In the Essay Virtue and Reason, by John McDowell, McDowell argues in favor of Neo-Aristotelian Virtue ethics. McDowell’s conclusion to this paper is: “But the thesis of uncodifiability excludes a head-on approach to the question whose urgency gives ethics its interest. Occasion by occasion, one knows what to do, if one does, not by applying universal principles but by being a certain kind of person: one who sees a situation in a certain distinctive way. And there is no dislodging, from the central position they occupy in the ethical reflection of Plato and Aristotle, questions about the nature and (hardly discussed in this paper) the acquisition of virtues” (McDowell P347). What this is saying that the actions a virtuous person takes is not codifiable. There are not universal principles that one can apply to every situation because all situations are unique and there will always be times where there is an exception to what should be done according to the principle. The virtuous person knows what to do not by following a code of conduct, such as Platonic numerology, or a code of conduct that one could say applies to all situations. One knows how to be virtuous by the possession of concepts and sensitivities that are understood by the virtuous person, and they know how to apply them in all situations (McDowell P 333). McDowell also goes on to explain that the virtuous person does not have individual sensitivities, but an understanding of all these concepts in a universal way that allows them to be a virtuous person in every circumstance.
As Rosalind Hursthouse states in What does the Aristotelian Phronimos Know?, which is a reinforcement of McDowell’s essay, the Phronimos is the peripatetic that has Phronesis. Phronesis is informed judgement or practical reasoning according to Hursthouse (Hursthouse P38). The Phronimos is the practically wise person according to Hursthouse, and Hursthouse reinforces the argument that virtue is not codifiable.
One of the things that McDowell points out in his essay is how we all do things to avoid a “vertigo.” McDowell gives Stanley Cavell credit on the definition of what this vertigo is. McDowell explains how the avoidance of this vertigo is nothing but the fact that humans, when they interact with each other, agree on universal concepts (McDowell P339), and McDowell goes on to explain that there is nothing that will ensure that this will happen. We all agree on universal principles and concepts so we can continue to communicate and interact with each other and achieve things: “induced by the thought that there is nothing but shared forms of life to keep us, as it were, on the rails” (McDowell P339). What McDowell is saying here is that we want some type of stability. That is what staying on the rails is about and the shared forms of life is the humanity in us all. But if we did not agree on these universal concepts then there would be no stability, and it is a concept that is both simple and almost impossible to grasp as McDowell explains. If we do not agree on universals, that only have meaning because we say they do, we would not really be able to achieve anything, and that is why: “we recoil from the vertigo into the idea that we are kept on the rails by our grasp of concepts” (McDowell P339).
Humanity has a desire for stability. Without a grasp of universal concepts there would be no stability; therefore, nothing but a vertigo. Humanity cannot live in a state of vertigo, so we agree on universal rational principles that allow us to have some type of stability. These universal rational principles are what the example Platonic Forms and the concept of Plato’s Good is. McDowell’s objection to the Platonic Forms and the Good, is that they do not truly exist. We just rely on them to avoid the vertigo, but this is what all belief systems do, and we do need to avoid the vertigo, so what is the difference if they truly exist or not, as long as they are the useful tool we need in our minds?
McDowell is an empiricist, and with empiricism the empirical world is explored through falsifiability. In the essay Theology & Falsification: A Symposium, which was written by A Flew, R M Hare, and B Mitchell,Flew is arguing against theism, and both Hare and Mitchell are arguing in favor of theism. This is an amazing essay because it was shown through this essay that even scientists use faith. We all have our “bliks.” Bliks is the word that Hare famously created for this essay. “We no longer believe in God as an Atlas—nous n’avons pas besoin de cette hypotheses. But it is nevertheless true to say that, as Hume saw, without a blik there can be no explanation; for it is by our bliks that we decide what is and what is not an explanation” (Hare P4). What a blik is meant to mean is a set of fundamental assumptions that fundamentally make explanations possible, and what Hare is stating in his response to Flew in this passage, is that we all have faith, because that is all our assumptions are, nothing but articles of faith. If you believe in God or not, we all have them, and they are these bliks that are necessary for avoiding the vertigo that McDowell was stating that we all want to avoid, and that is what the Platonic Forms and the Platonic Good is. It is a blik, which a set of fundamental assumptions that fundamentally make explanations possible, and this is something that both science and religion are guilty of in order to avoid this vertigo that McDowell is pointing out.
