Is vanity a virtue?

[Qoeleth]

I come across a striking argument that vanity is actually a virtue. The argument ran thus:

• A virtue is something which is a socially useful characteristic
• Vanity, defined as gaining the approval or admiration of others, leads people to do their work well, seek to be their best, to be good, etc.
• Additionally, whereas ‘love’ tends to be relatively specific (“I love this person, and therefore I will show him kindness”), vanity, by it’s very nature, is non specific (i.e. the vain person thinks, “I seek the approval of others in general, therefore I will act in ways which others consider to be ‘good’ or ‘admirable’.”)

Of course, on the contrary, it could be argued that vanity, while perhaps ‘appearing’ altruistic, is actually focused on the self’s gaining of approval- and therefore has an inherent tendency to concern with appearances over reality, to envy, etc. Perhaps the complexity of human nature will always contains this ambivalence of motives.

Nevertheless, it would seem that vanity is generally useful- I suspect the fear of shame and desire to received general approval results in the eschewing of ‘bad’ actions and performing of good ones. Therefore, vanity (on the whole) seems to be a socially useful characteristic, and so ‘virtuous’, at least in a utilitarian sense.

 

[PseuTonym]

Of course, on the contrary, it could be argued that vanity, while perhaps ‘appearing’ altruistic, is actually focused on the self’s gaining of approval- and therefore has an inherent tendency to concern with appearances over reality, to envy, etc.

What happens if you rewrite that sentence and replace the word “altruistic” with the word “good”?

25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

Link:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=DRA

Hypocrisy:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform

We tend to distinguish between thought and behavior, so maybe the above definition of the word “hypocrisy” should be revised. We can distinguish between involuntary thoughts that occur to one in a flash, and a voluntary and sometimes painstaking process of thinking. The key to hypocrisy might not be in a noun or noun phrase such as “overt behavior”, but the adjective or characteristic of being intentional or deliberate and originating from the self.

If pilots and co-pilots were under constant video and audio surveillance when on the job, with the video and audio made available to the whole world, and with automatic termination of employment and blacklisting in case of any offensive language – in other words if they were treated like political candidates who are disapproved of by the majority of the news media – then (in your opinion) would it be safer or more dangerous to be a passenger in an airplane?

 

[Qoeleth]

What happens if you rewrite that sentence and replace the word “altruistic” with the word “good”?

25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

Link:
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=DRA

Hypocrisy:
the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one’s own behavior does not conform

We tend to distinguish between thought and behavior, so maybe the above definition of the word “hypocrisy” should be revised. We can distinguish between involuntary thoughts that occur to one in a flash, and a voluntary and sometimes painstaking process of thinking. The key to hypocrisy might not be in a noun or noun phrase such as “overt behavior”, but the adjective or characteristic of being intentional or deliberate and originating from the self.

If pilots and co-pilots were under constant video and audio surveillance when on the job, with the video and audio made available to the whole world, and with automatic termination of employment and blacklisting in case of any offensive language – in other words if they were treated like political candidates who are disapproved of by the majority of the news media – then (in your opinion) would it be safer or more dangerous to be a passenger in an airplane?

But can the question of ‘intentions’ ever be clearly discerned? And even if it is, does it matter so much?

Imagine a wealthy person who is asked (before his friends) to make a donation to a charity. He does so, and gives generously.

His motivation may primarily have been that he wants to ‘look good’. He might be motivate (to some degree) by an altruistic instinct, or a religious perspective. Maybe his desire to ‘look good to others’ is totally subconscious- he is not aware of it himself.

What I am suggesting is that the desire to ‘appear to be good’ (i.e. vanity), may actually be an effective tendency towards good actions (and so really a kind a virtue).

If we imagine the opposite extreme- a person wholly free of concern for what others think of them, who can say “I couldn’t care less how others regard me.” Would such a person be a saint- or a criminal? I suppose either is possible, but the absence of vanity in such a person (although they may have a great deal of pride) could well be dangerous, and perhaps indicate a devaluing of other human beings.

In answer to your question- yes, I would feel safer if the pilot and co-pilot were under constant surveillance (but not for the reason of bad language)!

