Home About Us the University Recognition Mission & Vision

Home , Higher good

Home About Us The University Recognition Mission & Vision Objective & Motto K.K.Handiqui Administration Authorities Governance Programmes Doctoral Degree Masters Degree Bachelors Degree PG Diploma Diploma Certificate BPP Programme Admission Admission Procedure Eligibility Fee Structure Photo Gallery Contact Us

INTRODUCTION TO MORAL CONCEPTS : GOOD, DUTY AND VIRTUE

UNIT STRUCTURE

1. Learning Objectives 2. Introduction 3. Concept of Good in Ethics. 4. G.E. Moore’s Concept of Good as Indefinable. 5. Concept of Duty.

1. Classification of Duty. 2. Conflict of Duties.

6. Concept of Virtue.

1. Cardinal Virtues. 2. Classification of Virtues. 3. Duties and Virtues. 7. Let Us sum Up

8. Further Readings

9. Answers To Check Your Progress

10. Possible Questions

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After going through this unit, you will be able to: Define the Ethical terms - Good, Duty and Virtue. Explain the different classifications of Duties and Virtues. Explain the meaning of Conflict of Duties. Distinguish between Duties and Virtues.

INTRODUCTION

This unit introduces to you the ethical concepts of Good, Duty and Virtue.

Good : Good is anything that fulfills a need or satisfies a desire. Good can be more than one. Certain goods such as bodily goods, economic goods, and social goods are means to some higher goods. In a hierarchy of goods, at the top is the highest good, which is the ultimate end of human activity.

To G.E. Moore, Good is indefinable because it is a simple notion and has no parts. Only that which has parts is definable. In Ethics, the word good is used both as an Adjective and as a Noun.

Duty: Duty is the sense of ought or obligation of an individual to satisfy a claim made upon him. To Immanuel Kant, an action has no moral worth unless it is done from a sense of duty. This means actions are right only when they are done for the sake of duty only in so far as they are performed for the sake of their rightness. Virtue: Virtue refers to acquired dispositions of mind. It is the habit of controlling and regulating impulses and instincts by reason and realizing the good of the self as a whole. To sum up, Good, Duty and Virtue are the three concepts that have bearing on the moral life of an individual.

CONCEPT OF GOOD IN ETHICS

The word ‘Good’ is derived from the German word ‘Gut’. It means anything valuable, useful or serviceable for some end or purpose, therefore desirable. As the term ‘good’ is too wide signifying anything that is desirable, one may use the expression ‘morally good’ to signify moral qualities. Hence, in ethics the word ‘good’ is used to express moral qualities. It should be stated in this connection that the word ‘good’ is used both as an adjective and also as a noun. Thus when one speaks of ‘material and immaterial goods’, ‘a relative good’ and ‘the absolute or the highest good’ one evidently uses the word ‘good’ as a noun. Good/ used in this way implies ‘an object of desire or pursuit’, ‘anything that is sought’, e.g., wealth, health, courage etc.

In Ethics, a distinction is drawn between good as an end and good as a means. If, for instance, happiness be good, then wealth and health as means of attaining happiness are also good. Again, if health be a good, then regular exercise, regulation of taking diet, taking of good medicine are also good as means of securing good health. It will be easy now to understand the distinction between a relative good and the absolute or the highest good of man. A ‘relative good’ is a kind of good as a means, i.e., it is an object which is desired, not for itself, but for the sake of an ulterior end or good which, again, may be relative to a still higher end, and so on. ‘Absolute good’ means “the good which is desired for its own sake, and is not subordinate to any ulterior good.’’ In short, it is not the concept of good as a means to a higher good; it is however, the highest good- the ultimate end of human activity. Every voluntary action is relative to an end or object of desire. And among ends, there is gradation, culminating in the supreme end or the highest good which is the goal of life.

Thus, the ultimate, absolute or highest good of man is intrinsically good in the sense that the same is desired for its own sake, and not desired for the sake of anything else. In other words, absolute good is not a means to attain any higher end or good. The highest good is the absolute good i.e. the supreme end. The subordinate goods are instrumental goods or relative goods.