In The Philosophy of Space and Time, by Hans Reichenbach, Reichenbach goes on to explain how Einstein made the assumption that the speed of light remains constant for all observers. Reichenbach explains in this book that it is impossible to prove that the speed of light remains constant for all observers. So, no matter what we are doing, if it is about science or virtue, we all need our bliks, and the reason science is mentioned is because McDowell writes in the intro: “It is then natural to think of ethics as a branch of philosophy related to moral theory, so conceived, rather as the philosophy of science is related to science” (McDowell P331). We use the same deductive principles when exploring the philosophy of ethics as we do when we explore the philosophy of science, and both faith and falsifiability are used in both science and virtue.
We need to measure the consequences of the outcome, and that is what falsifiability does, and we all need our assumptions in order to take this first step that allows us to avoid this vertigo and to make progress in humanity. This is what the Platonic Forms and the Good do for us if we are a person who is willing to believe in them. They give us stability. They allow us to avoid the vertigo, and it is what all religions do for the people who are willing to accept their beliefs on articles of faith, truly understand those beliefs, and practice the concepts that their faiths bring to them in every situation they are confronted with.
Faith is a useful tool that everybody uses. Without faith there would be no progress in whatever we do. There would be no way to move forward. It is the consequences of those assumptions that are meant to bare the fruit, so science and religion have three things in common: they both give a reason, they both give an explanation, and they both require faith; this is because both are about the measurements of the consequences, which is what falsifiability is all about, and the way the virtuous person is deemed as virtuous is none other than the consequences of their actions and the behavior they express themselves. This is how we take someone as a true peripatetic who expresses Phronimos, and it is only by performing virtuous actions, according to both Hursthouse and McDowell, that anyone is taken as virtuous; therefore, those virtuous actions are the consequences.
In the essay The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts, by Iris Murdoch, Murdoch argues in favor of the Platonic Good. In fact, Murdoch argues in favor of all religions: “I think that the ordinary man, with the simple religious conceptions which make sense for him, has usually held a more just view of the matter than the voluntaristic philosopher, and a view incidentally which is in better accord with the finding of modern psychology. Religion normally emphasizes states of mind as well as actions, and regards states of mind as genetic background of action: pureness of heart, meekness of spirit. Religion provides devices for the needs, and can receive extra help. ‘Not I, but Christ.’ The real existence of such help is often used as an argument for the truth of religious doctrines” (Murdoch P83). In this quote Murdoch is arguing in favor of religions, and Murdoch is stating that the religious person, who understands their doctrine, has a better chance at being virtuous than even the philosopher who claims they are seeking virtue, for what their belief system demands of them in order for them to practice their faith is the pure heart and meek spirit, which is a requirement for all virtuous people. It is also saying that the religious person gets extra help in times of difficulty by relying on their creator: “Not I, but Christ” as the quote states. Being able to rely on a transcendental power allows people to be virtuous when some might think it is not possible, and this is why the average man of faith can express more virtue than the modern Neo-Kantian philosopher who is just pontificating.
Murdoch also makes the assumption in the beginning of this essay that there is no point to life; therefore, no God (Murdoch P79), but that does not keep him from stating that the people who have the beliefs in their God, existing or not, are still more virtuous than the Neo-Kantian Luscifer who only relies on ego and will alone (Murdoch P 80). Murdoch is making an appeal to the man of faith, and he admits that to try and argue in favor of their being a point to life is just as difficult as trying to argue no point to life, so he says he is just making the claim there is no point to life (Murdoch P79), and yet even with this claim that there is no point to life he shows in his essay that the person who has faith and a belief in some type of transcendent reality has a much better chance at expressing virtuous consequence than the man who relies on ego and will alone.
The person of faith is relying on something that may or may not exist, but yet that person gets all kinds of strength from that assumption or “blik:” “Not I, but Christ” (Murdoch P83), and one of the truly important observations that Murdoch points out in his essay is the selfishness and self-centeredness of mankind as a whole: “The human beings are naturally selfish seems true on the evidence, whenever and wherever we look at them, in spite of a very small number of apparent exceptions” (Murdoch P78). This is obvious to all that look at mankind, and it is this selfishness that all religions attempt to find a solution to. When both McDowell and Hursthouse were stating that human behavior is not codifiable when it comes to virtue, I do not think they were taking into account what the concept of prayer is meant to do for all those who are willing to say them on a daily basis and incorporate the meaning of those divine words into their life. To truly understand the words of prayer is where a solution for the selfishness of humanity can lie for those who seek it with a pure heart. Especially such a prayer as the Prayer of Saint Francis:
Lord make me a channel of thy peace,
Where there is hatred, I may bring love
Where there is wrong, I may bring the spirit of forgiveness
That where there is discord, I may bring harmony
That where there is error, I may bring truth
That where there is doubt, I may bring faith
That where there is despair, I may bring hope
That where there is shadow, I may bring light
That where there is sadness, I may bring joy
Lord grant that I may rather seek to comfort, than to be comforted
To understand, than to be understood
To love, than to be loved.
