Kindness and compassion are the highest virtues.

Kindness is a virtue but virtue can sometimes seem unkind. There is more to virtue than being nice all the time. Virtue is discipline, and discipline is not concerned with superficial kindness or unkindness.

Does that make sense?

There are many different virtues. I've always thought kindness and compassion were pretty high up there on the list. Didn't Jesus say something about loving your neighbour? How else are we to be forgiving of each other without compassion.

I think compassion is a better term than kindness to describe the virtue in it's "highest" form. Compassion implies empathy, but also actions that are taken with an understanding of what is best for the person. Kindness seems like more short-term "niceness" (not that there's anything wrong with being nice).

Meryl Streep is awesome. I see that Doubt is out on DVD...would you recommend it?

The thing is that kindness and compassion are virtues. They relate to the greatest of all virtues, Love.  This is not the Hollywood or Valentines Day card kind of love, though, but the kind of love we see embodied in Jesus.   You have a Catholic background if I remember correctly, Kinst, so somewhere along the line, directly or indirectly, you probably got exposed to the teachings of Aquinas.  One of his greatest contributions was his insight into the three transcendental virtues: faith, hope, and love. They're transcendental in the sense that we can't manufacture them ourselves; they are  "infused" into us when our hearts are open to the reality of God in our context.

Without that "infusion," we're basically kind of screwed when it comes to our moral behavior, because we're then left with just trying to keep a lid on our passions, which is a lesser kind of virtue (in the sense that love is greater than restrained hate.) 

A simple desire to have sex with someone is rarely that simple, because we are not that simple. It has a certain moral tone to it. When our hearts are open to the infusion of God's love, that love within us has a kind of shaping and modulating affect on our passions. So the desire to have sex with someone is itself infused with and influenced by divine love. That, of course, affects the nature of the passion itself. It's no longer simply "all about me," but includes a genuine concern for the other. And it's not just about the virtue of love.  The infusion of faith (better translated 'trust') profoundly colors the experience of our sexuality, in terms of really abandoning oneself and giving oneself to one's partner.

But in the absence of those loving, trusting influences on the sexual impulse, they become more driven, less conscious of the personal, emotional, relational context of sex.  This doesn't mean these sexual impulses are 'bad,' just that without that infusion of these deeper qualities, they stay more on the level of a horny dog. Nor does it mean that sex that is blended with those loving and trusting influences is always in slow motion and in the missionary position.

The same dynamics apply to anger. Blended with an infusion of the transcendental virtues, it becomes courage, self-assertiveness, decisiveness.  In their absence, it becomes a blind rage. And of course there's a lot of middle ground between these extremes.

The value of the way Aquinas understands this is that it shows why the idea of "putting God first" is actually necessary for our happiness. Because, desire being as potent as it is, without the infusion of faith, hope, and love into our hearts it's very easy to harm ourselves and/or others.

God only knows, but I would that actual harm (however subtle) to oneself or others would be the key.  So much can be going on beneath what appears on the surface to be "really nice" and/or "very good & pure".

Virtue in name is not "living" virtue according to Aquinas. It is only virtuous in form. Why?  No infused faith, hope, & love, because the heart is closed to the reality of God's presence.

Have you seen "Kiss of the Spider Woman" with Raoul Julia & William Hurt? A beautiful case of a sexual encounter (between a straight and a gay man) rooted in profound kindness and a desire to heal the wounds of injustice.

Doubt is a great film I'd definitely recommend it. Streep the nun .

I haven't seen Kiss of the Spider Woman, it looks like it's from before my time. I'll take a look though.

I think Aquinas philosophy sounds very interesting. It sounds like motivation is basically the important part? Do things with love?

For me I would always chose the compassionate person. Actually I'd probably like them more for an interesting sex life. Give me a hooker with a heart of gold .

The highest virtue is prudence, which is 'to choose well'. An unkind or mean act is imprudent.

Definitely rent "Doubt". An excellent movie, and stage play.

The modern defining work on virtue is "After virtue" by Alasdair McIntyre (1981, University of Notre Dame Press). This work is behind a lot of the emerging church movement, as well as the virtue ethics taught by Catholic ethicists and used in many medical environments, and a renewed focus on Aquinas, who is the classical champion of ethics. The liberal Stanley Haurwas in "Community of Character" also draws heavily from McIntyre.

" There is more to virtue than being nice all the time. Virtue is discipline, and discipline is not concerned with superficial kindness or unkindness."

That seems to be our problem.  Most people have trouble telling the difference between the smiley, Mickey-mouse, happy-go-lucky niceness that's so endemic to North America and genuine kindness.  "The customer is always right" isn't an example of kindesss but rather of complete servitutde. 

That's because we think we can buy happiness. Aristotle taught that happiness is the consequence of virtue, a life well lived in relationship with others.

Spoken like a true fundie.

Now would that discipline that does not concern itself with kindness come with a blunt object, or a rubber hose perhaps?

Jesus said that the greatest virtue is charity, which is the kindness kind of love.