G. E. MOORE’S CONCEPT OF GOOD AS INDEFINABLE

G.E. Moore in his book ‘Principia Ethica’ sharply distinguishes between two questions of Ethics viz.,(I) What is good, in the sense of ‘that what is good’ and (II) What is good, in the sense of ‘goodness’. One must be careful not to confuse ‘the good’ or ‘the things that are good’ with goodness or the property of being good.

The meaning of ‘good’ to G.E.Moore involves the definition of good. According to Moore, a definition “states what are the parts which invariably compose a certain whole” and in this sense ‘good’ cannot be defined ‘because it is simple and has no parts.’ It is evident that the object of definition in Moore’s analysis is not the word ‘good’ but the extra linguistic entity ‘goodness.’ The word ‘Good’ is indefinable because the quality ‘goodness’ is a simple, unanalysable and non - complex property.

According to Moore, Goodness is a non-natural quality. He says, it is completely wrong to define ‘good’ in terms of natural quality. Moore argues that to explain the meaning of good by reference to particular modes of existence or action or supersensible things, which may be more or less good, is to commit the ‘naturalistic fallacy.’ Hedonists commit this fallacy because they explain the meaning of ‘good’ by reference to pleasure which is a particular mode of experience. Pleasure may be more or less good, but it does not enable one to know what is really meant by good. ‘Good’ must be distinguished from things that are good. It may be mentioned that Naturalistc fallacy consists in identifying good with some natural property of what has goodness.

It may be pointed out that when Moore uses the word ‘definition,’ he means ‘analysis.’ If something is definable then that thing is analysable. If a thing is analysable then the thing must have certain parts. But one cannot name the parts of ‘good.’ It is so because “good” has no parts. According to Moore, “good” is a simple notion just as ‘yellow’ is a simple notion. Just as one cannot explain to anyone who does not already know it, what yellow is, so one cannot explain by any manner or means what good is. Good denotes a simple and indefinable quality. Goodness has a unique meaning; it is simply goodness. Definitions are only possible when the object of notion in question is something complex. One can give definition of a horse, because a horse has many different properties and qualities, all of which one can enumerate. But ‘good’ is not complex. It is a ‘simple’ notion composed of no parts, and so unanalysable. Unanalysable things are indefinable. Hence good is indefinable. Moore says that if a person is asked the question, ‘how is good to be defined’ - then his answer would be that it cannot be defined, and that is all that the person would have to say about it.

According to Moore, though goodness is indefinable yet it is possible for one to say which things are good. Though yellowness is indefinable yet, it is possible for one to say which things are yellow. Moore tries to offer proof for the indefinability of ‘good’ by means of a dilemma. Either ‘good’ is indefinable, or it is not indefinable. If it is not, it must be either a complex word the correct analysis of which defies a common agreement, or the word must mean nothing at all. Moore offers a particular argument to establish that ‘good’ is indefinable. This argument is called the open question argument. If one tries to define good as X, then it is always possible for one to raise the further question “Is X good”? It means good remains indefinable.

Moore’s argument, however, could not satisfy all moral philosophers, Goodness, according to Moore, is a simple, unanalysable, non-natural property which in known in some kind of non-sensuous intuition. But the diffculty is that if anybody says that he does not have any such unique and simple object before his mind when he thinks of good, then one cannot refute him. By relying on intuition Moore makes ethical reasoning virtually impossible. Moore’s view of goodness, therefore, has not satisfied all philosophers.

ACTIVITY

How do you distinguish between relative good and absolute good? Discuss How does G.E. Moore explain the concept of Good? Discuss

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. Is the absolute good subordinate to any ulterior goods? 2. What is goodness according to Moore? 3. State true (T) or false (F). (a) According to Moore good is definable (T/F). (b) Absolute good is not intrinsically good (T/F).