For it is by self-forgetting that one finds.
It is by forgiving that one is forgiven.
It is by dying that one awakens to Eternal Life. Amen
It is a prayer such as this that is the solution to that selfishness that Murdoch was stating is woven throughout all human behavior. Prayers such as this is a codifiable solution to the virtues that the noble seek. It is this prayer that I turn to whenever I am in doubt of what it is I should do, and those noble few that Murdoch mentioned that are throughout history all that we admire practice these types of principles; therefore, prayer in its essence is a codification of behavior. For this prayer shows us all that the solution to selfishness of human life is “by self-forgetting one finds,” and that is the selfishness that Murdoch was stating was the problem of humanity that is so obvious to all.
The main point of the Prayer of Saint Francis is what Murdoch states: “Here too we can see that love should be inseparable from justice, and clear vision from respect for the real” (Murdoch P91). This is what this prayer is claiming. That love and justice go hand in hand, and that true happiness and true virtue are about having a clear mind that seeks what love is. I published my first book A Viscious Cycle, and in that book I defined love as wanting the best for someone and taking the necessary steps to carry that out, and the true virtuous person takes that into consideration in each one of their actions. This is what Murdoch meant when he said “Not I, but Christ” (Murdoch P 83), for it is this prayer that completely reflects the concepts of the Law of Love that are held in Matthew, and it is the principles that are held in Matthew that Jesus clearly states are meant to be practiced in every situation throughout our lives, and these concepts draw a clear contrast to the Neo-Kantian Luscifer that Murdoch has such a problem with. For: “Kant abolished God and made man God in His stead” (Murdoch P80).
Now Murdoch was arguing in favor of the Platonic Good, which is of a feel of a Neoplatonic solution, and it is also when we take ourselves as this man God that Plotinus saw all our problems arise. Leon Robin in the book Greek Thought and the Origins of the Scientific Spirit writes how Plotinus, the founder of the Neoplatonic following stated: “After rising from the Ego to the One, I now find the Ego once more, and in that Ego the Infinite One if I wish, but if I turn from It to determine my own domain, and give myself the illusion of independence, then I become only a part isolated from the Whole and am truly reduced to slavery” (Robin P373). This quote is stating the same problem Murdoch has with the Neo-Kantian Luscifer. What this quote is saying is that when we look within ourselves, we go from ourselves to God. In ourselves we find God and are one with God. It is also this being one with God that is the same concept that Murdoch was stating “Not I but Christ” (Murdoch P83); which give us all kinds of strength to go forward in our world committing virtuous actions, which are the consequences we are judged by, so it is found in lots of different religious systems. But it is when we try to rely on our will alone, taking ourselves as some powerful ego driven man God, thinking we are separate from the Platonic One, or any other concept of God, that all our problems arise, and we are reduced to “slavery;” this is what happens with the Neo-Kantian Luscifer that Murdoch was saying was not half as virtuous as the person who is willing to believe in their religious faith. Relying on our will alone and taking ourselves as greater than we actually are keeps us from practicing humility and such concepts as the unconditional love that is reflected throughout the Prayer of Saint Francis, Matthew, Plotinus, Plato, and other mystic systems of belief.
When Murdoch writes about finding true morality in the Platonic Good he states: “One might say that true morality is a sort of unesoteric mysticism, having its source in an austere and unconsoled love of the Good” (Murdoch P92). What this is stating is that a person has to have a love of the Platonic Good, or God, in order to shape their actions, and this goes very well with Plotinus and the Neoplatonist concept of what one is to do and how one is to shape their lives in order to become more virtuous, for Murdoch is using the Platonic Good. In the Enneads Plotinus writes: “For it is to the Gods, not to the good that our likeness must look: to model ourselves upon good men is to produce an image of an image: we have to fix our gaze above the image and attain Likeness to the Supreme Exemplar” (Plotinus P637). What this is saying is we do not want to model ourselves after other people because people in themselves are flawed. People according to Plato are just an image of the Platonic form that each person is based upon; each Platonic form is just an image in itself, and that is what Plotinus means when he says, “an image of an image.” What we want to model ourselves on, in order to become better people, is the perfection! We strive for the perfection in order to become better people because perfection is beyond the concepts of the empirical world; therefore, no matter how great we have become, we always are able to improve upon ourselves. We want to become as close to the “Supreme Exemplar,” or God, as we can.
