Yet one of the recurring themes you’ll find in the pages to come is that extremism in pursuit of virtue can easily become vice. Which is to say, no single virtue is, on its own, necessarily virtuous. Hope is essential for the human spirit, yet when it stands alone it turns its bearer into a Pollyanna. Charity—one of the greatest of the virtues—is sublime, yet if you have nothing but charity, you might well become gullible. Curiosity is wonderful; without it we’d still be living in caves and clubbing large animals with sticks. But curiosity run amok, and unleavened by other virtues, turns you into a gossip. Or worse. Mengele was a curious sort.
I don’t mean to be overly dramatic, but history is full of monsters created by manias for a single virtue. Robespierre, for instance, was devoted to justice. When he fostered the Terror it wasn’t an accidental by-product of his wild pursuit of virtue—it was his object: “Terror is naught but prompt, severe, inflexible justice,” he wrote. “It is therefore an emanation of virtue.” Yikes.
If you take anything from this book (other than the yucks), it should be that virtue is additive. No single virtue is sufficient in and of itself, and each one, taken on its own, is corruptible. Yet each virtue becomes more valuable with the addition of others. And for any single virtue to be brought to its full bloom, it must be surrounded by its sisters. Courage and prudence: Together they give people the spine to do great things. Integrity and forbearance: Without them, no society can function. Chastity and temperance: All right, let’s not get carried away here. The point is, when a man has cultivated the virtues as a class, then, and only then, does he become a man in full.
Of course, not everyone can be expected to cultivate all of the virtues at all times—we are not, all of us, Augustines. We have to muddle through as best we can and pick our spots. So how do we keep our imperfect devotions to virtue from becoming malformed? In Patrick O’Brian’s Master and Commander books, Stephen Maturin, a physician, philosopher, and spy, notes that virtue should always be commingled with humor. This observation is, I think, the best engine governor we have for virtue, to keep it from pushing the needle across the line and into the red zone. I’d bet just about anything that Robespierre never laughed about justice.
The Heavyweight Championship of Virtues
All that philosophical stuff is nice enough, but this is America, where we love winners. So what you’re probably thinking right about now is: Fine, no single virtue is good enough on its own. But which virtue is the best? Who’s the king of the virtues?
Picking a favorite virtue is like picking a favorite child: It’s the kind of thing you’re supposed to pretend not to do—but that everyone does anyway. We can toss chastity and temperance out of the ring straight off, obviously. They’re important, in their way, but exactly no one is going to make them contenders for the title. Same for thrift and simplicity. Nice to have, but not first-tier virtues. Fellowship is fine, but a luxury. And justice? As Rob Long suggests some pages down the line, that’s the virtue we’d much rather have done unto others than practiced on ourselves. No thanks.
Some pages after that, Christopher Caldwell argues a pride of place for curiosity, “because the knowledge acquired through curiosity grounds your other virtues, while leaving to you the choice of what those virtues will be.” Aquinas called prudence the queen of the virtues, saying that she gently guides all the rest. And Aristotle deemed courage to be the first virtue, because it makes all the others possible.
Good points, all of them. And you probably have your own favorite. But I’d like to make the case for gratitude. Cicero declared, “Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.” It is the alpha, the point from which all virtues must begin. It is gratitude that allows us to appreciate what is good, to discern what should be defended and cultivated.
You need not believe in God to pursue the virtues (though it certainly helps). Yet if you do believe, then your first instinct in all things must be gratitude: for creation, for love, for mercy. And even if you don’t believe, you must start again from gratitude: That a world grown from randomness could have turned out so fortuitously, with such liberality. That the Hobbesian state of nature has been conquered. At least for a spell. As my friend Yuval Levin explained not long ago, “We value these things not because they are triumphant and invincible but because they are precious and vulnerable, because they weren’t fated to happen, and they’re not certain to survive. They need us—and our gratitude for them should move us to defend them and to build on them.”
Gratitude magnifies the sweet parts of life and diminishes the painful ones. It is the wellspring of both humility and ambition, the magnetic pole for prudence, the platform for courage, the inducement to charity and mercy. And in addition to everything else, gratitude is the engine for progress: We build not because we are dissatisfied with the world as it is, but because we are grateful to all those who have built it to this point and wish to repay them by making our own contributions to their work.
None of this is to say that the world is perfect—it isn’t. But if it’s to be improved, that improvement will come one person at a time, through the exercise of virtue—through the conscious decision of all of us to try to be better people, to live better lives, and to make a better world. All of which begins, from first light, with saying “Thank you” for what we have, right now.
Which is where I’ll start: Thank you for picking up this book and spending time with me and my friends.
And that’s all for the spinach. Now go and have some fun.
Part I
The Cardinal Virtues
The ones you were taught in Sunday school
but have totally forgotten about until this very moment.
Go ahead. Try to name them.
We’ll wait….
CHAPTER 1
The Seven Deadly Virtues
And the New York Times
P. J. O’Rourke
BEFORE WE CONSIDER what virtue has been up to lately, we should take a look at how vice is faring.