Therefore one cannot be virtuous, unless one treats kindness as the greatest of all virtues.

One can have false virtue in spades without kindness, however. One can have chest puffing, soapboxing, prejudiced and bigotted false virtue in spades without kindness...

In Christian thought, the four cardinal (Platonic) virtues are Prudence, Justice, Temperance and Courage. The three theological virtues are faith, hope and charity (compassion). They all balance and challenge each other- one is not dominant over the other.

BTW it was Paul, not Jesus who put charity above all (1Cor13:13).

Kinst wrote: "What's more important, virtue or kindness?"

EZ Answer: As RevJamesMurray noted, virtue ethics derives from Aristotle.  He aimed for the good life and common good.  He argued that certain virtues, as modeled by certain virtuous people, contributed to the common good and good life.

Aquinas drew extensively from Aristotle.

The main critique of Aristotle and virtue ethics derives from Aristotle's support for slavery.  Aristotle saw slavery as necessary for the common good, for society.  The virtues lifted up by virtue ethics, then, construct a particular society that may benefit a particular class or group at the expense of others.

The other critique of virtue ethics is the level of abstraction.  They emphasize virtual persons, perhaps too abstracted from real folk.  Ethical consideration of virtuous, universal, ideal person may impact negatively on certain real people, e.g., slaves.

Perhaps this critique is behind the quote about virtue killing kindness.

The primary challenger historically to Aquinas' Aristotelian virtue ethics was Kant's deontological ethics.  Kant emphasized duty and right procedure.  Although "kindness" is a fairly broad term, kindness would be understood in a particular way by Kantians.  And Kant would see the shortcomings of virtue ethics killing kindness (insofar as kindness is the right, dutiful response).

The popular critique of Kant is his prescription that one should never lie -- even if a killer shows up at the door asking if his target is hiding in your attic.

Definately kindness is more important, and kindness is in itself of cource, a virtue. I think sincere compassion is about as good as it gets.

Be mindful though, of people who are kind out of a deep seated sence of self innadequacy. They are lival to turn on you eventually, saying you didn't truely appreciate all they did for you, because they really want to hate themselves and want to make you the reason. There has to be a bit of bitter in everyone to make them real.

If you question others about how they define either virtue or kindness - I suspect you'll get a range of answers.

I prefer kindness. Virtue has an air of coldness about it, while kindness has warmth.

My advice for all the younger wondercafe folks looking for future partners - choose someone who is kind if you want a good life! (I suspect someone virtuous might make you feel a sense of guilt at times!)

I don't accept the definition of virtue as being the same as doctrinal purity. That could be cold and even harsh but I think true virtue would be inseperable from kindness.

Kinst wrote: "What's more important, virtue or kindness?"

EZ Answer: Another perspective, this time from George Bernard Shaw, who wrote in his notes to Caesar and Cleopatra about his representation of Caesar: "Having virtue, he has no need of goodness.  He is neither forgiving, frank, nor generous, because a man who is too great to resent has nothing to forgive; a man who says things that other people are afraid to say need be no more frank than Bismarck was; and there is no generosity in giving things you do not want to people of whom you intend to make use.  This distinction between virtue and goodness is not understood in England: hence the poverty of our drama in heroes."

G. B. Shaw could have been a philosopher up there with Kant. I also had trouble with Kant's imperative never to lie, but he did bring together some of the other ethics nicely.

It's so interesting how much of Chirstian theology comes from Aquinas, who drew on Aristotle. Aristotle was not a Christian, nor was he even a Neoplatonist.

Thanks for mentioning that "faith, hope, and love/charity" come from Paul's letters, not the gospels Rev James. I was pretty sure about this, and was going to check, but you beat me to it. Paul did say, the greatest of these is love. In some translations it is charity: I think the original word Paul used was "charitas". I don't know much about the scholarship behind how we interpret what he meant by this term, but I believe it is closer to our current understanding of "kindness" than our understanding of "charity" ...at least how the words are used.

I would like to get back to the context of youir question, if I may. In the movie/play "Doubt" the scene I think you are referring to is between Phillip Semouor Hoffman and the younger Nun. In this context, I think the character is referring to an othodox notion of virtue. The film/play is, as far as I can tell, set around the time of the second vatican council. This was a time when tensions in the catholic curch were between the old school 'fire and brimstone' orthodox folk and the emerging egalitarian 'touchie feelie' new age-type catholics.

As such I believe he was highlighting a letter vs spirit of the law issue. Kindness here means an empathic virtue vs a literal or dogmatic virtue. In the end, there is no doubt that kindness, as empathy, is the way to virtue. It also important, as has been noted to differentiate kindness from niceness/politeness. Sometimes a cold and honest word is the kindest thing we can do. Is this not what we expect from 'true' freinds; the ability to tell us a painful truth. This is kind, but not nice.

A final word. If this is where your true spiritual struggle lies then I am very happy for you, it must be nice.

Peace love and fesh fruit,

ZenRN