Ⅳ．Why Be Moral: The Perspective of Virtue Ethics

The moral postulate, as it has been discussed so far, is a valid regulative ideal from both the perspective of the community and the perspective of the moral disagreements among individuals, and this justification provides a solid ground for morality.

The validity of the moral postulate has philosophical significance. It answers the critical question of ethics: why should we be moral? “Why should we be moral” is at the heart of ethics. Morality imposes duties on an agent, and, conventionally speaking, desires are not completely compatible with duties. However, with the moral postulate, duty and desire are unified.

Firstly, it is in a person's self-interest to be moral. According to the very definition of the moral postulate, whatever is genuinely good for an individual must also be good for a community. Thus, it appears to follow naturally that being moral and thinking from the perspective of others are good for the self, and we need the social solidarity and the joy that comes from doing what one thinks is right. Dewey argues,“interest in self, if the interest is pure, is just as much an interest in the moral end as interest in anything else”.

The dichotomy between “altruism” and “egoism” is a heavy burden to bear, which suggests a false incompatibility between duty and desire. In fact, self-interest and social welfare are merely two faces of the same coin.The moral postulate requires us to understand that interests are egoistic because interest provides satisfaction to the person, but it is also altruistic because, as a social being, the genuine interest of a person benefits society in general. Genuine interest is both altruistic and egoistic.

The dilemma between altruism and egoism is harmonized by beneficence. An altruistic act is one that is solely other-regarding. An egoistic act is solely self-regarding. A beneficent act regards both others and the self. It may be that there are neither altruistic nor egoistic actions,they may all be beneficent or being the opposite. But at the very least,beneficent actions exist that render psychological egoism false and make room for morality.

Secondly, being moral is not merely an “interest,” but also the demand of the character of a person. The character of a person calls a person to be moral once the person is involved in a moral community. Once a person constantly gains satisfaction in the moral community by conducting moral actions that unify both the interests of oneself and that of the community,positive reinforcements provide sufficient reasons for a person to remain in the moral community. Dewey suggests,

“The good character, considered in relation to the moral struggle,is the one which chooses the right end, which endeavors to be better...A wholly good man would feel such satisfaction in the contemplation of the ideal good that contrary desires would not affect him. He would take pleasure only in the right”.

Once again, goodness and satisfaction converge. For Dewey, virtues are not merely interests, but they complete the role of interests while performing what is good. For instance, truthfulness, for Dewey, is a special kind of interest that applies in the medium of human exchange. However,truthfulness certainly is a moral endeavor rather than merely a selfish interest as everyone can share in and benefit from the truth.

Therefore, the moral postulate provides a reliable explanation to answer the question, “Why be moral?” A person has personal interests in being moral, and the reinforcements of morality and character provide a sufficient reason for him to stay in the moral environment and then act in accordance with the moral postulate. The critical prerequisite for understanding the explanation is that people need to abandon the burden of the false dichotomy: desire and duty are incompatible. Under the moral postulate, they are united, and hence provide reasons for people to be moral.