CONCEPT OF DUTY

The word ‘duty’ means what is due, i.e., what one is bound to do, or under an obligation to do. In other words, a duty means what one ought to perform as a moral being.

The term ‘duty’ is sometimes used in a narrower sense to mean simply what is legally binding or obligatory upon an individual, and an individual is said to do more than his duty if he does more than what he is legally bound to do. In Ethics, however, the word ‘duty’ is taken in a wider and higher sense to signify every right act which one ought to perform, whether determinate or indeterminate, whether legally obligatory or not. Hence, from strictly moral or ethical point of view, an individual can never be said to do more than his duty.

Duty comes to an individual with a claim; it is a thing laid upon an individual to do whether he likes it or not. A duty may thus be defined as the obligation of an individual to satisfy a claim made upon him by the community, or some other individual member or members of that community, in the name of common good.

If taken in a wide sense, the notion of duty is essentially implied in every system of morality and every ethical theory.

In Greek Ethics, moral life for the most part is presented as a good to be realised or a type of virtue or excellence to be attained. A man must be courageous, temperate and just, because in no other way can be achieved his good or true happiness. So long as the mode of presenting the moral life prevailed, the element of duty was completely absorbed into, and subordinated to, the thought of good or achievement.

It was only when, in Stoicism, (a school of thought whose famous maxim is ‘Live according to Nature’) this good was conceived to be determined by, and to be realized in, obeying a cosmic law of universal reason that the notion of duty emerged into a new distinctness. It was when morality came to be regarded mainly in the light of conformity to a law that the notion of duty became prominent. The Stoics asserted that virtue alone is good and man must be virtuous not for the sake of pleasure but for the sake of duty.

Kant says that an action has no moral worth unless it is done from a sense of duty. i.e. in the consciousness of its rightness. To Kant, nothing is absolutely good in this world or out of it except a good will. A will is good when it is determined by respect for the moral law, or the consciousness of duty. An act that is done from inclination, say from self-love or even sympathy, is not moral. What a man does from inclination to-day, he may likewise from inclination refuse to do to- morrow. The commands of duty do not wait upon man’s inclination, or strike a bargain with man, the Imperative of duty in Kant’s terminology, is a Categorical Imperative. The categorical imperative commands categorically, unconditionally, it does not say: Do this if you would be happy or successful or perfect, but: Do it because it is your duty to do it. Thus, according to Kant, actions are right only when they are done for the sake of duty - only in so far as they are performed for the sake of their rightness. ‘Duty for duty’s sake is the true rule of life-Duty should be performed whatever may happen.

This law or categorical imperative is a universal and necessary law, “a-priori”, inherent in reason itself. It is present in the commonest man, though he may not be clearly conscious of it; it governs his moral judgments; it is his standard or criterion of right and wrong.

Classification of Duties

When the various duties are regarded in an objective way, it is natural to seek for some kind of classification. Although it is dufficult to find any satisfactory scheme of division, duties may commonly be classified into three classes.

1.Duties to self or self-regardng duties. 2. Duties to others or other-regarding duties. 3. Duties to God.

Duties to self or self-regarding duties: The term ‘self-regarding duties’ is to be taken in the sense of duties to oneself. It includes physical, economic, intellectual, aesthetic and moral duties. Physical duty means self-preservation, care for health and recreation. One should enjoy sound health which is necessary for moral strength.

Economic duty is to treat wealth which is an economic value, as an indispensable means to the attainment of higher values. One should earn a decent living by acquiring wealth. But one should not treat wealth as an end in itself but as a means to attain higher intrinsic values.

Intellectual duty is the cultivation of the intellect and acquiring knowledge. One should not leave the intellect undeveloped, because the development of intellect is indispensable for the development of personality.

Aesthetic duty is the cultivation of aesthetic taste by appreciating and creating beauty.

Moral duty is to control one’s instincts, appetites, desires and passions. Self-control and self regard constitute one’s moral duty. Thus, one should treat intellectual, aesthetic and moral values as intrinsic values. These are the duties to the self.Duties to others or Other regarding duties: Other-regarding duties include duties to the family, other persons in society, country and to humanity. It also includes duties to animals and plants i.e. environment.

