Chapter 5: Character

Character

Ecological Virtues

How does a concern for character differ from doing our duty? In this chapter we shift our attention from taking the right action to being a good person. These two ways of reasoning are related, as we expect good persons to do what is right. A focus on character, however, requires considering an individual’s motivation and goals and recognizing that conduct is shaped by acts that are neither right nor wrong. It also means appreciating personal qualities that are intrinsically good.1

Most moral philosophers do not make a character argument in support of environmental ethics, but instead assert duties and rights or rely on consequential predictions. Their emphasis is on action. Yet reflecting on the value of character directs our attention to the teleological goal of being a good person, which is thought by many to be the basis for right action.

[[Insert Figure 5.1]]

We begin with the natural law tradition of Europe and the Tao tradition of East Asia.2 Then we reflect on the stories of Cinderella and Johnny Appleseed to see what folktales might tell us about being good. We also consider Christian teaching that urges us to be stewards of the earth. Finally, we reflect on the virtues of integrity, gratitude, and frugality, and assess philosophical arguments for appreciating nature.

Being Good

In the play Antigone by Sophocles (495–406 bce) a young woman defies the king’s edict by burying the body of her brother, who was slain as a rebel. Antigone justifies disobeying the law of the land by proclaiming her allegiance to an eternal law, which she claims has greater authority than the decisions of any human ruler. She is punished for her act of love and faith by being put to death.

In ancient Greece the death of Socrates was also tragic, as Plato (424–348 bce) tells us in the Apology. Plato’s accounts of Socrates have to do with living a good life. We learn in these dialogues that “the unexamined life is not worth living”3 and that we should remain true to our understanding of what it means to be good. Socrates accepts the judgment of the Athenian senate, which accused him of corrupting young people, although he believes he has done no wrong. He drinks the cup of hemlock that causes his death as a way of affirming that a good citizen should abide by the rule of law.4

Stories of Antigone and Socrates reflect ethical reasoning that would later be known as the natural law tradition. Both individuals gave their lives for a higher ethical standard, which each expressed in opposition to the laws of the state. Each affirmed that being a good person means striving to know what is good and having the strength of character to live by this truth, no matter the consequences.

The Natural Law Tradition

The ancient Greeks found a purpose in life that seemed to give order to and also transcend the ways of nature. Sophocles gave voice to this belief in Antigone, and Aristotle (384–322 bce) found purpose in his observations of the world around him.

Plato looked for the source of what is good in eternal forms, but Aristotle relied on observations of the natural world, which is why his philosophy is an early form of science. The phrase “natural law,” however, does not refer to what modern science means by the laws of nature, but instead reflects the view that there is purpose in the natural order.

Observing both animal and human life led Aristotle to conclude that humans are “happiness-seeking” animals. He argued that the pursuit of happiness must be the purpose of human life and, in this sense, was good in itself. Aristotle also observed that human beings uniquely have the capacity to know what is good or better and to make choices. Our capacity to reason and freedom to choose are crucial for living in ways that we find fulfilling.

According to Aristotle, there is a reason for everything, and every living organism has a good of its own. We discover our human nature and what it means to be good persons—and thus our purpose and goal in life—by seeing how to live together rationally in the natural world as it is. Because we are social beings, Aristotle reasoned, pursuing our natural inclination to be happy requires cooperating to realize the common good. Aristotle used the Greek word eudaimonia, which is usually translated as “flourishing,” to express this notion of individual and social happiness.5

Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) reaffirmed Aristotle’s argument that being good persons involves understanding human nature through reason. Aquinas agreed that happiness is a social as well as an individual goal and thus requires efforts to develop civic as well as personal virtues. Aquinas embraced Aristotle’s reasoning, but rejected Aristotle’s belief that understanding the order of the natural world does not require any consideration of divine will.

We see this difference reflected in what each man said about virtue. Aristotle concluded that virtue requires practical wisdom, so he proposed that moderation was the virtue of all virtues, “the golden mean.” Aristotle argued, for instance, that too much courage is foolhardy, and that too much pride is vanity. Following nature, he reasoned, means always acting with moderation. In contrast, Aquinas argued that divine law was revealed in natural law. He believed that moderation was less important for being a good and happy person than the spiritual and moral virtues of faith, hope, and charity proclaimed in Christian scripture.6

Both Aristotle and Aquinas affirmed that good habits strengthen the virtues necessary for humans to flourish. Natural law reasoning holds that we will flourish, individually and as a people, if we support the character traits of being a good person—by encouraging and rewarding those who exemplify these virtues. To “do good” we need to “be good.”

Jacques Maritain, a recent interpreter of Aquinas, suggests that our knowledge of the natural law is never complete and evolves throughout history. As our human conscience develops, our insight into what is “natural” will change. Therefore, he argues, “natural law” is not a set of absolute principles, but a growing awareness of our divine purpose. This formulation of natural law reasoning helps to explain mistaken judgments in the past and reminds us that our present knowledge may also need revision, as we learn from our experience.

This tradition of thought is reflected in “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” written in 1963 by Martin Luther King, Jr., to explain why civil rights activists were resisting segregation laws. “How does one determine when a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of Saint Thomas Aquinas, an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in the eternal and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”7

A Comparison with Kantian Reasoning

Martin Luther King, Jr., was a Baptist preacher, but in contemporary ethical debate the Catholic Church is the primary advocate of natural law reasoning. Catholic moral teaching identifies what our purpose is, as the only creatures on earth with the capacity to be moral. Contrasting Catholic natural law reasoning with the moral philosophy of Kant is helpful in clarifying each.