 

[PseuTonym]

If we imagine the opposite extreme- a person wholly free of concern for what others think of them, who can say “I couldn’t care less how others regard me.” Would such a person be a saint- or a criminal? I suppose either is possible

What if the person is a writer? I don’t recommend burning all copies of a book when the writer dies, but …

It seems very difficult to know whether or not a writer has any concern about being judged by readers who won’t read the book or books until after the writer dies.

Meanwhile, the sensitivities of editors – and the writer’s own awareness of the sensitivities of other readers besides editors – could have the effect of filtering out what could have been good writing and valuable guidance to future readers.

 

[seagal]

• A virtue is something which is a socially useful characteristic

The problem lies in your very first statement. A virtue is defined as a high moral standard. It is a characteristic of how we live our lives the way God wants us to, not society.

• Vanity, defined as gaining the approval or admiration of others, leads people to do their work well, seek to be their best, to be good, etc
• Additionally, whereas ‘love’ tends to be relatively specific (“I love this person, and therefore I will show him kindness”), vanity, by it’s very nature, is non specific (i.e. the vain person thinks, “I seek the approval of others in general, therefore I will act in ways which others consider to be ‘good’ or ‘admirable’.”).

Vanity is a form of pride, which is a need to be accepted by others, or to be better than everyone else. It focusses all attention on you rather than God. It’s not important to act in ways that others admire, in fact that is exactly what Jesus counsels us not to do in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) “For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

Of course, on the contrary, it could be argued that vanity, while perhaps ‘appearing’ altruistic, is actually focused on the self’s gaining of approval- and therefore has an inherent tendency to concern with appearances over reality, to envy, etc. Perhaps the complexity of human nature will always contains this ambivalence of motives.

It not only could be argued, this is the actual definition of vanity.

Nevertheless, it would seem that vanity is generally useful- I suspect the fear of shame and desire to received general approval results in the eschewing of ‘bad’ actions and performing of good ones. Therefore, vanity (on the whole) seems to be a socially useful characteristic, and so ‘virtuous’, at least in a utilitarian sense.

Again, we are not to live our lives in order to gain acceptance by society. In fact, if we live our lives right, society will reject us.

Matthew 10:22 "You will be hated by everyone on account of My name"
John 15:19 "If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world."
**Matthew 5: 11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.” **

I really have to wonder about people who try to turn evil into good and vices into virtues. This upside down thinking doesn’t come from God.

 

[inocente]

I come across a striking argument that vanity is actually a virtue.

The Messiah disagrees.

*He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Isaiah 53*

 

[Qoeleth]

The problem lies in your very first statement. A virtue is defined as a high moral standard. It is a characteristic of how we live our lives the way God wants us to, not society.

Vanity is a form of pride, which is a need to be accepted by others, or to be better than everyone else. It focusses all attention on you rather than God. It’s not important to act in ways that others admire, in fact that is exactly what Jesus counsels us not to do in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector (Luke 18:9-14) “For all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.”

It not only could be argued, this is the actual definition of vanity.

Again, we are not to live our lives in order to gain acceptance by society. In fact, if we live our lives right, society will reject us.

Matthew 10:22 "You will be hated by everyone on account of My name"
John 15:19 "If you were of the world, it would love you as its own. Instead, the world hates you, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world."
Matthew 5: 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me."

I really have to wonder about people who try to turn evil into good and vices into virtues. This upside down thinking doesn’t come from God.

The Messiah disagrees.

*He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

Isaiah 53*

It seems though that ‘vainglory’ or ‘vanity’, which is normally defined as ‘the desire to be approved of by others’, is actually quite different to ‘pride’ (a conviction of one’s own superiority). A genuinely ‘proud’ person would not care about other’s opinions or feelings, whereas a person who sought the approval of others would have a degree of uncertainty or insecurity.

Let me give an example from the world of education. Students who WANT to get the ‘gold star’, the nice comments, the good marks, or are embarrassed by reprimands, etc., often tend to be better behaved, harder working, etc. The same thing applies, even at postgraduate level (the students who want their papers to published in journals, to be positively commented upon, etc.). Students who ‘couldn’t care less’ are often troublesome.

