Some thoughts on the archetype of a virtuous society

One of my most frequent thoughts is and always has been to try to find the bases and foundations of a virtuous society, of a successful organization model, of a functional economy and at the service of the social question, of the source of wealth cultural and spiritual, the bases for the correct development of the individual's life, all without compromising the freedom of the people.

The question is; what characteristics should a society have to achieve those objectives?

I have always determined that the answer to that question is in people. Every virtuous society must, necessarily, be composed of virtuous individuals, because just as a group of ill-intentioned people can not create anything good by joining, virtuous people can not create a harmful association either. The virtue of citizens is the key to a noble and successful society.

As Montesquieu said that the laws should be made in consideration of those who were addressed, otherwise their effect on the social organism would be null or negative, in the same way a society governed by virtuous principles can only be made up of virtuous people, otherwise, the perfection of laws and models will be simple empty social schemes that will soon be degenerated.

The qualities of a virtuous individual, under my perception, are associated with two particular traits; the sense of duty and competence. A virtuous individual, then, acts according to morals, that is, proceeds with the intention of doing good, in such a way that the sense of duty tells him what is good and, therefore, how he should proceed morally, on the other hand, competence represents the ability to act effectively according to what the sense of duty indicates.

Thus, a virtuous person knows what he has to do and has the ability to do it, while a person without virtue does not know what to do, and even if he knew it, he would not have the ability to do it.

Then, in a virtuous society, made up of people who know what they should do and having the ability to do so, they must necessarily have the attitude of giving or offering whatever is owed, and asking or demanding whatever is owed.

Let's see, the modern society, totally participates in a utilitarian logic, always tries to obtain more for less, this being the thought of homo economicus, that is, of modern man, to obtain more of everything by the smallest possible contribution on his part. In such a way, that if we take this thought to its final consequences, the man acting under this logic should aspire to be no more than a parasite. Demand everything from everyone without giving anything in return.

Can a society function healthily, this being its fundamental idea? Not so healthy, but if it can work, and this is because as there is no society where everyone is virtuous, there is no society where everyone is parasites, modern society is an example of this, a small minority can, applying this concept, live at the expense of the rest without giving anything in return. The current society seems to be a society in which everyone wants to receive but nobody wants to give. It is not the case of all, but it seems that this is the fundamental principle. And based on this principle, and this idea of demanding everything or the maximum in exchange for nothing or the least, is that society currently works, because this is the principle that dominates the economy, and as the economy seems to be, currently, more important than the rest of society, the whole society subordinates to the economic activity totally disappearing other principles, and filling the space of the latter the idea of utility; lower investment more profit, less work greater reward, give less or nothing in exchange for receiving more or everything.

Another type of thinking that we can easily dismiss, is one based on the idea of not giving but not demanding, because it is in itself an asocial behavior, a society without cooperation can not be a society, therefore, this type of thinking can not be the prevailing in a society of virtuous men.

The following analysis, would be on the idea of giving everything and receiving everything, this thought although it might seem more noble than the previous ones, because it represents the total surrender of the individual body and soul to the whole social group, in turn is vitiated, because in a society in which individuals are morally obliged to give themselves totally, it is also a society in which all apex of individuality disappears, and therefore, freedom as well, since the individual would not belong to himself but to the collective.

So, finally, the thought of virtuous individuals should be to demand from others only when needed, that is, when what they should do exceeds their capacity, however, should always be available to give or offer whatever is needed of him, in such a way, that these virtuous individuals are cooperating with each other without abusing one another. The competition will make them need as little as possible of each other, but in turn, the sense of duty will impel them to help those who demand it, in such a way that in perfect harmony the virtuous individuals help themselves only enough to fill the gaps that each one has, not compromising either social cooperation or the freedom of any.

---

Image Source: 1