Kant emphasizes that reason defines the ethical character of each individual, whereas the natural law tradition conceives of reason as embedded in the natural order. For Kant, reason requires that we respect the autonomy of the individual. For Catholic moral teaching, reason enables those trained in spiritual and ethical discernment to guide the rest of us in our choices. The Catholic hierarchy explains our purpose rather than trusting us to use our reason (our autonomy) to figure this out for ourselves. (Some Catholic teachers, however, argue that we may each trust our conscience once our reason is well informed by the teachings of the Church.)

Whereas Kant proposes various levels of duty to deal with conflicts of duty, natural law reasoning relies on the “principle of double effect.” We must not only intend the good, but the good consequences of acting on a good intention must be at least equivalent to any bad consequences. Moreover, even if these good consequences outweigh any bad consequences, an action is not moral if its good consequences are a result of its bad consequences. Like Kant’s reasoning, consequences do not trump a good intention. Unlike Kant’s reasoning, a good intention is not sufficient to justify an action; not only must consequences be weighed, but their causal relationship must also be analyzed.

The ethical debate over population control, which many believe is crucial for resolving our environmental crisis, illustrates the clear difference between these two ways of reasoning. Kantian reasoning would argue for the autonomy of a couple to decide the number of children they think they can reasonably love and support. From a Kantian perspective, all parents have this responsibility, and doing their duty should reflect their good will and not a calculation of consequences. Would Kant oppose the availability of birth control, or government programs encouraging the use of birth control to limit population growth? I doubt it, as long as the decision was left to the conscience of parents. He would consider well-informed parents more able to act rationally and do their duty.

In contrast, Catholic moral teaching argues that our human purpose involves marriage between a man and a woman and then having children if this is possible. All forms of contraception8 are contrary to this natural purpose, and thus the Church opposes their availability and education concerning their use to prevent conception. Those using any artificial means of birth control may intend a good consequence (for example, a smaller family in order to have adequate resources for each child), but this consequence would be the result of a bad consequence (preventing the possible conception of a child). Therefore, according to the principle of double effect, the use of contraception even with a good intention is wrong.

Arguing that public policy should encourage the use of contraceptives to lower population growth, because larger families will strain environmental resources, does not affect this reasoning. Good consequences for the environment may be intended, but these will be the result of acting on an intention to prevent the natural creation of life that is central to our human purpose as revealed by God in Christian scripture.

In our time, many people do not believe there is a divine dimension that transcends the natural world and yet may be discerned in it. Therefore, they may not believe there is any purpose for human life. Yet more than half the people on the planet express such a faith within varied religious traditions and so utilize some form of natural law reasoning to draw ethical inferences about living together on the earth.

The Tao Tradition

In ancient Chinese literature, which has shaped East Asian cultures, being a good person means conforming to the way of Tao, which is understood as the order of nature or the natural order of society (or even the divine will). Although Taoist and Confucian perceptions of Tao differ, each school of thought follows this same pattern.

Legend has it that Lao Tzu wrote the Tao Te Ching around 500 bce, as he was leaving China to die in the wilderness. The Tao Te Ching says, “The greatest Virtue is to follow Tao and Tao alone.”9 In this classical text virtue is not perceived to be a character trait that a person can achieve through diligence, but instead is the delight that comes with finding and following the Tao. This is why a “man of highest virtue will not display it as his own.”10 Those who show off their “virtue” are merely pretentious. Virtue is not an accomplishment, but a way of being.

Confucius agrees in the Analects that living according to Tao is how one may encourage virtue in others. For Confucius, the virtuous person does his duty and is unconcerned about rewards. Such a person respects those with greater power, is gracious to dependents, is just with subordinates, and always acts with humility.

Can such virtue be learned? Both the Tao Te Ching and the Analects agree it can, and Confucius also thought virtue could be taught. He spent his life traveling and teaching how to live a virtuous life so that the entire society would be uplifted by the good example of others.

In the Analects of Confucius (551–479 bce) Tao is understood as the ideal way of human existence and thus the best way of governing a people. This means that those who strive for a position of power in order to create the good society are foolish. “Do not worry about holding high position,” Confucius taught. “Worry rather about playing your proper role.”11

Virtue requires “balance,” he reasoned. “When substance overbalances refinement, crudeness results. When refinement overbalances substance, there is superficiality. When refinement and substance are balanced, one has Great Man.”12 This differs from Aristotle’s virtue of moderation, for Confucius is not talking about avoiding extremes, but about balancing what is done and the way it is done.

In this respect the Tao Te Ching and the Analects diverge in their understanding of how to follow Tao. To promote the virtue of refinement Confucius teaches the importance of ceremonies, music, and public rituals, whereas the Tao Te Ching evokes images from nature to suggest what living a virtuous life involves. As “water overcomes the stone,” a person of virtue “is like water, which benefits all things,” but “does not contend with them.”13

The two schools of the Tao tradition agree, however, that refraining from action, rather than trying to make the world right, is often the way to harmony, which is the goal of good living. The Tao Te Ching teaches: