Truth: The Keystone Virtue

The Mouth of Truth by Lucas Cranach the Elder, 1525-28

Truth is usually recognized as the principle issue in virtue ethics and the law. It is the ground from which all other virtues take nourishment, and without it whither and become meaningless. Indeed, the very touchstone of all philosophy, and arguably the ultimate aim of the law, is to ‘seek the truth.’ Yet in our culture and in the professional lives of lawyers it is too often intentionally hidden to avoid conflict, cover up our weaknesses, or to gain an advantage.  Yes, human beings lie, but should we? 

Volumes have been written on the subject of truth and lying, so we shall only touch upon the topic briefly here. Nonetheless, it is a topic worth deep professional and personal reflection. We hope you find the dialogue among Marcus and his students as useful as we do.

“Let no one deceive another" – the Buddha

Elizabeth: “Maureen why are you so upset?”

Maureen: "I’ve been dealing with lying lawyers lately. It’s so frustrating. Marcus, what do you advise we should do about lawyers who habitually lie to us?"

Audrey: "I treat them the same way. I just don't tell them the truth like I do with other lawyers. Do unto others…"

Jacob: "I tend to agree with you Audrey. I don't know that they can be rehabilitated, nor is it my job to do so. I don't see any advantage in treating them with honesty."

Marcus: "Maureen, your question raises a much broader, and more important issue, is lying ever justifiable?"

Elizabeth: "Marcus you can't be serious; your question goes too far. Virtually everyone lies about some things, some lying is necessary. It is society’s open secret that everyone lies. We tell people they look nice when they don't; we tell ‘white lies’ to avoid conflicts with friends, family, and even strangers; we fudge our accomplishments to make ourselves look better. I think this is generally known, and I don't think it's necessarily bad."

Marcus: "Lying is perhaps the most important issue that we've discussed, or rather the virtue of truth is often thought to be the most important of all the virtues. Why is this? Lying is the death of possibility. Whereas truth gives the possibility of having better relationships, seeing things more clearly, and of having a society worth living in."

Maureen: "That might be true in life, but not in practicing law. At least not in dealing with certain lawyers. Unfortunately, I think we regularly deceive one another with the belief it may give us some advantage. This is especially enticing because sometimes it does.”

Jacob: "I think that's probably the purpose of all lying Maureen. We think it gives us some advantage, some edge over another person, or in our lives generally. In the practice of law, we too readily accept it as part of our arsenal.”

Marcus: "Aristotle said ‘falsehood’ is in itself mean and culpable, and ‘truth’ is noble and worthy of praise.’[1] Put more simply, all lying is a form of betrayal. To this I would add that lying is not only the betrayal to another, but to one's self. When we lie, we are not being true to ourselves, or as others have put it, the person free from lying is free to be themselves in every moment.[2] More importantly perhaps, we benefit by telling the truth because it forces us to pay attention to what is true in each moment. We do not have to clutter our minds with trying to keep track of what we've claimed as true, and where we have lied."

Maureen: "That is all fine and good Marcus, but it still doesn't fully answer my question. I understand what you are saying, but don't see the advantage in being honest with someone that I know is not being honest with me."

Marcus: "Consider this possibility Maureen. What if you sat down with that lawyer and told her that you're reluctant to be honest with her, because you feel she is not being honest with you? A difficult conversation perhaps, but it relieves you from the burden of having to lie and might even cause the other person to reconsider their behavior.”

Audrey: "I've heard it said that one's quality of life improves with the number of difficult conversations one is willing to have. I think that is the case in this instance. So give it a try Maureen. What do you have to lose?”

Elizabeth: "I agree. It might sound like a cliché, but if communication is the key to good relationships, then lying is truly an impediment. No matter whether lying takes place in our personal relationships or professional ones. However, lying, whether white lies or not, seems to be such an embedded part of our society and personalities, so much so that I'm not sure we can overcome it, no matter how much we might want to."