If part of virtue is ‘caring about others’, doesn’t it make sense that ‘caring about the opinions, approval or admiration of others’ is something which accords with a basically ‘others-oriented’ psychological composition?

I am not saying that such an attitude is a final moral end in itself (which is clearly being good for the sake of the ultimate Good)- but maybe it is a step on the way, and as such, not necessarily bad, but actually helpful in most cases.

 

[GEddie]

we are not to live our lives in order to gain acceptance by society. In fact, if we live our lives right, society will reject us.

Not necessarily true.

While not strictly a “society,” the human world admired and loved Sts. JP2 and Teresa of Calcutta, both of whom can be said to have “lived life right.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[inocente]

It seems though that ‘vainglory’ or ‘vanity’, which is normally defined as ‘the desire to be approved of by others’, is actually quite different to ‘pride’ (a conviction of one’s own superiority). A genuinely ‘proud’ person would not care about other’s opinions or feelings, whereas a person who sought the approval of others would have a degree of uncertainty or insecurity.

Let me give an example from the world of education. Students who WANT to get the ‘gold star’, the nice comments, the good marks, or are embarrassed by reprimands, etc., often tend to be better behaved, harder working, etc. The same thing applies, even at postgraduate level (the students who want their papers to published in journals, to be positively commented upon, etc.). Students who ‘couldn’t care less’ are often troublesome.

If part of virtue is ‘caring about others’, doesn’t it make sense that ‘caring about the opinions, approval or admiration of others’ is something which accords with a basically ‘others-oriented’ psychological composition?

I am not saying that such an attitude is a final moral end in itself (which is clearly being good for the sake of the ultimate Good)- but maybe it is a step on the way, and as such, not necessarily bad, but actually helpful in most cases.

I disagree. The well-behaved student is fodder, the troublesome student generates change.

Many great reformers were Christians who rebelled against society, against slavery, against child labor, against consumerism, etc. Imho discourage anyone who is content with the status quo.

“Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” - Romans 12

¡Viva la revolución!

 

[pianistclare]

Nope.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Vanity is not a virtue.

dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-the-catholic-church/

 

[Qoeleth]

Nope.
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
Vanity is not a virtue.

dummies.com/religion/christianity/catholicism/the-seven-deadly-sins-of-the-catholic-church/

Yet, without a certain amount of ‘vanity’, would there ever be such a thing as truly good musicians…Surviving stories show the Beethoven, Liszt, even Chopin, were tremendously ‘vain’ in their own ways.

It drives performers to practise. It drives composers to seek what is new or profound. At least in the early stages…

Music, and other art forms, seem often to benefit from a certain combination of vanity, pride, temperamental sensitivity- which can, in fact, be a cross to bear, more than a ‘vice’

 

[GEddie]

Vanity can lead to excellence, but is not itself excellent.

 

[Catherinabird]

Building on the above regarding the arts: If you don’t think you have some talent for something, you’re not likely going to have the confidence to do it. It can take a tremendous amount of self confidence and pep-talk to preform in front of others instead of shrinking away because there are always others better than you and there is no such thing as a perfect performance.

 

[seagal]

Yet, without a certain amount of ‘vanity’, would there ever be such a thing as truly good musicians…Surviving stories show the Beethoven, Liszt, even Chopin, were tremendously ‘vain’ in their own ways.

It drives performers to practise. It drives composers to seek what is new or profound. At least in the early stages…

Music, and other art forms, seem often to benefit from a certain combination of vanity, pride, temperamental sensitivity- which can, in fact, be a cross to bear, more than a ‘vice’

Are you an artist or a musician? If so you would know that the driving force behind creating great art is the act of creation itself. Yes there are artists and musicians who live only for the approval of their audience, but that isn’t what makes them great. It makes them either self-important or constantly feeling not good enough. I’m sure you can think of musicians in both camps. On the other hand, artists who only want to satisfy the urge to create are driven whether they have an audience or not.

 

[pianistclare]

Yet, without a certain amount of ‘vanity’, would there ever be such a thing as truly good musicians…Surviving stories show the Beethoven, Liszt, even Chopin, were tremendously ‘vain’ in their own ways.

