Value

Beyond inborn talents, beyond the accidental virtues of good looks wealthy families, or the like, beyond intelligence or any other achievement, the only just way of judging a man's worth is to what length he does what’s right with what he has. It matters not if ethics are a part of the laws of the universe laid down by God, or a complete aesthetic fabrication of man, or even if free will itself is a fallacy, Ethics are the one measure to which all actions may be held.

On Civic Virtue (Fall 2004)

All men do things to achieve an end. They work to gain money; but they want money on the theory that it will allow them to achieve other ends, which in turn will lead to happiness. Thus all acts strive for happiness. Man is by nature a social animal, since he has the power of speech and language and by necessity must interact with others if for nothing else to successfully reproduce. By commerce, men obtain things they would not otherwise be able to produce. Thus interaction also serves as a means of attaining happiness (to fulfill biological needs and to obtain goods). Man is neither swift of foot nor mighty in strength compared to other creatures, but by banding together, men can better protect themselves. Protection is also a means of achieving a greater level of happiness. Public works improve the lives of all. The state is a structure created to regulate interaction between people, and to assure mutual protection of its members, and by these and other means strive for happiness of all those who are a part of the state. Civic virtue therefore means doing one’s utmost to make the state more effective in achieving happiness for the most people in the state as possible. This is done by creating laws that facilitate achievement of happiness for the most people, removing or altering laws that hinder this process in such a way as to not make happiness more difficult to achieve, and otherwise living in a way that improves the community.
One might argue that civic virtue just means following the laws or acting justly, however, this is not always the case. The chief good is happiness for the most people possible. Morals are rules that help achieve this end. Justice is a method of distributing goods (such as food, money, honor) based on deservedness. Justice is not in of itself a direct method of achieving happiness (that would be morality), but rather a practice that indirectly aids in the process. For example, forgiveness is a quality of morality, but it is unjust. Suppose another has injured you and therefore deserves punishment, and yet you forgive them. You are not carrying out justice (in fact you would be unjust), however, you would be considered to have done a morally upright deed. In most cases, people are upset and therefore less able to achieve happiness when they are the victims of injurious injustice, so justice should be thought of as a precondition that aids in the process of achieving happiness, but not necessarily as a direct means of doing so. The state does not create morals, but instead creates laws. Laws are written approximations of morals or, more commonly, justice. A law that requires taxes be levied in order to help the poor would be a moral law. A law allowing property to be seized if debts are not paid is more concerned with justice. It is not always easy to create laws that perfectly match justice and morality, and in fact in some cases it is not possible to do so. As long as these laws remain close approximations of morals and justice, one should follow and enforce them, however, there may be cases that fall between the law and justice and morality. Or perhaps a bad law might have been created that is completely opposed to morality and justice. In such cases is part of civic virtue to break these laws and do one’s utmost to have them changed, as long as this disobedience or changing of law code does not itself cause more trouble for members of the state than the bad law itself.
Besides the law, members of the state perform civic virtue by improving the level of happiness of others through individual acts. Cleaning up trash in public areas, volunteering time, effort, or money to helping the less fortunate, participating in government (by voting, speaking out, or carrying out the functions of an office) if one has the knowledge and abilities that could improve the state, and defending the state from attack are all other means by which one shows civic virtue.
While we are on the topic of defense of the state, engaging in warfare for defense against an aggressor is both a civic virtue and a just/moral thing to do. Engaging in aggressive war against other states might be considered a civic virtue internally (as it may improve the financial situation within the state and therefore the happiness of those within), but at the same time morally wrong in the greater context of all human activity beyond simply individual states. This is because we are dealing with two core ethics around which morals are determined. There is the intrastate ethic of “happiness for all within the state” and the interstate (and in fact beyond all states) ethic of “happiness for all, regardless of state affiliation”. Since the superstate or stateless ethic is more all-encompassing, I posit that it supercedes the intrastate ethic of any one nation or group of people.

Cory