Jacob Dwelle

Prof. Bettridge
Journal 4 Virtue
He seems to be extremely repetitive. He spent a lot of time
describing the tautology that is virtue and good. However, I think it
may have been good that he omitted that much of what was going to
be talked about was tautological in nature. For example, good is good,
virtue is virtue, and so on.
He is saying that virtue may benefit you, or it may not. It is up to
chance. However, we should be virtuous for the reason of being
virtuous, not with the goal to get something from it. Our reason should
not be something like fame or wealth, but if those appear out of your
actions, then this is fine. You should be virtuous for the sake of being
virtuous, maybe to better yourself, but nothing more.
The whole beauty equals truth spiel seems to not manifest in
reality. I think he wanted to make an attempt at being funny (and he
failed). The actions of any given person does not reflect their
appearance, with maybe the exception of looking older from stress.
Beyond that, there isnt much that can be said about actions affecting
appearance.
He goes at the whole idea from a top down perspective. He says
that we can barely stand to look at pictures of those who have done
horrific acts, and how we enjoy looking at those who have done great

things. However, this is because we have a preconceived picture of the

people he might be talking about. If we had been taught that Hitler had
acted in the way we were taught that Gandhi acted, then we would
have no trouble with looking at a man who we currently perceive as a
horrible person. The same is true for the opposite. If we had been
taught Martin Luther King acted in the same way that Fidel Castro did,
then we would not have streets named after him, or his philosophy
taught in schools.
I agree with the value the author has placed on intellectual
ability or specialties. I think this is something that must be treated
seriously when we talk about how we act at any given time, or in any
given place. While the mechanic and the mathematician example does
not quite do it for me, in terms of the value of intellectual ability, I do
think there are other examples that we might be able to find which
better reflect the importance of the idea.
I like his admission (not the right word) that being virtuous is a
process rather than something instantaneous. You become a virtuous
person over time, not simply by one action. In this same light, we
always say that a single good action does not make you a good person,
nor does a single bad act make you a bad person. I agree that it is
more of a process and change over time.
He says there may be a substantial genetic component to
those who act in a good way. However, good is subjective, and

owned by the individual. There are no right genes that say an action
is good because you may find the opposite gene in another person.
Who are you to say that your genes are the way nature intended them
to be, and theirs are not? His guess is not empirical in nature, and
therefore it is void, bordering uselessness.
He says justice is a virtue how convenient that we have just
read up on justice. Coincidence? I do not think so. Well planned.