Are you struggling with the daunting task of writing your dissertation concerning the nature of true

virtue? You're not alone. Crafting a dissertation can be one of the most challenging academic
endeavors you'll face. It requires extensive research, critical analysis, and coherent argumentation, all
while adhering to strict academic standards and formatting guidelines.

The process of writing a dissertation is demanding and time-consuming. It involves countless hours
of reading, writing, revising, and refining your ideas. From selecting a topic to conducting research,
organizing your thoughts, and finally drafting and revising your chapters, every step presents its own
set of challenges.

For many students, balancing the demands of writing a dissertation with other academic,
professional, and personal responsibilities can be overwhelming. It's not uncommon to feel stressed,
anxious, or uncertain about your ability to complete such a monumental task.

That's where ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ comes in. We understand the difficulties students face when
tackling their dissertations, and we're here to offer expert assistance every step of the way. Our team
of experienced academic writers specializes in various fields of study, including philosophy, ethics,
and virtue theory.

When you order from ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔, you can rest assured that your dissertation will be in
good hands. Our writers will work closely with you to understand your unique requirements and
deliver a custom-written dissertation that meets your academic goals and expectations. Whether you
need help with research, writing, editing, or formatting, we've got you covered.

Don't let the challenges of writing a dissertation hold you back. Trust ⇒ HelpWriting.net ⇔ to
provide the professional assistance you need to succeed. Place your order today and take the first
step towards completing your dissertation with confidence.
If a parent, for example, wishes to feel about his family, he must direct his attention to them. Hence,
the generic proposition that ”humans are practical, rational primates” has both descriptive and
normative content. Much evil is done by denying that sinners have this feeling of complacency
towards God and his law, when the fact is they know that they have. It is to deny that we are to treat
things as they are, or according to the nature. And, more importantly, whereas benevolence made
possible by the moral sense can extend to a wide, but necessarily limited, number of creatures, the
benevolence of true virtue made possible by the spiritual sense is universal in its scope. This is a mere
perception of truth by the intellect, and is, as a condition, indispensable to faith, but it is no more
faith itself than an act of the intellect is an act of the will. Edwards therefore understands true virtue
very differently from philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition, for whom virtue is a character trait
acquired by habituation. It is impossible that benevolence should be inactive. Edwards, like in Virtue,
discusses how there is no true happiness without being happy in God (John Piper). But it is here
where my favorite section of the book occurs, and I think it summarizes what Edwards is really going
for in the work. This book was difficult but eye opening Like Comment An Te 386 reviews 25
followers May 20, 2019 A very topical read. His reason and conscience continually affirm his
obligations to God and his universe, to the world and the Church. Though this could include all
things that have existence, Edwards is concerned mainly with rational being. Quite possibly one of
the most difficult reads I've encountered yet, but once Edwards gets going, it felt like I finally
understood virtue -- and beauty, and instincts, and counterfeit virtues -- for the first time. The
thoroughness of this book is simultaneously it's strength and it's shortcoming. Those who have such a
religion are continually lashed up by conscience to the performance of duty. Wherever there is a
being capable of happiness, benevolence wills its happiness, according to its perceived value and for
its own sake. To produce the right emotions, I have only to fix my attention on the right objects. I
highly recommend. “a truly virtuous mind, being as it were under the sovereign dominion of love to
God, above all things, seeks the glory of God, and makes this his supreme, governing, and ultimate
end. And he gives a handful of reasons: self-love, love for secondary beauty (meaning, justice and
order), smallness of their view, etc. Without it God would never have made the Atonement, nor have
done any thing else to secure the salvation of sinners, nor would any other moral being. For Edwards,
true virtue corresponds with the universal constitution of the cosmos as created by God and the
particular constitution of human nature. That being said, it was an interesting discourse on virtue,
acts which appear to be of true virtue that, well, aren't, and self love. Of course if benevolence is
willing the good of being, it wills the destruction of whatever prevents that good, and continually
makes encroachments in every direction upon every form of wickedness however fortified. Edwards
concludes that “there are no particular moral virtues whatsoever, but what in some or other of these
ways, and most of them in several, come to have some kind of approbation from self-love, without
the influence of a truly virtuous principle; nor any particular vices, but what, by the same means,
meet with some disapprobation” (60). Edwards was elected president of the College of New Jersey
(later Princeton University) in early 1758. For example, someone may love certain qualities and
characteristics out of self-love, and more. The second thing is in line with the love that Hollywood
displays. Suppose, in a court of justice, a judge perverts justice, shamefully wronging the innocent,
and clearing the guilty. Concerning the End For Which God Created the World. II. The Nature of
True Virtue.
