If moderation is virtue, then why is heroism virtuous?

  • Thread starter Thread starter fakename
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

fakename

Guest
If moderation is virtue, then why is heroism virtuous?

Also, why is moderation virtuous? After all, when someone sets out to do anything, they do it fully and not half-heartedly so that to argue in favor of moderation is to be extremely or fanatically moderate. Therefore virtue consists in idealism and not in moderation.

Also, if virtue is moderation, then why did monks or hermits exist since if anyone was immoderately virtuous it was surely them?
 
heroism acts against evil, in a situation when the usual response is fear or cowardice, which are vices. Be not afraid.
 
Essentially, the two go hand in hand and are two forms of the same thing. What moderation encourages, is simplicity in everything that we do, whether it be in the lifestyle we live or in our spiritual life. It is a form of self control and discpline which seeks to see things beyond what the senses are capable of comprehending. If you look at the lives of the ancient desert Fathers, you will see that the greatest perfection lies in detachment from wordly things. The Buddhists monks themselves teach perfection through detachment, the difference between Catholic and Buddhist perfection is in the fact that Catholicism teaches detachment from attachments (good and desirable things) whereas Buddhism teaches detachment from detachments (bad things).
 
Moderation is not about being halfhearted. It is about moderating our desire for pleasure, especially to food, drink and sex. These things, and the pleasure they give us, is not sinful, they are a part of God’s creation and good. It is our sinful tendency that causes disordered attachment to them.

Heroism could be due to the virtue of fortitude, or it may be just seeking approval from other people. In both situations there may have been a positive outcome for the recipient of the heroic act. But if the heroic act was for self gain it would not mean their heroism was necessarily virtuous.
 
user "LumenGent":
Essentially, the two go hand in hand and are two forms of the same thing. What moderation encourages, is simplicity in everything that we do, whether it be in the lifestyle we live or in our spiritual life. It is a form of self control and discpline which seeks to see things beyond what the senses are capable of comprehending. If you look at the lives of the ancient desert Fathers, you will see that the greatest perfection lies in detachment from wordly things. The Buddhists monks themselves teach perfection through detachment, the difference between Catholic and Buddhist perfection is in the fact that Catholicism teaches detachment from attachments (good and desirable things) whereas Buddhism teaches detachment from detachments (bad things).
Click to expand...
what i’m asking is, why is moderation the best? Isn’t that a contradiction?

And in relation to this, if someone practices self-mortification, as some saints did, then why are they still moderate and not “extreme”?
 
I just realized you may mean how the Saints are described has having a heroic degree of virtue. That just means a particularly high degree of virtue. I think. :confused:

We don’t need to moderate virtue, but what can look like virtue may often be self serving. Real virtue doesn’t need moderation.

Moderation is about the use of earthly goods, not being good.
 
Could it be safely said that moderation concerns the physical realm of our own indulgences, and not our spiritual relationship with God? Virtue itself is a spiritual thing. As in moderation is against our flesh, and to be virtuous is to supplant the flesh and allow God instead to rule you. So even virtue is in itself a moderation, moderating yourself so God can work through you.
 
Fakename,

Moderation is always the best because it guards against unwanted or unnecessary excesses. They key to moderation, is that it guards and protects a person from pride and vain glory, it drives a person to focus on the most important things and to do them in the best manner. The point is that it only limits what is unnecessary. The problem is that we tend to view everything according to earthly and temporal productivity. As Catholics, our Souls need to be catered for much more than our bodies, and you do that by investing in your soul. Have you ever seen a glutton care about anything or anyone but themselves? What about a sex addict?

Saints were not heroic for practicing self-mortification, rather it was owing to the wealth of their interior life. The practice you mentioned is indeed extreme, but was performed as a form of penance. Keep in mind that both moderation and self mortification are forms of penance, even if the former isn’t always approached as such.

You can also be moderate in your spiritual life when you don’t go about doing things in a regal or fanciful manner. Compare the pharisees that Our Lord rebuked for excessive and pedantic externals, when the internals and essentials were always forgotten. In the end, moderation is about doings things properly and wisely. It isn’t the more you do that counts, but the quality of it. 🙂
 
fakename said:
what i’m asking is, why is moderation the best? Isn’t that a contradiction?

And in relation to this, if someone practices self-mortification, as some saints did, then why are they still moderate and not “extreme”?
Click to expand...
Did you not read? Moderation means moderation of our earthly desire for pleasure. Not just the middle ground, wanting a lot but taking a little.

Christ was not a middle ground person, he wants everything from us. Where are you getting this moderation concept from?

Who said mortification is moderate?
 
fakename said:
If moderation is virtue, then why is heroism virtuous?

Also, why is moderation virtuous? After all, when someone sets out to do anything, they do it fully and not half-heartedly so that to argue in favor of moderation is to be extremely or fanatically moderate. Therefore virtue consists in idealism and not in moderation.

Also, if virtue is moderation, then why did monks or hermits exist since if anyone was immoderately virtuous it was surely them?
Click to expand...
Heroism can manifest itself in many ways, not all of them as extreme acts.