Like Murdoch said those few in history that were amazing examples of what we should be. People like Thoreau, Gandhi, and King in the more modern times, and those people did nothing put strive for the perfect ideals of God themselves! Those people were all about being the best possible person they could be, and they left their mark on history. We all look up to them as virtuous persons. They did not model themselves after the flawed individuals that we all are. They modeled themselves after the perfection of Christ, and Christ himself claimed to be a God walking on this earth to straighten out and give guidance to mankind as a whole.
If someone is wanting this same message that Plotinus is writing in the Enneads, they do not need to go back as far as Ancient History. The Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous captures the same concept as what Plotinus states in the quote above. Just like Plotinus the Twelve Steps of any recovery program relies on people being more virtuous through a dependance on God, and it tells the alcoholics that come to the program that “selfishness – self-centeredness! That we think is the root of our problems” (AA P62), and it tells these people that in order to overcome their alcoholism they need to rely on a Higher Power of their choice. It can be any Higher Power, but it is the same concept that Plotinus has of “Ego to the One.” They are told they cannot do it on their own, and their solution to their alcoholism is that they need to become more virtuous.
Step Six of the Twelve Steps states: “were entirely ready to have God remove these defects of Character” (AA P148). Step Six and Step Seven of any Twelve Step program is all about becoming a more virtuous person, and every person who enters a Twelve Step program of any kind is using a Higher Power in order to become more virtuous just as Plotinus states.
The problem with alcoholics, love addicts, food addicts, or any other addicted person, is that they struggle with their quality of character, and all of them rely on a Higher Power in order to do this, for it states: “we shall need to raise our eyes towards perfection, and be ready to walk in that direction.” (AA P162). This quote is saying the same thing as the quote from Plotinus in the Enneads! It is the same concepts. In order to become more virtuous, and to always make progress in our lives, or “attain Likeness to the Supreme Exemplar” (Plotinus P637), we do our best to model ourselves after God, “Not I, but Christ” like Murdoch stated. What is it that Christ would do? What is it that the Buddha would do? What is it that Mohammad would do? What is it that Krishna would do? Or even the Higher Power that the individual gets to pick for themselves in any type of recovery situation, what would their Higher Power do?
Any alcoholic, or anyone struggling with any selfish addiction, has led a very troubled life. They have done all kinds of terrible things in order to satisfy their selfishness of the drink or the drug, and it lays out clearly in the literature of the these programs that in order to stay sober they need to become more virtuous and overcome their defects of character. Hardly any of these people are philosophers in any way. They are basic people who have led a troubled life and they rely on God, not their ego to become more virtuous. Some of these people are recovering criminals who completely turn their lives around, who would not even be able to comprehend such philosophical writing as Kant, but they are able to demonstrate virtues that surpass the Neo-Kantian philosopher, and it is all because they rely on a Transcendental Higher Power to give the direction and virtues they need in order to turn their lives around and succeed, and it is nothing but a God of their own understanding!
Any religion tells us and tells the people who practice it the code of conduct that they need in order to become more virtuous! We need to strive to be perfect because we are nothing but an “image of an image” (Plotinus P637), and as long as the soul is attached to the body, there is progress for all of us to make. It is us that makes the errors. The errors are not in any prayer such as The Prayer of Saint Francis, and Murdoch was clearly stating that the average person who practices their religious beliefs with true devotion and fervor would be much more virtuous than the arrogant Neo-Kantian who relies on ego alone. But what about all the misuse of religion?
Murdoch clearly address the misuse of religion and how lot of people do not practice it correctly when he states: “Of course prayer and sacraments may be ‘misused’ by the believer as mere instruments of consolation” (Murdoch P83). People do all kinds of terrible things in the name of God and use God to justify it. When Osama Bin Laden formed al Qaeda, he was claiming to be a prophet. He claimed he was doing God’s work. He claimed he was practicing the Koran.
In the Book Helter Skelter, The True Story of the Manson Murders, Charles Manson claimed to be a reincarnation of Jesus Christ. In this book Manson was able to preach the love of God to his followers so he could control their minds and get them to kill people for him. It was all about the Love of Christ that he preached to them, and he got them to kill people for him. It was amazing how he was able to control their minds this way, but he used both the word of God, sex, and drugs in order to control their minds. So, people can use God, just like Murdoch writes, to do terrible things, which we see all throughout history time and again.