For example, Edwards thinks it common for us to see the necessity of social justice based on the
necessity of justice for ourselves, and so we approve of justice and its attendant virtues ultimately on
account of our self-love. Relationships and attitudes that reflect these qualities, at least as we
perceive them, appear beautiful as an analogy of “benevolent agreement of heart.” The beauty of true
virtue is “cordial,” but the appeal of secondary beauty is “natural.”. Protection of family is morally
superior to betrayal of family and giving aid to the hurting and downcast is morally superior to
trouncing on the poverty-stricken. Practical reasoning is the ability to pursue perceived goods and
avoid perceived evils in every action. By the late Reverend, learned and pious Jonathan Edwards,
A.M. president of the College in New-Jersey. But Edwards argues well that this isn't true virtue, for
many reasons. In this short book, Edwards addresses the relation of virtue or moral good and its
connection to love, beauty and conscience. Nowhere is his force of mind more evident than in this
book. Jonathan Edwards has been a key influence in my Christian life, and am grateful for his zeal
to glorify God in everything he did. 1 like Like Comment W. Consequently, genuine love scopes
over all object and subjects and thus come to be proportional to its weight and value. He was prolific
writer, and much of what he wrote has been preserved through the generations, and has proven to be
quite valuable for the church today. Consequently, our approbation of true virtue and the pleasure we
derive from our perception of its beauty corresponds with our nature as rational, volitional creatures.
It is an act of the will, and sorrow follows it as a result. In effect, natural conscience or the moral
sense is indexed to the Golden Rule, or the principle of reciprocity, coupled with what Edwards calls
a “sense of desert,” i.e. the sense we have that malevolence deserves punishment and benevolence
reward. Concerning the End for which God created the World. II. The Nature of True Virtue. People
see beauty in order, harmony, and equality and justice. We are so constituted as naturally to delight
in the happiness of others, whenever there is no selfish reason to prevent. Jonathan Edwards was the
most eminent American philosopher-theologian of his time, and a key figure in what has come to be
called the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s. Perry Miller, 'Jonathan Edwards' Like the
great speculators Augustine, Aquinas, and Pascal, Jonathan Edwards treated religious ideas as
problems not of dogma, but of life. Self-love may imitate some aspects of 'goodness' and
'proportionality' but when relied upon in any great extent, time or measure will lead to 'good
intentions' spoiling the 'circumstantial broth!' An insightful and concise essay, (Edwards is at times a
little abstruse but that's his style; love it or hate it, it's worth reading and mulling over.) Edwards is
full of learning and Godly discernment and it is clear he is relevant today as he was in his own day.
It is represented in the text, and the Bible generally, as the substance of all religion, and the only
preparation for heaven. If consciousness does not reveal this it cannot reveal any thing about our
character. Second, God gives what is in accord with his own temper and nature. The moral sense
makes its evaluations based on the principle of reciprocity and a sense of just desert, whereas the
divine sense makes its assessments based on consent to being, or true virtue. He knows what is
actually and chiefly praiseworthy. That such is the influence of the will we know by consciousness.
Like Comment Melissa 653 reviews 17 followers Want to read February 1, 2024 History philosophy
christian-life Like Comment Alyssa Prewitt 3 reviews April 20, 2023 Couldn’t get through Like
Comment Rich 40 reviews April 11, 2008 Eighteenth century preacher and philosopher -- so the text
is dense with sentences that go on and on. Self-love may be seen as a person’s “love of his own
happiness.” Without investigating why some things become his happiness, love to oneself involves
promotion of his private interest. Thus, self-love can serve as a motivation to moral action, even if it
is not an authentically moral principle like that of true virtue. Love of self, family, or nation is good
only to the extent that it magnifies the glory of God.
This consent to and union with being, he claims, is synonymous with benevolence, or love, toward
being, since to harmonize with existence necessarily entails that one loves it. Where is our ultimate
Good and how do we seek that. He does not say it outright, per say, but one cannot help but see that
true virtue is found and kept close to ones heart if one draws closer to God through his word and
prayer and cannot be found outside of this. Only when aided by divine grace and revelation can this
natural moral sense attain the universally benevolent perspective of true virtue. Report this
Document Download now Save Save Jonathan Edwards on the Nature of True Virtue Note. And
though most men allow that there is a God, yet in their ordinary view of things, his being is not apt
to come into the account, and to have the influence and effect of a real existence, as it is with other
beings which they see, and are conversan with by their external senses. The nature of true virtue is
only found in relation to God because it is only then that the love is all encompassing. Hence, the
generic proposition that ”humans are practical, rational primates” has both descriptive and normative
content. His theological work gave rise to a distinct school of theology known as New England
theology. It is recognizing the good of being as valuable in itself, and willing it for that reason.