Duties to the family mean that one should show love and respect to parents, show love to one’s children by taking care of their health, education and character. Husband and wife should love and respect each other to make a good family.

Duties to society include mainly veracity, equity and benevolence. Veracity is truthfulness. One should speak the truth. Equity means justice and fair dealing. One should respect the personality of others. One should not interfere with other’s freedom and property, and should not harm others by thought, word and deed. Benevolence means showing compassion to others in times of distress. One should do one’s very best to relieve their distress. These are duties to others in society. Duties to the country are to cultivate patriotism. One should show love for the country and should try one’s best to improve its condition and feel glory in its achievements.

Duties to humanity is to show love to all human beings. One should cast off narrow patriotism, colour prejudice, and racial superiority

Duties to animals include taking care of domestic animals, giving them proper food and shelter and not being cruel to them. Duties to plants include taking care of plants by watering them and giving proper nourishment.

Duties to God: Worshipping God with single minded devotion and dedicating one’s action to Him. But love for God should be expressed in terms of love for mankind.

Conflict of Duties

The very classification of duties into distinct classes seems to imply that they may be mutually opposed and may at times come into conflict with one another. And at such times, we are bound to confused. For example, the duties of benevolence, justice or veracity (truthfulness). It is our duty to be just, benevolent, truthful, law-abiding, courteous. But there are occasions when it is felt that to tell the truth will amount to treachery, or lead to murder. In fact, the various moral principles, such as justice and mercy, benevolence and veracity, may conflict with one another. Duty to the family may conflict with duty to the state, or duty to the church (or religious institutions) or duty to God.This may be called conflict of duties.

The ‘ conflict of duties’ arise when the mind is perplexed as to ‘which duty is to be done’ It is sometimes difficult to resolve such a conflict. One is pulled,so to speak, in opposite directions by rival claims of different moral principles or rules. This is also called ‘moral conflict’ or ‘perplexity of conscience’.

It may be stated in this connection that ‘moral conflict’ or ‘perplexity of conscience’ arises from various sources. It sometimes arises from the influence of passions and inclinations. If a man or a woman is not inclined to help another, he or she may question the validity of the act. In many cases, perplexity arises because one is unable to understand “the precise character of a situation or the true scope and spirit of moral principles’.

How, then, can such cases of perplexity be settled? No definite rules can be laid down with regard to this. Moral problems should be solved by reference to concrete circumstances. Under every group of circumstances which forms a field of action there is but one act which is good and obligatory. As Prof. T.H.Green remarks, “There is no such thing really as a conflict of duties. A man’s duty under any particular set of circumstances is always one, though the conditions of the case may be so complicated and obscure as to make it difficult to decide what the duty really is”. (Prolegomena to Ethics p-355) Rightly understood, a duty is but one under a definite set of circumstances. One should always honestly try to decide questions of duty by reference to concrete circumstances.

Whenever there seems to be a conflict of duties one should fall back upon the great fundamental moral law. The fundamental moral law is ‘Realise the rational self.’ The particular laws are only fragmentary aspects of this fundamental law. Self-realisation is one’s supreme duty; hence it is in the light of this that one should find out what course one should follow when the rules come into conflict.

ACTIVITY

What do you understand by Conflict of Duties? How should an individual act in such a case? CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. Is it possible for an individual to do more than his duty? 2. What does Immanuel Kant mean by Categorical Imperative? 3. State true (T) or false (F). (a) Duties may commonly be classified into four classes (T/F). (b) Duty comes to an individual with a claim (T/F).

CONCEPT OF VIRTUE

The English word ‘virtue’ is derived from Latin Vir, a man or hero. It corresponds to Latin Virtus and Sanskrit Virya, meaning manliness, bravery, power, energy or excellence. Though the word virtue was used for excellence of any kind, generally the excellence referred to is an excellence belonging to man (man includes woman as well), so that the virtues may be described as the forms of human excellence. In ethics, ‘virtue’ is used with two different meanings –

(a) A virtue is a quality of character, a general disposition or inclination of the self, to adapt its action to moral law. Virtue refers to the inner character and its excellence.

