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

Pride - Virtue or Vice?

ERCOLE GRAZIANI JUNIOR (Bologna, 1688 - 1765) 

The Pride Offending the Virtue

In the latest film version of Jane Austen's classic 'Pride and Prejudice', the heroine asks her love interest Mr. Darcy: "would you consider pride a fault or virtue?" It is a question which draws strong opinions on both sides, at least in Western culture. Aristotle considered pride the "crowning virtue." Whereas the Judeo-Christian tradition considers it one of the seven deadly sins – the only one of Aristotle's virtues which falls into that unsavory category. So which is it? Is pride a fault or a virtue?

Let's listen in on Marcus and his colleagues as they debate the issue.

"Vanity and pride are different things, though the words are often used synonymously. A person may be proud without being vain. Pride relates more to our opinion of ourselves, vanity to what we would have others think of us." - Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice

Marcus: "Elizabeth you look very pleased with yourself today. Where have you been?"

Elizabeth: "I just got back from the courthouse. Another motion hearing, another victory. You should be proud of me Marcus, that's five wins in a row."

Marcus: "Why should I be proud of you?"

Elizabeth: "As my mentor, you should take some credit for me becoming a successful lawyer. You have taught me how to conduct myself in court, and how to effectively present legal arguments."

Marcus: "Well even if all you say is true, your success is not something that I take pride in."

Maureen: "Marcus, that doesn't make any sense. As Elizabeth explained, but for your guidance and teaching, she would not enjoy the success in the same way. We all want you to be proud of us in that way."

Jacob: "Yes Marcus we all feel that way. Why don't you take pride in it?"

Marcus: "To answer your question, we must explore 'pride', what it is and what it is not. Aristotle said "…the man is thought to be proud who thinks of himself as worthy of great things, being worthy of them…."[1]

Audrey: "If I understand that correctly Marcus, the truly proud man is justified in his view of himself. He not only thinks himself worthy of great things, but also is in fact worthy of them. This seems to be different than vanity, which is unjustified pride, or rather false pride."

Elizabeth: "Yes that seems a fair understanding of Aristotle. But I think there's more to it than that. For Aristotle, pride is a self-referential virtue. In other words, the justifiably proud man does not display his pride, because he does not boast of his achievements. By contrast, the vain man wants us to recognize and acknowledge him well beyond his worth."

Maureen: "Yes, I think that's true, and if I remember from my reading of Aristotle correctly, the awareness that one possesses excellences not shared by many, makes one stand out among the crowd, even though he never speaks of them."

Marcus: "Indeed, Aristotle said that the man worthy of pride is not a gossip, and he will speak neither about himself nor about another, since he cares not to be praised nor for others to be blamed."[2]

Elizabeth: "Okay Marcus, I think I'm starting to get it. First, you can't feel pride for someone else's accomplishments, because those accomplishments and efforts belong only to the person who has made the effort to achieve those good things. Second, it would be vain for you to take credit for my accomplishments. In other words, it would be false pride, as you did not achieve them yourself. I could have squandered your teachings and failed to utilize them in my career."

Marcus: "I agree with you Elizabeth, but there is more to 'pride' for Aristotle. Aristotle claimed that ‘pride… is a sort of crown of the virtues; for it makes them greater, and it is not found without them.'"

Jacob: "Now that I don't understand, Marcus. How can pride be the crown of the virtues for Aristotle, but also one of the seven deadly sins in the Judeo-Christian tradition?"

Audrey: "Yes, 'pride' is not well thought of in our culture. We've all heard the saying ‘pride goeth before a fall.’"

Maureen: "And in my reading of the Bible, I must say, there's never anything good said about pride. But I think I can explain why."

Audrey: "I'll have to defer to you on that Maureen, I can't remember the last time I read the Bible."

Maureen: "In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God is to be honored and praised. When good things happen to you, it is from the grace of God, and he, or she, should get the credit. Humility is praised, not pride."

Marcus: "I am not a biblical scholar, but that makes sense to me. It's also consistent with Aristotle's view of humility. A person who is worthy of great things, but doesn't consider himself so, is unduly humble according to Aristotle. For him, that is a defect of character."

Elizabeth: "Marcus, I'm intrigued by Aristotle calling 'pride' the crown of the virtues. Does he mean that if we are able to achieve and live by the other virtues that we should be proud of that? In other words, is that the ultimate goal?"

Marcus: "I don't know whether Aristotle would say it was the ultimate goal, but I think he considered it the virtue that drives us towards perfection. In modern parlance, we may take pride in our accomplishments when we do the best we can, and then pride is justified. So for Aristotle, the virtuous man is inherently 'good,' and for that he is justified in being proud. He has earned it."

Audrey: "That is something my parents drilled into me. Always do the best you can. I never thought about it in terms of pride, but now that makes sense. They never encouraged me to take credit or receive honors for something that I was not worthy of."

Jacob: "You mean like just showing up, and they give you a trophy? Participation trophies."[3]

Audrey: "Exactly!"

Marcus: "So Elizabeth, did you do your best at those motion hearings?"