Practical reasoning is the ability to pursue perceived goods and avoid perceived evils in every action.
Now every one must perceive that the happiness of God is the greatest good in the universe, and
therefore benevolence must, as a matter of course, will it supremely. The only son in a family of
eleven children, he entered Yale in September, 1716 when he was not yet thirteen and graduated four
years later (1720) as valedictorian. And this is necessarily the case, since a morality derived from
self-love constitutes a limited benevolence that extends toward a smaller sphere of individuals than
true virtue, whose benevolence extends toward the whole of reality, rooted as it is in love of God
and the universal love that flows from this. Virtue concerns the “beauty of the qualities and exercises
of the heart, or those actions which proceed from them.” Simple virtue does not ask for gratification
from the object seen but arises from within as an absolute will for good toward all other beings,
being in general. So men universally, whether virtuous or not, abhor a liar, or the character of the
devil. Self-love may imitate some aspects of 'goodness' and 'proportionality' but when relied upon in
any great extent, time or measure will lead to 'good intentions' spoiling the 'circumstantial broth!' An
insightful and concise essay, (Edwards is at times a little abstruse but that's his style; love it or hate
it, it's worth reading and mulling over.) Edwards is full of learning and Godly discernment and it is
clear he is relevant today as he was in his own day. Importantly, Edwards claims the natural
conscience “will extend to all virtue and vice” and, when properly tutored, comes to resemble true
virtue (68). No, but it may be an index of the state of mind of him who utters it. Both anger at evil
and gratitude for good can manifest a species of self-love. I have often thought how infinitely
insulting to Him their conduct must be. Indeed, universality is essential to the very nature of
benevolence, for if good is willed on its own account, benevolence will of course cover all good
known. Now let me say that these emotions have not one particle of religion in them, and those who
want simply that class of truths which fan them into existence are mere religious epicures, and their
view of the gospel is sheer antinomianism. Going beyond Foot’s views, I present a new interlocking
neo-Aristotelian account of virtue and practical reason. It is related of Whitefield that he often
appealed to men with such power in behalf of his orphan-house as to induce those to give liberally
who had beforehand determined not to give, nor to be influenced by him. In particular, Edwards
speaks of a divine or spiritual sense communicated by grace that allows one to see the divine majesty
of the universe and understand it as authored and administered by God. For example. If you
contemplate a beautiful natural scenery, you experience a pleasing emotion, or delight, from the very
nature of your constitution. The hesitating soul drags itself up by resolution, to fulfill the letter of the
requirement, while there is no acquiescence in its spirit, and thus a miserable slavery is substituted for
the cheerful obedience of the heart. That is, Edwards makes an important distinction between the
moral sense common to all humans and the spiritual or divine sense possessed only by the elect.
Edwards then moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered
to a small congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians.
But at the same time they were treating Christ in the same manner that their fathers, treated those
prophets and for the same reason. And while his attention is fixed upon them he cannot but feel.