Marcus: "I’ll agree that it makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint that lying could aid us in survival. When we were part of a small tribe, the key to survival was staying in everyone's good graces to make sure we had sufficient food and shelter. Perhaps that is why it feels so natural to regularly engage in minor acts of dishonesty. However, we no longer need to cling to that belief. There is no valid argument for dishonesty in almost any circumstance. We live in a large and vast society where it is much easier to find like-minded people. It is worth quoting Aristotle at length here: 

“Let us discuss… the truthful man. We are not speaking of the man who keeps faith in his agreements, ...but the man who in the matters in which nothing of this sort is at stake is true both in word and in life because his character is such.... For the man who loves truth, and is truthful where nothing is at stake, will still be more truthful where something is at stake; he will avoid falsehood as something base, seeing that he avoided it even for its own sake; such  a man is worthy of praise. He inclines rather to understate the truth; for this seems in better taste because exaggerations are wearisome.””[3]

Jacob: "How is it that the ancient Greeks saw the value of truth in all things, and especially as the underpinning of a good society, when today it seems as though falsehoods and lies are praiseworthy, especially by our leaders? Can a society continue to function if truth is not valued as a virtue?"

Marcus: "I am sure that Aristotle and the ancient Greeks would say no. Yet we must admit that dishonesty is a part of our culture, but that does not make it right. As the philosopher Spinoza said ‘a free man always acts honestly, not deceptively. The free man is one guided only by reason, which is universal; if reason allows for deception, then it would allow it always, and a free and virtuous society would be impossible.”[4]

Maureen: "Our discussion has given me much to think about, but first, I'm going to have that difficult conversation."

Audrey: "Wait. Marcus, you haven't answered the question of whether lying is ever justifiable."

Elizabeth: "I think that's a question we each have to answer for ourselves and in each situation. It's one that is vitally important to our own lives, and to the society in which we live and work. As lawyers, we also have to keep in mind the professional rules of ethics and out oaths as attorneys. As attorneys in Florida we took an oath which included the phrase:

I will employ for the purpose of maintaining the causes confided to me such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and will never seek to mislead the judge or jury by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. "[5]

Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom." - Thomas Jefferson

          It is very important as an attorney to zealously represent a client, however it is also important to keep up our own integrity for our own well-being and that of our profession. This is especially today where the term “fake news” is used as a self-evident truth by its mere utterance. The law should stand as a place for reason, and you cannot have unvarnished reason, without truth. It does our clients no benefit to hide facts from them, or the other side, which may come out later to bite us and it’s impossible to know the future. Temporarily gaining some advantage with a lie against an attorney will come back to you when you want that attorney to be honest with you. So, let us be better than our worst parts, and live truthfully in both our personal and professional lives. Our society and profession depend on it. 

References:

---

[1]Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, book IV.  

[2]Harris, Sam, Lying, p.31.
[3] Aristotle Nichomachean Ethics, Bk IV, ch.7.
[4] Spinoza, The Ethics, Bk IV.
[5] Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar

Friendship: When Is It Real?

Luncheon of the Boating Party by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1881

         The law does not recognize friendship in any meaningful sense.[1] However to many of us, our friends are closer to us than many or all of our family members. Aristotle said, “friendship is the mutual feeling of goodwill between two people.”[2] It is an act of loving one another. When there is too great a gap between that love for one another, friendship is impossible or does not last.[3] He also suggested that friendship can only be temporary when one friend becomes or is more virtuous than the other. Is this true? Is there a place for friendship in the law? In the workplace?

“He who has many friends has few.” – Aristotle

Jacob: "Where is Audrey? Is she going to join us today?"

Elizabeth: “I don't know. She left our firm a couple of months ago, and I haven't heard from her."

Jacob: "That’s odd. I thought you two were best friends."

Maureen: "So did I. You two were always in each other’s offices, working on cases together, and hanging out together.”

Marcus: "I haven’t heard from her either. I sent her an email to let her know we were getting together today, but she never responded."

Elizabeth: "Yeah me too. She told me she was very busy and would get back to me. I have to admit, I'm a little hurt. I thought we were more than just professional colleagues. Perhaps I was wrong, maybe we weren’t really friends after all."