It drives performers to practise. It drives composers to seek what is new or profound. At least in the early stages…

Music, and other art forms, seem often to benefit from a certain combination of vanity, pride, temperamental sensitivity- which can, in fact, be a cross to bear, more than a ‘vice’

No.
I can understand my excellence as a musician without being vain.

 

[PseuTonym]

vanity …] has an inherent tendency to concern with appearances over reality

That is precisely the difficulty.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) of the United States government originally authorized expenditures of $700 billion.

Link:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

Why was it necessary to spend that much money?

Did investment bankers (e.g., at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) start shaving their faces only on Mondays and let stubble grow the rest of the week?

Did managers at insurance companies (e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group (AIG)) sell their irons and start wearing wrinkled clothing?

Did the companies that assign ratings to securities hire people who didn’t wear neckties during job interviews?

 

[GEddie]

That is precisely the difficulty.

Why was it necessary to spend that much money?

Did investment bankers (e.g., at Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers) start shaving their faces only on Mondays and let stubble grow the rest of the week?

Did managers at insurance companies (e.g., Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and American International Group (AIG)) sell their irons and start wearing wrinkled clothing?

Did the companies that assign ratings to securities hire people who didn’t wear neckties during job interviews?

There is a difference between vanity and doing what is expected appearance-wise.

In the business world, clothing-appearance is everything; maintaining it is not vanity, it’s prudential.

ICXC NIKA

 

[PseuTonym]

There is a difference between vanity and doing what is expected appearance-wise.

I agree. It wasn’t my intention to say that vanity was the motivation.

In the business world, clothing-appearance is everything

If what you say is true, then it might help explain why $700 billion was allocated to bail out the US financial system. On the other hand, I think that you are exaggerating somewhat. Maybe in the movie business, what an actor appears to be doing during filming is everything. However, what percentage of the income of investment banks, insurance companies, etc. comes from allowing filming of their employees during work hours, in return for payment from movie-making companies that are doing the filming?

maintaining it is not vanity, it’s prudential.

Not going insolvent ought to be assigned a higher priority than maintaining superficial appearances. In the long run, perhaps it isn’t a prudential policy to pander to people who focus on superficial details and who are easily misled.

 

[STT]

I come across a striking argument that vanity is actually a virtue. The argument ran thus:

• A virtue is something which is a socially useful characteristic
• Vanity, defined as gaining the approval or admiration of others, leads people to do their work well, seek to be their best, to be good, etc.
• Additionally, whereas ‘love’ tends to be relatively specific (“I love this person, and therefore I will show him kindness”), vanity, by it’s very nature, is non specific (i.e. the vain person thinks, “I seek the approval of others in general, therefore I will act in ways which others consider to be ‘good’ or ‘admirable’.”)

Of course, on the contrary, it could be argued that vanity, while perhaps ‘appearing’ altruistic, is actually focused on the self’s gaining of approval- and therefore has an inherent tendency to concern with appearances over reality, to envy, etc. Perhaps the complexity of human nature will always contains this ambivalence of motives.

Nevertheless, it would seem that vanity is generally useful- I suspect the fear of shame and desire to received general approval results in the eschewing of ‘bad’ actions and performing of good ones. Therefore, vanity (on the whole) seems to be a socially useful characteristic, and so ‘virtuous’, at least in a utilitarian sense.

To me all behaviors are useful. Give me one which you think is not useful.

 

[Qoeleth]

To me all behaviors are useful. Give me one which you think is not useful.

For something to be assessed as useful or not useful, it must be in relation to some particular cause or purpose. In a totally abstract sense, no behaviour can be seen either as useful or otherwise.

Now, actions are considered ‘socially useful’ when the benefit, improve, confirm, etc. society in some way. Examples include producing useful items, giving to charity, curing the sick, obeying laws, etc.

My point is that most actions that result from ‘vanity’ (trying to look good, to outdo others in achievement, to be liked by others, to avoid being shunned, etc.) are, on the whole, ‘socially useful’.

I am certainly not equating Christian morality with social usefulness- but normally socially useful actions are considered as ‘virtues’ by society as a whole.