Consequently, our approbation of true virtue and the pleasure we derive from our perception of its
beauty corresponds with our nature as rational, volitional creatures. Virtues enable and partly
constitute a good life for human beings. But Edwards makes a good point that the natural conscious
does not equally rejoice in the good of the other. I had read once that the greatest philosophical mind
to come out of the United States of America was Jonathan Edwards but I did not wrap my head
around it till I read this book. Also, these instincts in action have much the same effect in human
relations as true virtue in accomplishing social good and restraining vice. Importantly, true virtue
does not then consist in love toward particular creatures, but toward being universally conceived,
even if particular loves can—and should—follow from benevolence toward being itself. Like
Comment Matthew Bonzon 92 reviews 4 followers October 2, 2022 This is a great book. When it
comes to morals, both senses approve of the same virtues and disapprove of the same vices, but for
different reasons. The good of being is valuable, and therefore to will it must be virtue. Yet, tensions
flamed as Edwards would not continue his grandfather's practice of open communion. The moral
sense makes its evaluations based on the principle of reciprocity and a sense of just desert, whereas
the divine sense makes its assessments based on consent to being, or true virtue. They display a
negative moral goodness, that is these are never mistaken for true moral evil. He knows what is
actually and chiefly praiseworthy. I think once you're able to get past this language barrier and
properly understand the terms he uses, everything fits into place. But he never wills in accordance
with it, and thus a continual warfare is kept up within. My metaethical claim is that a rigidly
biological basis for morality is inadequate. It is recognizing the good of being as valuable in itself,
and willing it for that reason. Relationships and attitudes that reflect these qualities, at least as we
perceive them, appear beautiful as an analogy of “benevolent agreement of heart.” The beauty of true
virtue is “cordial,” but the appeal of secondary beauty is “natural.”. The Bible says so, and Edwards
defends this so well. Hence religion is represented as, at one time, like smothered embers, scarcely in
existence; at another, in a slight glow, which may be fanned till it breaks out into flame. Since our
upbringings can diverge considerably, his argument makes trouble for any Aristotelian ethical
naturalism that wants to support a single set of moral virtues. And from what I am given to
understand this is but a drop in the ocean so I look forward to reading more of him. That is, Edwards
makes an important distinction between the moral sense common to all humans and the spiritual or
divine sense possessed only by the elect. None can relish this beauty that does not have that temper
himself. But humility is a willingness to be known and esteemed according to your true character.
When it comes to morals, both senses approve of the same virtues and disapprove of the same vices,
but for different reasons. Error: Try Again Ok Sell Watchlist Expand Watch List Loading. One, the
approval or disapproval of moral action prompted by uneasiness with ourselves when we see that we
expect less selfishness of others than we expect of ourselves.
Again, this complacency cannot be true virtue, or the love required in the Bible, because it can with
propriety be exercised only towards the virtuous, whereas the love which the Bible requires is to be
exercised towards all. Due to the sheer weight of words and the 17th century style, I understood
perhaps 65% of the piece but the parts within my comprehension were a wonderfully ponder-
inducing discussion of subjects so deep I have never before considered them, namely, the workings
and definitions of benevolence, love, virtue, and beauty and similar things. Of course then it is
willing the good of every being, according to its perceived value, for it is agreed by all, to be the
correct definition of virtue that it is a disposition to regard things according to their perceived
relative value. When it comes to morals, both senses approve of the same virtues and disapprove of
the same vices, but for different reasons. Edwards later recognized this as his conversion to Christ.
Like Kant, but on different terms, Edwards thereby makes universalizability a condition of true
virtue: morality is impartial in its demands and its scope encompasses the entire system of being. And
my particular ethical claim is summed up in the idea that practical wisdom, which is excellence in
practical reasoning, is the master virtue that enables one to succeed in becoming truly human, despite
varying abilities and life circumstances Formal Abstract: Philippa Foot and John McDowell both
defend contemporary neo-Aristotelian ethics but each represents a rival expression of the same.
What is interesting from Edwards' essay is that he has thought deeply about being and virtue and
offered several useful articulations of where natural self-motivated concern is indeed different to
God-centre virtue. What is interesting from Edwards' essay is that he has thought deeply about being
and virtue and offered several useful articulations of where natural self-motivated concern is indeed
different to God-centre virtue. It is to deny that we are to treat things as they are, or according to
the nature. Third, only in this way can creatures agree with each other. While, for Edwards, morality
principally consists in true virtue, he concedes that there is another, secondary level of morality
rooted in the principle of self-love. Edwards, like in Virtue, discusses how there is no true happiness
without being happy in God (John Piper). Hence, the generic proposition that ”humans are practical,
rational primates” has both descriptive and normative content. As a result, people have more
inclinations to pity, but as to true virtue (meaning, wanting the good of beings in general), it is not
the same and is lacking. In fact, Edwards understands the cosmos as an interdependent system of
being that is constituted and sustained in each and every moment by the power of God. That nothing
less can be required is a certain intuition of every moral being in the universe. Like Comment
Matthew Bonzon 92 reviews 4 followers October 2, 2022 This is a great book. Edwards’
conceptualization of true virtue also has important implications for what it means to love particular
creatures rooted in a prior love of God. Edwards delivered the sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an
Angry God”, a classic of early American literature, during another revival in 1741, following George
Whitefield’s tour of the Thirteen Colonies. But humility is a willingness to be known and esteemed
according to your true character. The Bible says Christ did not commit himself to certain persons, for
He knew what was in them, that is, He did not trust or exercise faith in them. Edwards then moved
to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered to a small
congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians. The truth is, his mighty appeals
aroused the constitutional susceptibility of pity to such a pitch that they had to give out of self-
defense. Naturalism is a very widespread position in contemporary analytic philosophy yet not
always very clearly spelled out. Achieving his goal at all costs meant a lot of people were put in very
bad positions but he did not care because his actions were selfish in nature. On the other hand, if
what the moral sentimentalists mean is that our sentiments of approbation and disapprobation are
arbitrary and in no way connected with the nature of reality, then this view is incorrect (and, while
Edwards does not say as much, ultimately leads to emotivism). But Edwards makes a good point that
the natural conscious does not equally rejoice in the good of the other. If virtue is benevolence
toward being in general, and finds expansion in benevolence toward benevolent being, and then
finds complacence as necessarily manifest toward a benevolent being, then God—the triune God is
infinitely the appropriate object of both benevolence and complacence. He died of fever at the age of
fifty-four following experimental inoculation for smallpox and was buried in the President's Lot in
the Princeton cemetery beside his son-in-law, Aaron Burr.