(b) A virtue is also a habit of action corresponding to the quality of character or disposition.

Regarding the concept of virtue different views have been put forward by different philosophers. They are discussed below –

Socrates Concept of Virtue: To Socrates, ‘Virtue is knowledge’ - If a person fully understands the nature of the good, he could not fail to pursue it. On the other hand, if a person did not fully understand the nature of the good he could not be moral except by accident. So, unless a man knows what virtue is, unless he knows the meaning of self-control and courage and justice and piety and their opposites, he cannot be virtuous; but by knowing what virtue is, he will be virtuous. Thus, knowledge constitutes. The essence of virtue, according to Socrates “No man is voluntarily bad or involuntarily good’’ “No man voluntarily pursues evil or that which he thinks to be evil. To prefer evil to good is not in human nature.....”

To Socrates, knowledge of right and wrong was not a mere theoretical opinion but a firm practical conviction. It is a matter not only of the intellect, but of the will. The tendency of all honourable, useful and good actions is to make life painless and pleasant. To Socrates, Virtue and true happiness are identical.

Plato’s Concept of Virtue: Like Socrates, Plato also says that ‘Virtue is knowledge’. The individual is wise in whom reason rules over the other impulses of the soul. The ideal, therefore, is a well-ordered soul, one in which the higher functions rule the lower functions one which exercises the virtues of wisdom, courage, self-control and justice. A life of reason, which means a life of virtue, is the highest good. Happiness attends such a life, the just man is after all the happy man. Pleasure, however, is not an end in itself; - it is not the highest factor in the life of the soul, but the lowest.

In Plato’s ethical teachings, he lays emphasis on the rational element in the soul. He believes that the irrational aspect should not only merely to be subordinated, but to be cast out. So, you have found the views of Socrates and Plato that ‘Virtue is knowledge or wisdom’. This cannot however, be fully accepted. Knowledge of the good does not always lead to the choice of the good. Knowledge does not constitute virtue though it is an indispensable element of it. Aristotle’s Concept of Virtue: Aristotle defined virtue as a habit of choice, characteristic of which lies in the observation or of moderation of the mean relative to the abilities or circumstances of the individual concerned, as it is determined by reason or as the practically prudent man would determine it.

Many virtues stand midway between two extreme vices, one of which is an excess and the other a deficiency in the proper trait. The virtue of courage, for example, is the middle position or the “golden mean” between rashness and cowardice, and liberality is the middle position between extravagance and miserliness. Virtue does not consist in the choice of the absolute Mean, but of Mean relative to the individual’s ability, temperament and circumstance.

There is a great deal of truth in Aristotle’s view. The essence of Virtue lies in harmony between reason and sensibility. It lies in habit of taking the middle course. But this is a general statement. It requires modification to suit particular circumstances. Moderation under all circumstances is as much a vice as immoderation in all cases. Therefore, Virtue cannot be the golden mean.

At first sight it appears that the views of Socrates and Plato, ‘Virtue is knowledge’ is opposed to that of the view of Aristotle, ‘Virtue is the habit of choosing and performing right actions.’ But the habit of choosing and performing right actions presupposes knowledge of the good and duties in concrete situations. Socrates and Plato rightly say that Virtue is knowledge. Aristotle is also right when he says that Virtue is habit. Knowledge is meaningless if it does not express itself in actions. Again, knowledge is necessary for the performance of any action. Thus Virtue implies knowledge or moral insight and a habit of performing duties. Prof. John S. Mackenzie rightly observes, ‘Virtue is a kind of knowledge, as well as a kind of habit.’(A Manual of Ethics, P.71). However, “Virtue is its own reward”, even though there are different concepts of Virtues.