Elizabeth: "I prepared. I argued well. But honestly in two of those hearings the other side wasn't prepared. It was obvious. So, I think I got lucky on a couple. Also, it seems that whenever I leave a hearing, I think of things I could have done better. So I do not think I always did ‘my best.’"

Maureen: "But that is part of the learning process. We are never perfect. The mere fact that you reflect on your performance shows that you are trying to do your best. As lawyers, there is so much that is out of our control. We cannot control the judge, the jury or our clients. Even if we lose a hearing, or a client is disappointed in a result, doesn't mean we didn't do our best."

Marcus: "Maureen makes a good point. Even in losing we can feel pride, if we did our best. And sometimes in winning, we might not claim being justly proud because the result was not based primarily on our performance. In those circumstances we learn true humility. In any case, don't look to others for praise when you do your best, look in the mirror. "

"I do not care so much what I am to others as I care what I am to myself."-Michel de Montaigne

Pride can easily be understood as the crown of all virtues, if one comes to understand as Aristotle did, that it is an internal virtue, earned when achieved by making your best efforts to be virtuous. Like all of Aristotle’s twelve virtues, you must find the virtuous mean. There can certainly be unearned, boastful pride or the in-eloquent humble braggart, but we know when that pride is earned chest-puffing is unnecessary. To answer the question on whether pride is a virtue or a fault, like the other virtues we have examined here, it depends how you use it. Lawyers work in both a hated and admired profession. Pride may be the key to understanding both opinions. Hated for our arrogance and our greediness, admired for our achievements. But we know not all lawyers are arrogant or greedy, as much as we know many boast false pride. It is important for us to keep this in mind when appearing in a professional setting, filing a motion, writing an email to a client or telling your partner what a great job you did. Pride is a virtue if we use it as a motivational force, and  if we keep it in check.

---

[1] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book IV, Chapter 3.

[2] Id.

[3] In his book, Restoring Pride:The Lost Virtue of Our Age, the philosopher, Richard Taylor, sets forth an unvarnished argument for restoring the virtue of pride in our culture. For Taylor, pride is 'justified self love', and he uses Socrates, Beethoven, Picasso and others as exemplars of justified pride. It is Taylor's contention, reminiscent of Nietzsche, that cultivating pride allows one to 'view one's life as a work of art.'

Liberality-Making Giving Matter

Generosity Bestowing Her Gifts by Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, 1734 

For guidance on the virtue of 'liberality' we once again look to Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics. In Book IV he discusses 'liberality' as the mean between being miserly and magnificent.[1]  To the Greeks, 'liberality' or 'generosity,’ meant being generous, both with one's time and one's possessions. However, to give virtuously requires checking emotions and thinking carefully about where and how we bestow 'our gifts.'

Now let us listen as Marcus discusses liberality in the practice of law with his young colleagues.

You give but little when you give of your possessions, it is when you give of yourself that you truly give." -Khalil Gibran, The Prophet

Maureen: "So Marcus, I hear you continued working for a client even though they stopped paying you. Are you being generous or just trying to satisfy your pro bono requirements?"

Marcus: "Neither actually."

Elizabeth: "Then what made you decide to continue? It had to be one or the other."

Marcus: "I'll tell you why I did it later, but you raise important issues that have moral implications for our professional and personal lives. Let's consider them. Tell me, what is 'generosity,' when should we be 'generous', and to whom?"

Elizabeth: "I didn't realize we were raising those issues, but by all means let's discuss them. As always, we will follow the argument wherever it leads."

Marcus: "Yes, but are you willing to not only follow the argument wherever it leads but also commit to taking action consistent with the conclusions?"

Jacob: "Marcus this sounds pretty serious. How can we agree in advance to take action when we don't know the commitment?"

Audrey: "I am okay with making the commitment, Marcus. If we are undertaking moral reasoning, then we should commit to taking action based upon it. Where do we start?"

Marcus: "A good place to start is with our usual guide, Aristotle. Aristotle said that 'liberality' is providing 'the right amount of money, to the right person at the right time'. Although Aristotle might not agree, we can substitute the word 'generosity' for 'liberality,' as generosity is a more commonly used word in this day and age.  So let's address Aristotle's first two criteria. How do you decide when and where to give?

Elizabeth: "To answer your question, shouldn't we first address the purpose of our giving? In other words what is our goal?"

Jacob: "As lawyers that's easy to answer. We give our time to satisfy our pro bono requirements, but in some states this requirement can be satisfied by donating money to a legal charity or the local bar association."

Maureen: "Jacob, that doesn't satisfy Aristotle's criteria. Plus, if you're obligated to give something, then I don't see how that can be construed as 'generous. Satisfying prescribed criteria is not necessarily rational, and therefore cannot be used to determine whether we are being virtuous."

Marcus: "Yes, and its important to remember that rationally directing our moral actions enables us to do good."

Elizabeth: "OK then our goal is first determine the good we are trying to accomplish."

Marcus: "Agreed. So we must  next consider who are we trying to help with our time or money?"

Audrey: "How about by helping those who cannot afford to pay for legal services? If so, that could include the majority of our community."

