Values and Virtues in the Military. Nadine Eggimann Zanetti

Values and virtues in philosophy

      Traditionally, it was the domain of philosophy to explore the nature and meaning of morally good characteristics such as values and virtues (Morales-Vives et al., 2014). Numerous moral philosophers and religious thinkers throughout history have been recognized for their interpretations of values and virtues. From ←49 | 50→a historical viewpoint, it has been an ongoing attempt to clarify, conceptualize, and formulate what is or should have value in individual and social life. The very first Greek philosophers asked “What is the good of a person?” This further inspired thinkers like Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle to examine and enumerate values and virtues as positive characteristics of individuals. Accordingly, it is crucial to include the historical perspective as part of ongoing research. The following provides an overview on how historical predecessors addressed and defined value and virtue.

      It is worth mentioning that the concepts of values and virtues have been subject to separate theories in early areas of philosophers (Russi, 2009). Virtues were considered as the behavior that enable a person to align with a very important personal value and to have it preserved. A value reflects the anticipated goal, while virtues transform into action and behavior that allows a person to achieve the goal. Accordingly, the great philosophers derived their virtues from the presumptions that they made of the most important values. Correspondingly, the philosophers have either relied on the subject of virtue and emphasized more the behavior component or focused on values as the goal of behavior. For this reason, the following historical summary addresses both values and virtues in each individual, and in most of the situations the philosopher is dealing with either one of the concepts (Russi, 2009).

      The sophists in ancient Greek were very competent professional teachers and intellectuals. They turned against an unconditional acceptance of moral values and inherently derived laws and norms. Protagoras of Abdera (490–420 BCE) was the most prominent member of the sophistic movement and believed “man is the measure of all things.” He subscribed to the subjective view that values, virtues, and norms were the result of human agreement and could be rationally discussed and challenged (cf. Lee, 2005).

      Plato (427–347 BCE), in reaction to this, was of a strongly different opinion: He was in search of the good in himself and anchored it as the highest idea within the absolute framework of ideas of the ideal human being. He was underlining the viewpoint that the good is the foundation of all values, but even more so of all being at all. Given this perspective, Plato also derived the four cardinal virtues. In the Republic as his magnum opus on the ideal human society, he defined the first major virtue catalog of the West: wisdom (sophia), courage (andreia), self-restraint (sophrosyne), and justice (dikaiosyne) (Plato, trans. 1968, as cited in Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

      Aristotle (384–322 BCE) was Plato’s most accomplished student. In his Nicomachean Ethics (Aristotle, trans. 2000) he tried to determine the highest good. In raising this question “What is the good?” Aristotle was not looking ←50 | 51→for a list of items that are good. Instead, his search was for the highest good. Consequently, he shifted the concept of good into the practical way of perspective: All people strive for happiness (eudaimonia), but everyone understands something different. In order to determine the greatest possible happiness for man, he has to acknowledge himself as a human species, which distinguishes him from animal in having reason. Consequently, the highest good, which is possible for human beings, must lie in practicing reason. Accordingly, human happiness is best achieved through a life of contemplation, which is the ultimate goal of human action and desire. The key question lies in how human beings can reach this objective. To this end, Aristotle developed a theory on virtues, which is called “virtue ethics” (Aristotle, trans. 1984). As part of his reasoning, Aristotle stated that virtuous behavior is a social practice exercised by a citizen of an ideal city. He had the understanding that virtue is an acquired skill learned through trial and error. Therefore, virtue is not inherent, but must be acquired in a theoretical and practical learning process. Whatever way virtue is learned, most important is the knowledge on the right amount and mean of a virtue. Related to this understanding Aristotle characterized virtues developing a doctrine of means: If a person encounters a situation and, basing the decision on reason, experience, and content, he or she chooses a course of action from between two extremes of dispositions, those of deficiency and excess. The mean between these two is virtue. Consequently, Aristotle conceived virtues as the desirable mean states between vices of deficiency and vices of excess. For instance, courage is the mean between cowardliness (vice of deficiency) and recklessness (vice of excess). Similarly, humility would be a virtue between the deficiency of shyness and the excess of shamelessness (Aristotle, trans. 2000, book II, chapter VIII). Central to this conceptual understanding is that individuals make a deliberate, rational choice to act in a manner that lies between these two extremes and is thus considered virtuous (Mintz, 1996). In fact, Aristotle assumed that good judgment held the greatest importance in ethics. Accordingly, the ability to carefully consider how a virtuous person would act when facing an ethical dilemma is key to developing a virtuous character (Cameron, 2011; Nybert, 2007; Solomon, 1992). As mentioned above, Aristotle’s list of virtues includes the original four cardinal virtues. However, he added a number of other virtues, such as generosity, wit, friendliness, truthfulness, magnificence, and greatness of soul (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

      The philosopher Epicur (341–270 BCE) has declared joy to be the highest value for men and is considered the inventor of hedonism. Blessed is a life when it is free from physical pain (aponia) and free from confusion of the soul (that state he called ataraxia). Epicur did not enumerate a list of virtues, but he ←51 | 52→recommended staying out of many areas that required virtue (e.g., politics or marriage). Specifically, friendship between individuals was of great value to him (Krobath, 2009).

      The Stoics further reinforced the value of ataraxia to apathy (apatheia): The path to happiness for the human being is found by not allowing ourselves to be controlled by our desire for pleasure or our fear of pain (Krobath, 2009). From Aristotle, the Stoics accepted that happiness was the highest value for human beings. This happiness, they taught, could be achieved through virtue, self-education, and self-control.

      As a Christian theologian of the middle age, Aquinas (1224–1274) rejected Aristotle’s additions to Plato and added three theological virtues proposed by Saint Paul: faith, hope, and love (Aquinas, trans. 1989, as cited in Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Aquinas argued for a hierarchical organization of virtues and defined the seven heavenly virtues: wisdom, courage, self-restraint, justice, faith, hope, and love. Within these seven heavenly virtues, Aquinas specified what Peterson and Seligman (2004) later defined as the six core virtues, describing transcendence with the virtues faith and hope, and humanity with the virtue of love.

      In response to the stifled values and norms of the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, with its retrospectual revival of the classical thinking of ancient times and its ideal of the human personality, brought about a cultural crisis and the shattering of moral orders. Reformation and counterreformation stabilized values. With Luther (1483–1546) and Calvin (1509–1564), a canon of virtues and values was developed, that, until recently, was predominately accepted as a standard: orderliness, cleanliness, thriftiness, punctuality, industriousness, and diligence (cf. Bollnow, 1958).

      A radical change towards modern value thinking then brought the Enlightenment with its appeal to reason. For Kant (1724–1804), the center of virtue is morality and the human end purpose of creation, and thus its supreme value. As a being endowed with reason, a person has the duty to strive after the good, according to what is accepted as morally correct. When all human beings fulfill their ethical duties, they generate values that benefit everyone. The main values that emerged in the course of the Enlightenment period are still valid in the broader sense, specifically humanity and human dignity, tolerance, individual freedom, and equality (Kant, 1785, as cited in Krobath, 2009).

      Around the turn of the 19th century, the concept of value by Lotze (1817–1881) became a fundamental category of philosophy. Value theory is concerned with two fundamental questions: 1) What is value in itself? and 2) What are the different forms of values? Accordingly, two main groups can be distinguished: objectivists and subjectivists. The objectivists claim that things and ←52 | 53→actions can be evaluated because they have an absolute value (as cited in Krobath, 2009). Value judgments