Cardinal Virtues

Cardinal Virtues are the fundamental virtues on which the other virtues are based. The word ‘Cardinal’ is a derivative of the Latin word ‘Cardo’ meaning a hinge and the cardinal virtues are the virtues by which the moral life is supported by its hinges.

Plato’s cardinal virtues- Plato recognised four cardinal virtues. Wisdom, Courage, Temperance and Justice. Plato, in whose ‘Republic’ they first definitely appear, implies that they were already traditional in his day. Plato attempts to show that these virtues are primary or ‘cardinal’ because they correspond to the natural constitution of the soul, and therefore form the four sides of a symmetrical character. As the soul is composed of three powers- intellect, feeling and will- so corresponding to these are the virtues of wisdom, temperance and courage. These three qualities, however, have reference more particularly to the individual life. But as man is also part of an organism, justice is conceived as the social virtue- the virtue which regulates the others.

Wisdom: Wisdom is the Virtue of the rational part of the soul. It is an all-embracing virtue. It is moral insight into the duties in a concrete situation and performing them. It is practical wisdom which is implied in all moral actions. However, in a wide sense, wisdom should include care, foresight, prudence and decisiveness of choice.

Courage: Courage is the virtue of the emotional part of the soul. Courage is the power of resisting the fear of pain and the temptation of pleasure. It is not the mere facing of pain that is virtue, but the doing of what is right in the face of pain. Courage is the special virtue of the fighting class. In a wider sense courage should include both valour and fortitude. Valour is active courage, which forges ahead and braves danger and pain. Fortitude is passive courage which endures inevitable sufferings without wavering. Courage should include perseverence.

Temperance: Temperance is the Virtue which offers resistance to the allurements of pleasure. It is self-restraint or self- control. It denotes the will to choose the higher values and to reject the lower bodily values. Temperance is not merely a negative virtue engaged in repressing the appetites. Temperance does not merely restrain passions and desires, but it takes from reason guidance as to how far these desires should be satisfied. Temperance demands a reasonable moderation or a happy blending of the domination of reason with the other tendencies of human nature. Temperance is supremely a virtue which gives beauty to the moral life.

Justice: Justice is the harmonious functioning of intellect, emotion and desire under the guidance of reason. Wisdom, courage, and temperance are primarily virtues of an individual man. Justice is primarily a virtue of a society. In a good society justice demands that the lame man, however unworthy he is morally or however little he is able to do physically for the common good, should be provided with an artificial leg. Justice is impartiality to all in the face of personal prejudice, preference or self-interest. It comprehends all social virtues. Justice is the performance of social duties. It should include honesty, fidelity, benevolence, love, courtesy, cheerfulness and good humour. Impartiality precedes benevolence. These are social virtues. All virtues are forms of practical wisdom. Plato’s cardinal virtues can be adapted to the requirements of the modern society.

Classification of Virtues

Virtues may be classified according to the different springs of action viz., (a) Self-regarding Virtues (b) Other-regarding or altruistic Virtues. (c) Ideal-regarding Virtues.

(a) Self-regarding Virtues: Virtues of this class are conducive to the agent’s own good. The fundamental Virtue is prudence or rational self-love ( with self control ). It consists in a proper regard for the interests of the self- a regard for the good of the self in abstraction from the good of others. This fundamental virtue expresses itself in and comprises the following subordinate virtues.

(i) Courage - Courage is the power of resisting the fear of pain. It is this which enables the self to undergo present pains and dangers for the attainment of greater future benefits and realisation of higher and more permanent ends.

(ii) Temperance -Temperance is the power of resisting the allurement of pleasure. It consists in the power of resisting the impulses of pleasure, especially of the lower kind which would interfere with the well-being of the self. Thus temperance is self-discipline as well as single minded devotion to one purpose. ‘Self-control is the best control-’ So goes the saying.

(iii) Industry and Perseverence - Perseverence is the power of carrying on a task under the persecution of pains and obstructions. It is the power of resisting the present desires of ease and happiness inorder to obtain higher and more permanent good by the exercise of one’s own physical and mental powers.