Marcus: "I think we can often mistake professional colleagues for friends, but then again we have to define what we mean by friends. Aristotle believed that the number of people with whom we can sustain a relationship of friendship, or “perfect” friendship, with is very small. To develop that kind of friendship you have to spend a great deal of time with one another, participate in meaningful activities, and mutually beneficial pursuits. My guess is that this would not apply to most of the people we might refer to as friends."

Maureen: "I think it can sometimes be a mistake to consider office friends as close or best friends. There are certain things that are too sensitive to share in an office environment. For example, I think it can be a mistake to share deep feelings or family secrets with office colleagues, even if we consider them friends.”

Elizabeth: “Really? Why do you think that?”

Marcus: "I think Maureen makes a good point. An office environment does not lend itself to sharing the type of personal details in your life that you would normally share with a close friend. As I think back on my professional career, there have been maybe one or two people with whom I worked, that have remained close as friends. I shared many interests and spent meaningful time with them outside of the office.”

Elizabeth: "Come to think it there are so many types of friends. Office friends, acquaintances, best friends, close friends, etc. I think that the English language has too few nouns to clearly describe the different relationships we call friendships. We use descriptors and adjectives to fully express these different and often multifaceted relationships. Perhaps we even use the word friend too loosely, to fill in the gaps, when it's probably not the appropriate word."

Marcus: "Let’s explore this further. Aristotle believed that a genuine friend is someone who loves or likes another person for the sake of that other person and wishes them goodwill."

Jacob: "So, in order for someone to be a friend do we have to like them, or love them?"

Maureen: "That question gets at the heart of the different levels of friendship. I can think of many people who I refer to as friends, but I can't say that I love them. On the other hand, there are one or two friends who I can honestly say that I love. Their friendship is very different from most other people I might refer to as friends.”

Marcus: "We might be incapable as human beings of having more than a few true friends. Aristotle believed that despite living in large communities we can only have a few true friends, and this has been found to be true by modern science. Evolutionary psychologists have proposed that the larger a community grows, the strength of the bonding between people within groups systematically decreases. For example, most people have a very strong connection their family and very weak connection with their local barista they see almost daily. The average individual has the strongest relationships with only about 5 people at a time. Thus, even though we may know and consider as many as 150 people friends, there are only a handful with whom we develop close and meaningful relationships.”[4]

Maureen: "I find it fascinating when we discover something the classical thinkers pondered over and believed is confirmed by modern science. By using philosophical reasoning, Aristotle also concluded that we can only have a few meaningfully close relationships with a handful of people. And now you are saying modern science concludes that we do not have the psychological capacity to manage a large number of social relationships effectively beyond a group size that Aristotle established 2500 years ago.”

Marcus: "Exactly. Now let’s discuss what Aristotle had to say about the virtue of friendship. Aristotle found that the friendship of young people "seems to aim at pleasure; for they live under the guidance of emotion and pursue above all what is pleasant to themselves and what is immediately before them; but with increasing age their pleasures become different. This is why they quickly become friends and quickly cease to be so; their friendship changes with the object that is found pleasant, and such pleasures alter quickly."[5]

Elizabeth: "Hold on, Marcus I actually remember you telling us that as we age we will forget the names of people that we used to refer to as friends. We will not even be able to remember their faces. I remember Aristotle also said that "when the bloom of youth is passing, the friendship sometimes passes too." Maybe basic emotions and shared pleasures were the basis of my friendship with Audrey.

Marcus: "Aristotle believed that perfect friendship is the friendship of those who are good and alike in virtue. These types of friendship ‘require time and familiarity; as the proverb says, men cannot know each other till they had eaten salt together; nor can they admit each other to friendship or be friends until each has been found lovable and entrusted by the other.’[6] In spending this meaningful time together that they learn each other's virtues and that they see the world similarly and can experience it almost as one.”

“[The] complete sort of friendship between people [are those] who are good and alike in virtue...” Aristotle

Elizabeth: "I've heard it said that we are the average of the four people with whom we spend the most time. The older I get, the more I’ve found that to be true. I think if we hang out with those with similar virtues to ours, those relationships will reinforce those virtues in us.”