In direct connection with its exercise, persons often show themselves to be the perfect slaves of their
appetites and passions. His reason and conscience continually affirm his obligations to God and his
universe, to the world and the Church. Error: Try Again Ok Sell Watchlist Expand Watch List
Loading. If in doubt check either the author or publisher’s details as we are unable to accept any
returns unless they are faulty. Unless we really will what we desire, it will never effect any good. If
consciousness does not reveal this it cannot reveal any thing about our character. We are so
constituted as naturally to delight in the happiness of others, whenever there is no selfish reason to
prevent. How they admired, and manifested their delight in the character of the prophets who had
formerly perished by the violence of their contemporaries. Second, and with respect to human
nature, that we find true virtue beautiful is not an accident but intrinsic to our constitution as rational
creatures whose end and happiness consists in true virtue. Consequently, genuine love scopes over all
object and subjects and thus come to be proportional to its weight and value. Virtues enable and
partly constitute a good life for human beings. And it is true that while he keeps his eye upon that
particular thing—while his mind broods over it, he cannot; but he can turn his attention off and thus
indirectly remove his feelings of hatred or indignation. This work still has some profound insights,
but it just isn't as cohesive and theology-molding as the others. In order to search for clarity
regarding what one means by naturalism, I explore several strands of McDowell's case for second-
nature naturalism as a position in moral philosophy. In fact, he alone as self-existent has all being in
himself either as his proper personal existence or as a manifestation of his volitional power in
creation and sustenance. This aspect of practical wisdom requires a virtuous agent to undertake a
distinctive sort of reflection not required for possessing skills. This we know by consciousness which
I defined in my last lecture to be the mind’s knowledge of its own existence, acts, and states, and of
the liberty or necessity of these acts and states. Not a shred of Scripture in this book; hardly even
mentions God; equal parts Plato and Kant. 1 like Like Comment Chad 135 reviews January 12, 2016
An excellent discussion concerning the nature of virtue as it regards being in general. They are
sentiments that reach out toward others and do not blatantly and offensively betray self-love. This
work still has some profound insights, but it just isn't as cohesive and theology-molding as the
others. And they do not distinguish between this and true religion; but immediately after the
strongest exhibition of it, take advantage of a neighbor in trade, or exhibit selfishness in some other
form. Or, as Edwards explains, “hereby we have a disposition to approve our own treatment of
another, when we are conscious to ourselves that we treat him so as we should expect to be treated
by him, were he in our case and we in his; and to disapprove of our own treatment of another, when
we are conscious that we should be displeased with the like treatment from him, if we were in his
case” (65). Stoddard died on February 11th, 1729, leaving to his grandson the difficult task of the
sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. This is most
evident in his emphasis on what he calls the affections, by which humans come to know not only
about the world but also God. People love themselves, and so they do many supposedly virtuous
things. Practical wisdom, which is excellence in practical reasoning, is the master virtue that enables
one to succeed in becoming truly human, despite varying abilities and life circumstances. He does
both for the same reason, because the general good equally demands both. He also shows that the
natural conscious wants to be treated well, and that the natural conscious approves of fairness and
equality. The choice of an end always of course necessitates volitions to accomplish the end, but
these executive volitions have no character in themselves, and all virtue or vice belongs to the choice
or intention which they are designed to execute. Besides, as it is mere desire, it may exist forever and
do no good.