Virtues or Choices?

I recently updated my status and I said this:

Patience is not a virture. Patience is a choice. You get to decide if you get upset or if you take a breath and keep going. When the time comes, how will you decide?

Afterwards, I was asked, "If patience isn't a virtue, then what is?"

I thought that was an excellent question. So lets break it down.

The definition of Virtue is: Moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.

It's possible Patience could be Moral excellence, but I believe Moral excellence is someone who is willing to do the right thing, no matter what. So yes, it is possible that Patience fits into the definition of a Virtue.

I happen to think just a little bit differently though. Regardless if it is Patience or Moral excellence, it is a choice we make. We choose to be Patient, we choose to be Moral, we choose to do right or wrong. Having Virtues means you are making the choice to be Virtuous. I do not believe there is a special thing in someone genetics that just makes them patient or makes them virtuous. It has to be a conscious decision.

So what you are saying is Patience is a virtuous choice?

I agree with your point of view on this, though I must say I'm somewhat confused about that initial question "if patience isn't a virtue, then what is it?" Your status says it's a choice and I agree. Am I just missing something or is that question answered in your status?

Karn wrote: So what you are saying is Patience is a virtuous choice?

Yes, that is basically what I was saying. It can be considered a virtue, but being virtuous is a choice.

Oneiros wrote: I agree with your point of view on this, though I must say I'm somewhat confused about that initial question "if patience isn't a virtue, then what is it?" Your status says it's a choice and I agree. Am I just missing something or is that question answered in your status?

Sorry for the confusion. Llama Su asked the question of "If patience isn't a virtue, then what is?" and instead of answering it on my status, I decided to make a new thread on it.

Ah okay. Well I absolutely agree that people choose the way they behave. Sometimes that choice is made without us realizing it like when someone lashes out in anger, but it's still a choice. If one no longer wants to be a person who lashes out without thinking, the beginning of that process is for them to recognize when they are about to lash out and stop themselves. That's a choice. Recognizing that we are all capable of controlling ourselves is incredibly empowering.

I personally would say its both. To have virtues in the first place is a choice. We choose our virtues as much as we choose whether or not to live by them. If patience is a something valued highly of that person then I see no reason why it can't be a moral.

"To live is to choose"- Relan Volkum

I agree with Relans quote completely, everything we do is a choice. To follow a path, to choose what we value, to choose how we live our lives. To live is to choose.

I would say that patience is a necessary trait however some situations require haste. If someone is robbing a bank and you are a police officer patience is a luxury you might not be able to afford. Sometimes it benefits to act with haste. It all comes down to the situations in which you place patience, does the situation require fast action or slow pase planning. What happens if there is not enough time? Is there enough time to do (insert task) without any setbacks or problems.

Looking at patience as a general mindset and attitude I would say is virtue but only as a generalization. Like all things it depends on the circumstances. Like many other values and virtues it depends on what you are measuring it against. Is it better to be courageous and swoop in the bank robbery and get yourself killed or is it better to stay put and negotiate with a little more risk.

Don't we choose which virtues we exercise? Can't it be both?

A choice ? Hmmm ...

I really like grapes. I mean - really ! I would eat grapes all year 'round if I lived in Southern Italy (and olives too !) ...

But I live in Burgundy. To have really good grapes, I have to wait for them to grow on the vines, be cultivated and come to the market. I suppose I choose to be patient ... maybe. But whether I accept that it is February and there are no good grapes at the market or whether I get into a snit about it and have a rant -- that doesn't make the grapes grow faster nor more plentiful.

People have seasons too, and at all of the levels of social organisation. There are right and worse times for things to come or for events to transpire. Should something I want to come to pass - perhaps even something that must come to pass - is not in its right season, all the ranting, insisting and manipulating is not going to make it come more quickly nor in the way it would in its own time. In fact, it can ruin the whole crop ...

So, is it a choice ? I suppose that in many cases, it may be. Yet, in most cases, it is not. Neither the seasons nor the sunsets hurry, whether I patiently wait or wait with anticipation. All that I can do is the right thing at the right time and be ready for the season when it comes.

Thus, patience can be quite active. If it is not the right time for something, at least that something can be prepared for. After all, simply 'waiting' passively for an event is not 'Patience'. Neither is procrastinating when there is a task at hand. Furthermore, I should be very careful about measuring the patience of someone else ...

Choice is a nebulous concept : if Patience is doing a thing in that thing's proper time, but one cannot choose the Time, how then could Patience be a choice ? I guess it falls back on 'choosing' not to pitch a rant, but then would that be patience ?

More than this being a question to answer, it is more a terrain to explore ...

This reminds me a lot of an essay of John Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

Here is the excerpt that this reminded me of, but I would suggest reading more at…
http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/locke/

Suppose a man be carried, whilst fast asleep, into a room where is a person he longs to see and speak with; and be there locked fast in, beyond his power to get out: he awakes, and is glad to find himself in so desirable company, which he stays willingly in, i.e. prefers his stay to going away. I ask, is not this stay voluntary?
I think nobody will doubt it: and yet, being locked fast in, it is evident he is not at liberty not to stay, he has not freedom to be gone. So that liberty is not an idea belonging to volition, or preferring; but to the person having the power of doing, or forbearing to do, according as the mind shall choose or direct. Our idea of liberty reaches as far as that power, and no farther. For wherever restraint comes to check that power, or compulsion takes away that indifferency of ability to bear acting, there liberty, and our notion of it, presently ceases.

By the question and reasoning presented in the original post I believe an aspect of it was overlooked. Is it an option to begin with? Hence the quote from Locke.

But, even if it is, I have to agree with Locke that it is a matter of perspective and circumstances. Further, being if it is a choice then when thrust upon so as that we have no choice, how we deal with it is also an outward expression of moral excellence, as you stated in the original post.

If any of that makes any sense?