Maureen: "I've often wondered why we lose friends that at one time we seemed so close. Perhaps it’s just the passing of the bloom of youth as Aristotle described."

Elizabeth: "When I think about the friendships I had when I was younger, it seems as though the friendship just drifted off, or one of us seemed to change in a way that changed my feelings about that person."

Marcus: "Aristotle raised the question, "of whether friendships should or should not be broken off when the other party does not remain the same.”[7] I think Aristotle rightly observed that “most differences arise between friends when they are not friends in the spirit in which they think they are.”[8] Sometimes we deceive ourselves about someone's character, when they have done nothing wrong, rather our perception of them was wrong."

Elizabeth: "Yes I've experienced that. It's puzzling, but I think when it occurs we should not feel bad about giving up a friendship, and believing we haven't been a good friend. As Aristotle believed there was nothing wrong with breaking off a friendship when a friend has changed, and we are unable to save the relationship."

Jacob: "I do agree with Aristotle that we become the best of friends with those with whom we share virtues, which often seems just as simple as likes and dislikes. But we cannot truly get to know those virtues without spending meaningful time with one another.”

Marcus: "Yes Jacob, and I think Goethe summed it up by saying “friends enhance each other,” and having virtuous friends inspire us to become better people."

Elizabeth: "Now I think I have a better understanding of why Audrey and I weren’t the friends I thought we were. The professional setting doesn't really allow us to share a lot of meaningful time with another person and we were not spending a lot of time outside of work, really getting to know each other’s virtues. Our friendship was based on shared work experiences and professional virtues, but not life experiences or “real life” virtues. Those friendships are typically best left out of the office. But, I have to admit, I'm still a bit hurt that Audrey hasn't stayed in touch with me."

Marcus: "As am I Elizabeth, but I believe we are better to judge her professionally in this situation, rather than her virtue as a friend.”

“One of the most beautiful qualities of true friendship is to understand and to be understood." - Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Just because the law does not recognize friendship, does not mean that we cannot hold friendships in a professional setting. However, we must recognize that these are few and far between. There is a reason that there are ethics rules against close ties with Judges or opponents or even clients. We must separate the friendships from our professional careers to better serve our clients and avoid the pitfalls of worrying too much about our personal relationships at work. Friendship is important part of the virtuous life. Ancient Greek philosophy believed the goal of life is to maximize happiness by living virtuously, by fulfilling your own potential as a human, and engaging with others, that is family, friends and fellow human beings, in mutually beneficial activities.[9] Doing this outside of work and often is essential to cultivating a loving friendship wherein you are both respectful and happy with your mutual virtues.

References: 

Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII and IX.
Hall, Edith, "Why Read Aristotle Today?" Aeon, June 4, 2018, ^{https://aeon.co/amp/essays/what-can-aristotle-teach-us-about-the-routes-to-happiness} 
Phillips, Christopher, Socrates Cafe: A Fresh Taste of Philosophy.

West, Geoffrey, Scale: The Universal Laws of Growth, Innovation, Sustainability, and the Pace of Life in Organisms, Cities, Economies, and Companies, 304 – 307.

__________________________

Footnotes:

[1] Lawsuits may be brought by a “next friend” or guardian ad litem. See F.R.C.P. 17(a)(2). The rule goes on to state, “The court must appoint a guardian ad litem—or issue another appropriate order—to protect a minor or incompetent person who is unrepresented in an action.” Black’s Law Dictionary has no definition for a friend, but defines Next Friend as “the name given to a person who acts for a child in the court room.”

[2] Aristotle, Nichomeadean Ethics, Book VIII.

[3] Id.

[4] West, Geoffery, Scale, pp.304-07.

[5] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, Bk. VIII.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Hall, Edith, "Why Read Aristotle Today?" Aeon.

Anger, A Useful Tool or An Emotional Waste?

