"Virtue is reason transformed into energy." Is it? (Venue A: Caffè Nero)

THE VENUE: Caffè Nero

It's winter so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Nero location.

We meet upstairs at Caffè Nero. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: "Virtue is reason transformed into energy." Is it?

Thank you to Richard for providing this week's topic.

The quotation is an aphorism by Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829). Was he right? There are at least two sides to this coin.

1. Does virtue require reason behind it?

One person might choose a virtuous action having thought about the options and the demands of some ethical theory (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, or whatever). A second person might choose the same action after thinking about the options, but without considering ethical theories. A third person might see that same action as the obvious thing to do, without any careful thought. And an animal might act for the good of the pack on instinct.

Are they all equally virtuous? Or is there more virtue in more thought because it is a reliable route to making good decisions every time? Or more virtue in less thought because there is less risk of going down the wrong track?

2. Does reason lead to virtue?

Perhaps not, if we have a narrow calculating notion of reason. David Hume is the big name here. He thought it not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the world to the scratching of his finger.

That might not be contrary to reason, but it would surely be unreasonable. Our everyday notion of reason seems to include a notion of good sense, which would oppose destroying the world. But how far would good sense, combined with intelligent calculation, take us toward virtuous action? Does mere good sense leave it open to us to act against other people's interests in an unethical way? Perhaps it is too much defined by local or temporary prejudices (for example, when it was thought that slavery was sensible). Or perhaps it has much more power as a regulator of humanity than high-flown philosophical reason.