In general terms Heroism requires an elevated moral state and the Cardinal virtues are required in full measure. Moderation included, but better expressed as Temperance.
 
I’m not sure I’d use the word “moderation”. I’d use self-control.

And heroism brings to mind a fight against injustice and self-sacrifice for the benefit of another.
 
TheRealJuliane said:
Did you not read? Moderation means moderation of our earthly desire for pleasure. Not just the middle ground, wanting a lot but taking a little.

Christ was not a middle ground person, he wants everything from us. Where are you getting this moderation concept from?

Who said mortification is moderate?
Click to expand...
“One of the properties of virtues is that they consist in the golden mean, that is to say, in what lies between excess and deficit. For as the perfection of things subject to rule consists in conformity with that rule, so also evil in those same things results from deviation from that rule either by excess or defect. Hence the perfection of the moral virtues consists in rendering the movements of the appetitive powers…” Catholic encyclopedia.

But at the same time a virtue is the best choice so something is essentially both a mean between excess and defect & something excellent. How is this not contradictory, unless of course, they are so different from two points of view?
 
fakename said:
“One of the properties of virtues is that they consist in the golden mean, that is to say, in what lies between excess and deficit. For as the perfection of things subject to rule consists in conformity with that rule, so also evil in those same things results from deviation from that rule either by excess or defect. Hence the perfection of the moral virtues consists in rendering the movements of the appetitive powers…” Catholic encyclopedia.

But at the same time a virtue is the best choice so something is essentially both a mean between excess and defect & something excellent. How is this not contradictory, unless of course, they are so different from two points of view?
Click to expand...
I don’t quite follow this last paragraph.

Are you saying that “excellence” lies somewhere between excess and deficit?

Please correct me if I am interpreting it the wrong way. However, the virtues themselves will always help us decide where exactly between excess and deficit excellence will lie. I would suggest that where excellence lies would vary according to circumstances and actions.

I love what the Catechism has to say about the virtues. It can be found in Part One: The Dignity Of The Human Person. At we are told -
Human virtues are firm attitudes, stable dispositions, habitual perfections of intellect and will that govern our actions, order our passions, and guide our conduct according to reason and faith. They make possible ease, self-mastery, and joy in leading a morally good life. The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.
Click to expand...
The moral virtues are acquired by human effort. They are the fruit and seed of morally good acts;
Click to expand...
Note how we are told that The virtuous man is he who freely practices the good.. What is “the good” will vary from circumstance to circumstance, I would suggest, in our dealings with other people. The Virtues themselves, properly practised, will guide our actions.
 
Moderation is a virtue? I guess I have to challenge the initial premise. I do not believe that moderation is a virtue. Surely moderation in earthly pleasure is preferable to indulgence in earthly pleasure. But moderation in sin is not virtue. In many cases, moderation may not be preferred over abstinence. Even when moderation is appropriate, I do not see it as a virtue but rather a prudent lifestyle.
 
pnewton said:
Moderation is a virtue? I guess I have to challenge the initial premise. I do not believe that moderation is a virtue. Surely moderation in earthly pleasure is preferable to indulgence in earthly pleasure. But moderation in sin is not virtue. In many cases, moderation may not be preferred over abstinence. Even when moderation is appropriate, I do not see it as a virtue but rather a prudent lifestyle.
Click to expand...
The church has always taught about the cardinal virtues, temperance is one of those: Temperance (In one sense temperance may be regarded as a characteristic of all the moral virtues; the moderation it enjoins is central to each of them.)
 
Why is heroism virtuous?

Jesus gave us the best definition of a heroic act. “No man has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends.”

It’s the abandonment of self for another’s benefit.
 
user "John21652":
Are you saying that “excellence” lies somewhere between excess and deficit?
Click to expand...
yes, but you would think that excellence is something excessive.

However, it is possible as other posters said, that the excellence is from one POV but the moderation is from another however, all explanations I’ve heard about this seems to measure “moderation of virtue” and “excellence of virtue” on the same scale -so how could they be different?
 
Buck_Crosswhite said:
Why is heroism virtuous?

Jesus gave us the best definition of a heroic act. “No man has greater love than to lay down his life for his friends.”

It’s the abandonment of self for another’s benefit.
Click to expand...
In the very difference between temperance and moderation we see the answer to the original question. There is no limit to temperance. It can be absolute.
 
fakename said:
yes, but you would think that excellence is something excessive.

However, it is possible as other posters said, that the excellence is from one POV but the moderation is from another however, all explanations I’ve heard about this seems to measure “moderation of virtue” and “excellence of virtue” on the same scale -so how could they be different?
Click to expand...
No - excellence isn’t always something excessive. One doesn’t have an excellent attitude towards food when one starves oneself to the point of injury to health any more than when one gorges oneself to the point of injury to health.

Rather, one has an excellent attitude when one eats enough and the right types of food to promote good health but not more or less. And more importantly when one doesn’t allow the pleasure of food to become the most important consideration when one eats.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top