The Wrath of Achilles by Michael Martin Drooling, 1810

The New York Times recently reported on the rise of “anger rooms.” According to the article you can now go to clubs in many cities around the world for the sole purpose of expressing anger by smashing things, breaking things, and more or less letting it all out.[1] Clubs, baseball bats, hammers and other assorted objects are made available along with plates, bowls, windows and effigies of your least favorite political figures for the bashing. Many participants reported feeling better by manifesting their anger physically. But in everyday life we cannot typically engage in physically expressing our anger. So, what can we do with our anger? How can we develop the virtue of ‘good temper’?

Let’s listen in on Marcus and his students as they discuss anger and its virtuous mean as so called by Aristotle as the ‘good temper.”

“Anger is the poisonous root which overthrows the growth of virtue.” —The Buddha

Elizabeth: “Marcus, tell us, why did you hang up on that lawyer earlier?”

Maureen: “Marcus, you hung up on another lawyer!? Marcus, you always taught us to be more respectful than that!”

Jacob: “So Marcus, you’re human after all.”

Audrey: “That must’ve been fun to watch. I’ve never seen Marcus angry.”

Marcus: “I’m glad to see I’ve become a source of entertainment for you all. And yes, I did hang up on another lawyer, but I wasn’t angry. Getting angry involves losing control. And if anything, I was in complete control. Despite what Elizabeth might’ve thought.”

Elizabeth: “I don’t know if you were angry, per se, but you weren’t happy.”

Maureen: “Nonetheless, it does sound disrespectful, Marcus.”

Marcus: “There’s a lesson here, if you’ll listen.”

Audrey: “Okay, okay, regale us with your tale of how hanging up on someone was not an expression of anger, and how you were in complete control.”

Marcus: “This lawyer and I are on opposite sides of a very heated case. I began to convey to him that he wasn’t being forthright about the facts in our case. He responded by yelling at me. I told him that if he didn’t stop I was going to hang up. He continued yelling. I gave him one more warning and, yet he continued. The conversation was unproductive, so, I hung up.”

Audrey: “So, in essence, you called him a liar. He then became angry, and started yelling at you. Sounds justified to me.”

Marcus: “I didn’t use the term “liar,” but even if I had does that justify an angry response like yelling at your opponent?”

Elizabeth: “Nope, he lost his cool.  As the law is based in logic and rational thinking, there’s very little justification for allowing anger to take control. Allowing anger to take control often causes one to lose focus on the ultimate goal.”

Marcus: “Aristotle said that ‘anger must always be attended by certain pleasure – that which arises from the expectation of revenge. It has been said that anger… “is far sweeter than slow dripping honey, clouding the hearts of men like smoke. It is also attended by a certain pleasure because thoughts dwell upon the act of vengeance, and the images then called up cause pleasure, like the image called up in dreams.’”[2]

Audrey: “I know what you mean, I have a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction when I am able to take revenge upon someone who has made me angry. Of course, I must admit, the pleasure never lasts but I nonetheless savor it, however briefly.”

Marcus: “Audrey, think about what you just said: when someone “made” you angry. That’s the problem with giving into anger, once you give someone else control over your emotions, they’ve won the initial battle. Aristotle believed that some good could come of anger. He felt that it could banish fear and give us confidence to deal with perceived threats. But of course, we should take this commentary in the context of his time, which was likely motivated more by the threat of military escapades, rather than occurrences in everyday life.”

Jacob: “Yes, but didn’t Aristotle also emphasize the importance of ‘good temper’? Which seems to be the virtue we must nurture if we are to control our anger.”

Maureen: “Yes, and if I remember my Nichomachean Ethics correctly, Aristotle thought that one can have too much or too little ‘anger,’ but of course, as always, there is a mean. And for Aristotle the ‘mean’ is ‘good temper.’”

