMEW: It has to be that the origin of morality is outside of ourselves. And it must be a rigid

standard.

EZEKIEL: But couldn’t the origins be individual, if they just all happened to be the same?

BARTHOLOMEW: Well, that’s just the result of an external standard, is it not?

EZEKIEL: I suppose so. Well actually, you’re right. If it truly were up to us, we’d all pick standards

differently I think. The only way for it to be universal is either an extremely improbable coincidence, an

external, eternal standard.BARTHOLOMEW: Whence does the standard come?

EZEKIEL: That’s the burning question, I guess.

BEAT

BARTHOLOMEW: God?

EZEKIEL: What is God?

BARTHOLOMEW: If God is the standard, then he must be good. He must be willing to save five at the cost

of one. At the cost of himself.

EZEKIEL: What is love but the sacrifice of self in service of someone or something else?

Love

BARTHOLOMEW: So God is…

EZEKIEL: Love.

BARTHOLOMEW: And to love is virtuous. Virtue ultimately approaches love, which is goodness. And

acting in love is always morally right.

EZEKIEL: In that case, I think that saving many, or even one, at the cost of oneself–to put others first–does

not leave the soul untainted. It does taint it. With a spark of an eternal good. With a glimpse of real purpose.

The soul yearns to love.

BARTHOLOMEW begins fiddling with a pencil.

BARTHOLOMEW: People have been writing about love since the dawn of time. In some sense, love is an

idea that transcends time, space, and physical reality. And our idea of it has remained largely unchanged.

EZEKIEL: Maybe love is more real than things we can see and hear and feel.

BARTHOLOMEW: Interesting. How come?

EZEKIEL: Would you bet your life on that pencil’s existence?

BARTHOLOMEW: I don’t think so.EZEKIEL: Would you bet your life on the fact that you have experienced love?

BARTHOLOMEW: Yes. But how can we be sure that love isn’t just the result of material, chemical

processes in the brain?

EZEKIEL: How can we reduce the layers of complexity, sincerity, and connection that culminate in our love

for others to just biological processes? Isn’t it illogical and against self-preservation to sacrifice yourself to

save someone else?

BARTHOLOMEW: I guess. But I still think that it could just be neurons firing and chemicals reacting in

your brain.

EZEKIEL: Have you ever loved anyone?

BARTHOLOMEW: Yeah.

EZEKIEL: What does it feel like?

BARTHOLOMEW: It doesn’t really feel like anything else I can put words to.

EZEKIEL: It feels almost like your entire body and soul and mind are… towards that person, right?

BARTHOLOMEW: Yeah.

EZEKIEL: You think that’s just chemicals and stuff? Really.

BARTHOLOMEW: No, I guess not. It’s too visceral.

EZEKIEL: Exactly. Why do people do irrational things for love?

BARTHOLOMEW: It’s a conflict of reason and intellect with… something else.

EZEKIEL: So there is something else.

BARTHOLOMEW: A raw desire.

EZEKIEL: Something like that. It’s only a conflict of reason and intellect with that desire if those two are

based on preservation of self.BARTHOLOMEW: Right. If you approach reason and intellect from some other angle, then it could be

ultimately logical and reasonable to give your own life for someone else.

EZEKIEL: So reason, intellect, virtue, and morality all converge and point to something else, something

ultimate, to be defined themselves.

BARTHOLOMEW: It’s got to be love, right?

EZEKIEL: Yeah I think so. I’m tired. Let’s define love and be done.

BARTHOLOMEW: Alright.

EZEKIEL: Complete mental and physical devotion toward the wellbeing of another?

BARTHOLOMEW: Even to the ultimate point of sacrifice of self.

BEAT

EZEKIEL: Have you heard of Jesus Christ?

END