#theoretical model

Duke Ai asked, "Who among your disciples might be said to love learning?"

Kongzi answered, "There was one named Yan Hui who loved learning. He never misdirected his anger and never made the same mistake twice. Unfortunately, his allotted lifespan was short, and he has passed away. Now that he is gone, there are none who really love learning - at least, I have yet to hear of one."

- Kongzi's Analects, 6.3

Throughout The Analects, Kongzi refers to his greatest disciple who has, alas, passed away. However, when we consider virtue ethics carefully, it makes sense that he's dead: that's the only way a person can be an ideal model for virtue ethics.

But why are models so important? First off, they make the impossible task of reaching perfection seem not only possible...but already achieved.  If Yan Hui could do it, so can you. You just have to try.

Second, there's the larger issue of the way that people acquire virtue ethics. See previous post, "Returning to the Way," for a discussion of this. But, if this is the first post you're reading, the short answer is that figuring out the virtues is a lot harder than finding somebody to emulate...

When we have a model, then, the only way to have a great model - a perfect model - is to make sure that the model can never disappoint you. Real people, living people, are imperfect. They say snide things. They ignore your Facebook posts. So, they can disappoint you. Badly.

And other people could disagree with you. They could point out flaws that you hadn't noticed. "See how they kick puppies when they think no one's looking?" Oh.

But the dead can be idealized. They can be made to be perfect. You can even make them more impressive than they actually ever were.  And now, they can be a way of understanding that rules can be fluid.

So when Kongzi extolls the virtues of Yan Hui (see also 5.9, 6.7, 6.11 for example), he's really extolling the virtues of virtue ethics...in a way that no one can disagree with. In the same way, when Christians ask what Jesus would do, they're asking themselves what a truly good person would do in this situation. Research shows that we're a teensie bit egocentric when we ask ourselves this, but that doesn't mean we can't be better, especially if we have specific examples to follow to pull us out of egocentrism. For example, should you give your food to the homeless guy? Jesus would be 'bout it 'bout it. Should you set your heart to learning? Yan Hui would! If you're honest with yourself, then there isn't much room for debate.

Ultimately, of course, the idea is to internalize the external, fictional model in order to make your desires the same as what is proper to do - but the model is a critical step along that path, as I discussed in the last post. But in order that the developing virtue ethicist can focus on a perfect model, that model can't be around to disappoint us.