Marcus: “Yes, but I think Aristotle misses the mark on anger. A better guide in the western canon is probably Seneca. He wrote an essay on anger that is worth reading. Seneca called anger “the most hideous and frenzied of all the emotions.”  He, like some of the other ancient philosophers, described it as a brief insanity: “No plague has cost the human race more dear: you will see slaughter, poisoning, charge and sordid-counter charges in the law courts, devastation of cities, the ruin of whole nations… huge tracts of territory glowing in flames that the enemy has kindled... cities of greatest renown, their very foundations scarcely discernible – anger has cast them down into deserts, mile after mile without inhabitant – anger has emptied them all.”[3] Seneca also points out, “[w]e must admit, however, that neither wild beasts nor any other creature except man is subject to anger: for, whilst anger is the foe of reason, it nevertheless does not arise in any place where reason cannot dwell.”[4]

Elizabeth: “So there is reason even in the angry man I see, or so I would hope.”

Audrey: “Well, in light of that destruction, I guess hanging up on someone, even if it did come from a place of anger, isn’t so bad. Instead, you were being reasonable by not allowing anger to consume you both.”

Jacob: “Anger has its place, in limited doses, at limited times. But probably not in our profession, which is intended to be a civil practice in logic and debate.”

Maureen: “I’m not sure expressing anger has much use in everyday life either. Best that we tame it, before we lose control of it.”

Marcus: “I agree with you all. I think Seneca said it best, as he likens the expression of anger as the shooting of an arrow. Once the arrow has been released there is no re-aiming to be done, it must run its course. And of course, that means it is beyond the reach of reason. So, there may be times where an arrow is or feels necessary, but regardless, we must deal with its consequences once shot.”

“If virtue proceeds us, every step will be safe.” — Seneca

       “Rage—Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses.”[5] Although the rage of Peleus is shown through the battles of the Trojan War, it is the gods submission to their base and shallow appetites which make the Iliad a true reflection of man’s follies. No love is won with anger, only destruction and mutual defeat. Because anger, like any other intense emotion, ends in a quick downfall back into the less adrenaline-pumping norm. It is a high, like sweet food and physical pleasures.

Thus, we come back to the virtuous mean of anger as defined by Aristotle as “good temper.” So, we should not allow ourselves to become slaves to our anger, but rather examine our arising emotions with self-reflection and understanding. If Marcus would have attempted to lull the angry lawyer with reason, as he no doubt attempted, it would have brought more anger, stoking the fire, so to speak. That doesn’t mean Marcus should return anger with anger. Sometimes, it is best to walk away and understand some arguments require a cooling off period. And when that doesn’t work, we have referees in our judges to impose order.  All legal arguments need not be decided by the crashing of the gavel, as many can be resolved by replacing discord and anger with calm deliberate reasoning. Practicing this behavior in law, and in life, nurtures the virtue of good temper.  

 “You will not be punished for you anger, you will be punished by your anger.” — The Buddha

---

[1]Penelope Green, “Anger Rooms are all the Rage. Timidly We Gave One a Whack.” The New York Times, August 9, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/09/style/anger-rooms-the-wrecking-club.html

[2] Aristotle, Rhetoric, Book II, Part 2, quoting The Iliad, XVIII.

[3] L. Annaeus Seneca, Of Anger, Book I, Part 2

[4] L. Annaeus Seneca, Of Anger, Book I, Part 3

[5] Homer, The Iliad, Book I

Honor: A virtue, or the prize of virtue?

Virtue Crowning Honor by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1734

          At some point, almost everyone ‘who shows up’ receives an honor. Recognition begins in pre-K and ends with a eulogy. But when are we deserving of honor? Is it ok to seek honors? Let’s examine these questions further as we listen in on Marcus and his students:

“The greatest way to live with honor in this world, is to be what we pretend to be.” - Socrates

Elizabeth: “Marcus, congratulations I see your peers have honored you once again.”

Audrey: “Yes, Marcus another accolade demonstrating that you are highly prized as a good lawyer.”

Marcus: “Thank you, but I'm never quite sure that honors awarded by your peers mean anything more than you have been around a long time, or are merely popular. I plead guilty to the former, but not the latter.”

Jacob: “It sounds like after 30 years of practice, you take these honors for granted, but as young lawyers we strive for them. Even though we don’t have gray hair, we still want recognition that we are good at our craft.”