The conceit of every era is that people are more inclined to vice than they used to be. In The Clouds, first performed in 423 BC, Aristophanes has the personification of “Just Discourse” recount how vicious children are nowadays, compared to the youngsters of yore who “would not have dared, before those older than themselves, to have taken a radish, an aniseed, or a leaf of parsley, and much less eat fish or thrushes or cross their legs.”
What Aristophanes said is true to this day. I’ve seen a child, sprung from my own loins, munch a radish. With crossed legs. And before I’ve even mixed a predinner martini. (Although, in fairness to our kids, we have trouble getting them to eat fish at all, or aniseed, or parsley—never mind thrushes. Their penchant for vice does not extend to calling first dibs on gobbling roast songbirds.)
The long-lost “Golden Age”—a time when people and things once were better—is a myth in every mythos. I’m willing to bet that Australopithecus shamed its biped brats with stories of noble hominids brandishing proper tails and blissfully living in trees.
That said, vice is doing very well these days. Note, for example, how practically everything featured in the New York Times Sunday Styles section is one of the seven deadly sins.
For starters, envy might as well be the section’s title. There’s not a person in the Styles section who isn’t leading a life that’s more celebrated, glamorous, rich, exciting, dramatic—or, at the least, more stylish—than our own. Every advertisement is a promotion of avarice. You could, I suppose, be charitable (charity is one of the seven virtues) and believe that the baubles being hawked are all meant to be given away as gifts to the poor—a Coach bag for the bag lady, a Montblanc pen for a homeless man to letter “Will Work 4 Food” on a piece of cardboard. But even if that were the case, a remarkable degree of avarice would have had to be practiced by the givers in order to afford such gifts in the first place. As for pride? Pride goeth before a New York Times wedding announcement.
Fashion,
of course, is the handmaiden (excuse me, handperson) of lust. You might not think that, given some of the fashions you see in the Times. But then again, everything according to taste. The presentation of purple hindquarters excites the mandrill. And who am I to presume that Times readers are less sensuous than this noble primate? Then there’s the sloth evident in just having enough time on your hands to bother reading the Styles section. But whatever else you want to say about the Styles section, you can’t accuse it of gluttony. The people you see pictured are always beautiful and terribly thin. No, for gluttony you have to go over to the paper’s “Dining Out” section. The portions may be small, but the prices are voracious. And as for wrath, well, just consult the Times editorial page. Or consult me after I’ve read it.
So vice flourishes. Does virtue languish in its shade? Gol durn right, it does, I say, stopping myself just short of committing the mortal sin of taking the Lord’s name in vain. Not to mention committing the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost—despair.
I mean, who even remembers the names of the seven virtues these days? Well, except justice. That gets a lot of play. But as for the others … I’ve never seen protestors marching through the street shouting, “No justice! No prudence!” Here, for the record, is the list:
1. Prudence
2. Justice
3. Fortitude
4. Temperance
5. Faith
6. Hope
7. Charity
These are the so-called Seven Cardinal Virtues. Although, technically, if you possess Virtue #5–Christian Division, only the first four are cardinal, so called because they were the principal virtues handed down from the ancient Greek philosophers. The last three—faith, hope, and charity—are theological virtues, supplied by the New Testament because the ancient Greek philosophers were hopeless logic-choppers who detested each other and had faith in things like a nature deity with a goat’s bottom who played a wooden kazoo.
Not that there haven’t been competing lists. The fourth-century Christian poet Aurelius Clemens Prudentius composed a different roster of “Seven Heavenly Virtues” in Psychomachia. (It was a medieval best seller.) Prudentius, despite his cardinal virtue of a last name, chose chastity, temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility.
People will have their own partialities, of course. For my own part, I’m not so sure about diligence. It depends on what you’re being diligent about. There is the kind of hollow, due diligence that JPMorgan Chase did on Bernie Madoff’s transactions. Or, for those who like their moral turpitude without fear of an SEC investigation, there’s the abhorrent manner in which a grown man “diligently” learns to master Grand Theft Auto V. But note that “self-esteem” doesn’t make anybody’s list.
Virtues are hard to tabulate because being good is an inversion of Tolstoy’s maxim about families. Indecencies are all alike; every decency is decent in its own way.
And inversion is just the word for virtue’s current state. Virtue has by no means disappeared. It’s as much in public view as ever. But it’s been strung up by the heels. Virtue is upside down. Virtue is uncomfortable. Virtue looks ridiculous. All the change and the house keys are falling out of virtue’s pants pockets.
1. Prudence has become such an object of scorn that a call to violate it is the motto of the world’s most famous sneaker company. (Perhaps you ought to think it over for five seconds first. “Just do it” ranks second only to “Watch this” on the list of phrases most commonly heard before gruesome accidents.)
People will name their children anything these days. Anything. It wouldn’t surprise me to find out there are half a dozen boys in my son’s fourth-grade class named Aurelius. But there’s no girl named Prudence in any grade school in America, even though “Dear Prudence” was a Beatles song that sucked—which is usually enough to send American parents into a nomenclature frenzy. (See the half-dozen boys in my son’s class named Jude.)