When people do terrible things in the name of their God it gets lots of others to say how terrible all religions are. It gets people to reject all qualities of faith, and can make lots of people dubious that religion can do any good whatsoever. We have all heard of someone in the modern day who has grown up in a fundamentalist household who rejects all kinds of religion for this very purpose. So, why should anyone try to use God or any religious system whatsoever to be more virtuous if they see the harm that is can cause in someone’s life?
How are we to justify those using God for good and virtue and those using God to perpetuate evil? For me, the answer is in such scripture as The Bhagavad Gita. It says in the Gita, Chapter IV, Verse 36 “Even if you be the most sinful of all sinners, you will cross over all sins on the boat of knowledge alone” (Adidevananda P185). This tells us that if we have a problem with virtue, or are doing terrible things, it is ignorance that is our problem. We need the right understanding of the scriptures, and ignorance is the greatest evil for this reason. It is the “boat of knowledge” that is required for us to overcome all our sins and become more virtuous people. So, it is not their problem with God, but their understanding of God and their spiritual text that leads to their sins, and the plus about all religions is they are meant for the average person. They do not need to be a philosopher in order to be virtuous; as Murdoch states the average person full of faith is much more virtuous than the Neo-Kantian philosopher who relies only on ego.
But is there a God? Why should anyone practice any type of spiritual belief system when trying to prove God exists is just as impossible as trying to disprove God? And what does it get any of us if we spend our whole life believing in God, if in the end there is nothing? The answer to this is what Murdoch clearly states. He wrote in his essay that he makes the assumption that there is no God, but yet he argues in favor of the average person’s spiritual beliefs, and no matter what our belief system we all have our “bliks!” Be it science or religion, faith is that necessary component to life that McDowell clearly states is necessary to avoid the vertigo that we are all confronted with. Whether God exists or not, it truly should not matter as long as the faith we use is not cluttered with ignorance, and the faith we use allows us to become more virtuous.
So, it is up to us to decide which article of faith we use. Is there a God? Does this life mean anything? Well to live a life with no meaning will allow even more terrible things to be done by every person. To live a life with meaning and direction, allows anyone who is willing to believe to become more virtuous, and they do not need to be a scholar either. They can be the average person. It is clearly depressing for lots of people to go through life with no purpose or direction and that is what the faith of God gives to all believers who are willing to believe, and this is why it is tied so close to virtue. This is why all religions help us overcome our sins or character defects and get us to have a desire to be more virtuous.
The true answer, whether there is or is not a God, is only supplied in death like the Ancient philosopher Parmenides said, “Everybody runs away from death; therefore, they run away from the truth” (Coxon P98). All our answers to this life, and if it means anything, is only answered when each one of us dies. If we die and we exist, we know there is a reason and purpose to life. If we die and we do not exist, that is also our answer. But it is only in death that the true answers to life get revealed. Until we die we are dependent on our “bliks” to avoid that vertigo that McDowell states is necessary, and if becoming a more virtuous person is our desire, then why not take a chance on God and such codifiable instructions as The Prayer of Saint Francis in order to live a more virtuous life, which even McDowell implies should be every person’s desire? If there is no God, it does not matter if we believe in him or not. It only matters if there is a God and we do or do not believe, so one should use their bliks, avoid the vertigo, and become a more virtuous person who relies on a Transcendental Platonic Good, or any other Higher Power, in order to become more virtuous which is a desire deep within every human mind.
Work Cited
https://www.biography.com/crime-figure/osama-bin-laden , Biography, Osama Bin Laden, @ Jun 12th 2020
- H. Coxon, The Fragments of Parmenides, Las Vegas, @ 2009 Parmenides Publishing
Sri Ramanuja Translated by Svami Adidevananda, Gita Bhasya, @ Sri Ramakrishna Press
Alcoholics Anonymous, Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions, @1952, 1953, 1981,
Printed in the united states of America
Alcoholics Anonymous, Alcoholics Anonymous Third Edition, @ Alcoholics Anonymous World Service 1979,
Iris Murdoch, The Sovereignty of Good Over Other Concepts, @1970 SFSU,
Rosalind Hursthouse, What Does the Aristotelian Phronimos know?, SFSU
A. Flew, R. M. Hare, and B. Mitchell, Theology and Falsification, A Symposium, @ Oxford University Press 1971,
Leon Robin, Greek Thought and the Origins of the Scientific Spirit, @ 2013 2 Park Square, Milton Park, New York,
Vincent Bugliosi, Helter Skelter The True Story of the Manson Murders, @1974 New York, London,
John McDowell, Virtue and Reason, @ 2017 University College Oxford,
Plotinus, Translated by Stephen McKenna, The Enneads, @ 1991 John Dillon Penguin Books,