Marcus: “Some of those honors I received are more well-deserved than others, Jacob. Aristotle argued that properly obtained honors demonstrate that we have achieved certain virtues, for example, courage or magnificence. Therefore, seeking awards or honors can be a motivating force to live a morally upright life. It is as Aristotle would say a 'gift of the virtues'.”

Maureen: “I'm not sure I agree with you there, Marcus, it sounds as if the virtue of honor can merely be reduced to seeking fame or awards. Aren't honor and fame two sides of the same coin?”

Marcus: “'Honor' is a small word, that historically carries many burdens. Sometimes it is joined at the hip with 'fame,' but if honor is recognized as a virtue, and fame is not, then it should protect us from seeking earthly goods like money, leadership positions or power. Let me give you an example. General George C. Marshall was a man who refused to lobby for himself. It was not in his character. When President Roosevelt asked him directly, more than once, if he wanted to command the D-Day invasion during World War II, a role he relished and was qualified for, he could only answer that it was the President's decision.[1] General Marshall earned many honors during his life, but would never seek them out, and certainly not ask for them. So President Roosevelt famously gave the position to General Eisenhower who went on to achieve both fame and honor. There are probably few men more honorable in American history than General Marshall, but too few today remember him;, while everyone has heard of  Eisenhower. According to Aristotle, honor is the object of two virtues, ambition and high-mindedness. General Marshall was certainly high-minded, but was not ambitious enough to seek command of the D-Day invasion. Ambition directed by virtue motivates us to do good and by happenstance that might lead to fame. So sometimes fame accompanies honor, but they are not always two sides of the same coin.”

Elizabeth: “So is it correct to say that Aristotle thought proper ambition can be a motivating force moving us towards virtuous action, thereby rendering us more worthy of honors?”

Marcus – “I think that's the way Aristotle would view it. He said that the virtuous seek "only honors that are great and that are conferred by good men...but honor from casual people and on trifling grounds, [the proud man] will utterly despise, since it is not this that he deserves."[2] In this regard he is similar to Plato, who believed that virtue is an indispensable ingredient of happiness and he included honor amongst those "good things." The virtuous man will seek honor in the right way.

Maureen: “But the type of honor we are talking about can only be awarded by others, and therefore, I don't see how it can be a virtue. It is something for which we have very little, if any control over.”

Audrey: “I think Maureen makes a good point, Marcus. I think it's possible to live an honorable life, but never have honors bestowed upon you. That does not mean you are not worthy of honors, but for whatever reason have just never been recognized for them. Not everyone can receive awards, otherwise they become meaningless, but everyone can live a life deserving of honor.”

Jacob: “Yes, we all know of circumstances where an honor is bestowed upon someone who is not deserving of it, and many who are deserving of such honors never receive them. Not all honors are distributed fairly.”

Elizabeth: “Nonetheless, as a self-governing profession lawyers are motivated to act ethically, because we know that our failure to do so can result in negative reviews by colleagues and peers, or even disciplinary action. In this way, we seek respect, which is a type of honor.”

Marcus: “Whether you are awarded honors by your peers or not, remember that public honors can often be misplaced or even wrongly withheld. However, that should never dissuade you from doing what is honorable, which might also include seeking worthy honors from your peers. ”

Elizabeth: “So Marcus, are you worthy of the most recent award from your peers.”

Marcus: “I will let the peers speak for themselves.”

“Confidence… thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligation, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

        To be confident, you have to understand the honors bestowed upon you. Upon thoughtful examination, each person knows whether they are worthy of an honor. To have an honorable career, that is being worthy of honors in your profession, you must recognize that some honors we receive are not truly earned or are better bestowed upon another. We all know it would be honorable to reject a reward of honor by stating a truth. This would require courage, proper ambition, truthfulness, proper shame, righteous indignation, and almost all of Aristotle’s 12 virtues.  This is the point of honor. Honors should only be bestowed upon and enjoyed by the virtuous. Next time someone gives you an honor or pays you a compliment for your work, be sure to give credit where credit is due, even if that means proper recognition of yourself.

---

[1] As recounted by David Brooks in 'The Road to Character'

[2] Aristotle, The Nichomachaen Ethics, Chapter 3