Marcus: "Yes, and here you have pointed out one of our profession's greatest challenges. At some point in their lives almost everyone is need of legal services. Some can afford them, but my guess is most cannot. So how can we determine where to focus our efforts? Perhaps directing our time and money to those persons for whom it would do the most good. How can we identify those people?"

Elizabeth: "I recently read that donating money to a charity, like a disaster relief fund is not always the best expenditure of one's resources. The disasters that get the most publicity tend to become over-funded at the expense of others who could use those excess funds."

Maureen: "I think most people will resist the idea of not giving to major disasters initially, even though I see what you are saying. If you are reacting emotionally to a story then many others are probably doing likewise. This can result in overlooking how our time and money can be used to do the most good."

Marcus: "I think you raise a good point. We should not rely solely on our emotions to determine where we can do the most good, and where there is the most need. Rather, we should look at how many people benefit from our generosity and by how much. One way to approach this is to consider what would happen if we did not donate our time or money. Would the need be satisfied another way? After all, it doesn't matter who fills the need but how much good is done. In other words, "the measure of how much good you achieve is the difference between what happens as a result of your actions and what would have happened anyway"[2]

Jacob: "I never thought of it that way.  But the problem for me is how much of my time or money to give. I am supposed to bill so many hours a year, and have so little time left over for pro bono work. So I blindly donate money to satisfy my ethical obligation and yet I never stop to consider if the money is being used to do the most good."

Marcus: "If we agree that we want to do the most good with our generosity, then we must consider whether we can offer our unique skills as attorneys in lieu of donating money.  So to answer the question, are we giving the 'right amount,' we must consider whether we do the most good when donating our time or money. When we stop to consider how our legal abilities can affect the lives of others, we may realize that donating these skills could mean the difference between life and death for someone, or at the very least, make a positive and life-changing difference to someone. Let me ask you this-imagine that you are passing a burning house, you hear a child crying inside, would you rush into the house to save the child?" 

Maureen: "Of course, we all would."

Marcus: "Well, perhaps in less dramatic fashion, consider the owner of a small business. It is his family's sole source of income.  One day he receives a letter from the city threatening to close him down because he has failed to obtain the proper permits. He discovers that he needs at least ten thousand dollars in legal services to resolve this. Money he doesn't have. So without legal help his business shuts down and he could lose everything. Jacob, if you knew you could resolve this for 50 hours of your time, would you?"

Jacob: "I never thought of it that way, and I'm somewhat ashamed that I didn't. Of course I would."

Audrey: "I never thought of it that way either Marcus. By using that logic we could easily improve the lives of many people each year simply by donating a couple hours of our time each week."

Maureen- "I was raised to give 10% of my earnings to my church. If I gave 10% of my working hours, that would be more than 100 hours. Following Aristotle the 10% might be too much or too little, but for me its a good benchmark."

Jacob: "And the money I usually donate doesn't amount to 5 hours of my time.  I agreed to commit to wherever the moral argument led, so I have some work to do." 

Elizabeth: "And they say lawyers can't do math... Okay, so Marcus, since I am committed, let me see if I have this correct. First, we should consider who benefits and by how much. Second, we must ask ourselves what is the most effective thing we can do, give our time or our money. Third, is there a need for particular legal services that is not being met. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, what would happen if I didn't act. Is that about it?"

 Maureen: "That's good enough for me. Okay Marcus, so why did you decide to continue working for the client that ran out of resources to pay you?"

Marcus: "Would a fireman drop a screaming child he was rescuing from a burning house if he wasn't getting a paycheck?"

“Lawyers have a license to practice law, a monopoly on certain services. But for that privilege and status, lawyers have an obligation to provide legal services to those without the wherewithal to pay, to respond to needs outside themselves, to help repair tears in their communities.” – U. S. Supreme Court Associate, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [3]

It has long been recognized that without access to legal services our system of justice breaks down, and that system only continues to function if those in need are served, and all who serve give.  We would readily help a fallen elderly person, call 911 upon hearing a screaming neighbor, or throw a quarter in a homeless man's cup. We have a unique and hard-won skill set, which can be wasted if we only use it for pecuniary gain. It is important to recognize that using our skills to improve the lives of those in need, improves our communities, and ourselves. We can accomplish many goals at once.

As Mahatma Ghandi once said, "the best way to find yourself, is to lose yourself in the service of others." 

____________________________

This post was greatly inspired by the philosopher William MacAskill's work, and particularly his book, Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can make a Difference. MacAskill focuses his analysis on charitable giving, among other things, and although he doesn't expressly pay tribute to Aristotle, his writing implicitly explores Aristotle's thesis. MacAskill implicitly argues that we should give the right amount, to the right people, at the right time. A simple sounding formula, but one which is rarely put into practice. Neither MacAskill nor Aristotle consider the particular issue of how lawyer's should give. However, their analysis is applicable nonetheless to a lawyer's moral, not just ethical, obligation to give. 

[1] Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, Book IV, Chapter 1.

[2} Doing Good Better: Effective Altruism and How You Can Make a Difference, William MacAskill, p.69.

[3] Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 2014, speaking at the 2014 Pro Bono Institute Annual Conference Reception.