It should be borne in mind that the above virtues are not to be wholly confined to the class of self-regarding virtues, as they are often necessary for the good of others.

(b) Other-regarding or Altruistic Virtues

The other-regarding virtues mean the tendencies of the self to regulate its conduct so as to promote the good of others. They include -

(a) Justice or the willingness of giving each man his due. Justice consists in not hindering the personal life of others. It is non-interference with the free development of other persons. It is generally used in the sense of fairness, equity, impartiality. In a wide sense, it comprises all those virtues which have their ground in the idea and feeling of fairness or justice, such as gratitude, veracity, fidelity, honesty in the dealings with fellowmen, uprightness and integrity.

(b) Benevolence - Benevolence consists in helping and furthering the personal life of others. It means sympathy, fellow- feeling and love. Fellow-feeling has various applications. In the first place, there is fellow-feeling arising out of natural relations. In other words, fellow-feeling towards those to whom one is involuntarily related i.e. naturally and necessarily connected by birth and circumstances viz, family, community, nation and human race. Secondly, there is fellow feeling towards those with whom one entered into voluntary relations. Here it shows itself in honour, politeness, loyalty towards the members of one’s own party, and toleration towards the members of other parties.

C. Ideal - regarding Virtues -

The ideal regarding virtues include-

(i) The aspirations towards the intellectual ideal expressing themselves (a) In the pursuit of truth i.e. sincerity, impartiality, concentration and accuracy. (b) In the communication of truth i.e. veracity and candour (c) In the application of truth i.e. wisdom and prudence.

(ii) Aspirations towards the aesthetic ideal.

(iii) Aspirations towards the moral ideal or ideal of the perfect self, manifesting itself in the love of goodness of nature for its own sake. This is the supreme Virtue. Distinctions between Duties and Virtues

A distinction is sometimes drawn between duties and virtues in the following way:

Duties are those obligations that are capable of being definitely codified and formulated- which can be precisely defined as to their character and limits and legally enforced. Duties are the classes of actions which are in conformity with the standard of moral goodness and therefore morally obligatory.

Virtues are those good, righteous or noble acts which cannot be definitely formulated and enforced by external authority.

Duties are determinate obligations, and Virtues are indeterminate obligations. As Prof. John. S. Mackenzie observes, “Sometimes those obligations which are capable of precise definition are called duties ; while that part of good conduct which cannot be so definitely formulated is classed under the head of Virtue- as if the Virtuous man were one who did more than his duty, more than could be reasonably demanded of him.” (Manual of Ethics, p 321).Similarly, Prof. Samuel Alexander remarks, “The distinctive mark of virtue seems to lie in what is beyond duty : yet every such act must depend on the peculiar circumstances under which it is done, of which we leave the agent to be the judge, and we certainly think it is his duty to do what is best.” (Moral Order and Progress. p-243).

The distinction between duties and Virtues is neither reasonable nor necessary from the moral standpoint. Duties and Virtues are two aspects of the same thing- like the two sides of the same coin. All morally good acts are man’s duties from the ethical point of view. ‘The good’ and ‘the obligatory’ are co-extensive.

ACTIVITY

Do you fully accept Socrates and Plato’s view that ‘virtue is knowledge’? Discuss Distinguish between Duty and Virtue. Are they connected in any way? Discuss

CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

1. What are the four Cardinal Virtues ? 2. How far is the Platonic classification of Virtues suitable to the circumstances of modern times? 3. State true (T) or false (F) (a) Virtue is only a kind of habit (T/F) (b) Virtues may be classified according to the different Springs of actions (T/F)

LET US SUM UP From the above discussion, it is clear that though different scholars have given different definitions of the moral concepts of Good, Duty and Virtue, one has to admit that these moral concepts are meaningless without reference to each other. They, however, imply each other. Being ‘morally good’ implies a persons ‘obligation or duties’. To say a man (or a woman) does his (her) duty implies that he (she) possesses a Virtue. In fact, Good, Duty and Virtue are co-extensive.