Why is prudence so unpopular? Because it’s become synonymous with an unhealthy inhibition resulting in psychologically damaging exclusionary behavior toward those with a healthy lack of inhibitions. How accepted is the shaming of prudence? These days, no politician, pundit, celebrity, public intellectual, mainstream Protestant minister, or Reform rabbi can rebuke any type of personal behavior without the disclaimer, “I’m no prude, but….”
That is, unless the personal behavior in question can be construed as exclusionary, racist, sexist, homophobic, insensitive, exploitative, or right-wing extremist. In which case no prudence will be exercised in branding the person whose personal behavior is in question as one or more of the above. The majority of voters in “red states” are also fair game.
But the truth is, prudence is the first of the virtues. You can’t name one good thing that’s been done that couldn’t have been done better with more prudence. (Except for my wife marrying me.)
2. Justice is justly sought. But justice is also what everybody claims he wants but nobody seems happy about when he gets it. It’s the “Aw-I-don’t-want-anything-for-Christmas” present of virtues. And it’s the one virtue that’s better when we practice it on others than when others practice it on us. As a priest friend of mine says, “I don’t know about you, but on Judgment Day I’m going to be praying for mercy, not justice.”
3. Fortitude is quaint. We praise the greatest generation for having it, but they had aluminum siding, church on Sunday, and jobs that required them to wear neckties or nylons (but never at the same time). We don’t want those either. Instead of fortitude we seek help from others. There’s nothing unvirtuous about that. But when help isn’t forthcoming, fortitude is what we used to need. Now we need to complain. The lionheart has been replaced by the caterwaul: “She’s so brave to be talking about this.” Instead of holding onto our courage, we share our fears. Lacking prudence, we prize impulsiveness. And sharing is such a generous impulse.
4. Temperance has become a twelve-step program. We praise it unstintingly, thirty days a month, while we’re at Promises in Mailbu. For the rest of the year, well … temperance doesn’t make good reality TV. Or garner YouTube hits for celebrities. And temperate political speech is an easy way to lose a political primary.
I’m no prude, but … as described in the Catechism, temperance “ensures the will’s mastery over instinct and keeps desire within the limits of what is honorable.” Yet mastery is nowadays unacceptable in the home and the workplace, at school, and anywhere else except among consenting adults in one of those West Village dungeons you see profiled in the Times Sunday Styles section every so often. And as for the rest of what the Catechism says about temperance? Instincts are good things. Desires must be fulfilled. And “limits of what is honorable”? That’s so judgmental.
5. Faith, however, should not be tempered. Or should it? There’s such a thing as a surplus of faith, and we’ve got it. Faith in ourselves is an article of faith, and we have the utmost faith in the businesses and industries devoted to this faith—psychiatry, psychology, therapy, counseling, self-help books, and motivational speakers.
We have faith in man and all his works (unless they have a large carbon footprint). And all his empty promises, too. Indeed, the more empty the promise—free health care!—the more faith we seem to have in it. So, for instance, a Yale University website says 70 percent of Americans have faith that the climate is changing. As well they might, since a sign has been given unto them. The climate changes every year, getting warmer in the spring and colder in the fall. And of course we have faith in all sorts of things we see on the Internet.
We have faith in government, although we may deny it thrice before the cock crows—and more often than that after a couple of drinks. But the very size of the Leviathan is a mark of our faith. The U.S. government dwarfs the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine or any megachurch. Tithing? Government lays claim to 40 percent of our entire GDP. And, as for government services, daily attendance by Americans is almost 100 percent. Church is just once a week, and less t
han one-third of us go that often.
There is one sort of faith that’s on the wane in America. More than one-third of us aren’t certain about the existence of God—or say we don’t know, or don’t believe in Him at all. At least that’s according to the Pew Research Center, in whose polls we have faith.
6. Hope … and change! That pretty much tells us where this virtue has gone—down the rabbit hole of wishful thinking. Hope was not always so faint a word in the English language. The root meaning is “expectation of a thing desired.” In the Book of Common Prayer during “The Order for Burial of the Dead,” the presiding minister says, “the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection.” He doesn’t mean, “Wouldn’t it be nice if …?”
But hope has been out of artistic fashion for more than a century. It’s hard to think of a great modern novel, play, or poem that ends on a hopeful note. Or even begins on one. Take the first line of “The Waste Land,” for instance: “April is the cruelest month.” Excuse me, Thomas Stearns, Mr. soon-to-be Anglican convert, did the Easter Bunny skip the Eliot household? The Great Gatsby concludes with F. Scott Fitzgerald declaring, “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” And smack into the dock, no doubt. Even when he was a lad taking sailing lessons, there was no hope for Scotty.
True, the last words of dialogue in Henry Miller’s Death of a Salesman are from Willy Loman’s wife, who says, “We’re free …. We’re free….” But Miller isn’t proposing an ontological truth in order to refute determinism. He’s just being fashionably ironic. What Linda Loman is talking about is how the final mortgage payment on the house was made the day of Willy’s funeral.
The Seven Deadly Virtues Page 2