Humility’s Sorry Fortunes in Society & Philosophy
ON THE VIRTUE OF HUMILITY
Humility, Alasdair Maclntyre writes, “could appear in no Greek list of the virtues,” and Hume, we recall, scorns it as a “monkish” virtue. Nor does humility fare any better today, although perhaps one says this with some reservation. We are not, after all, too clear about what humility is. But even our confusion shows humility’s precarious state. For if we held humility in much regard, we would be more able to speak clearly about it. In addition to our telling inarticulateness, humility’s sociological impress is surely insignificant. The social structure of modernity, insofar as we can chart it at all, can be charted without reference to humility — but not without reference to status or power. Finally, the concept of humility is simply ignored by most major philosophers.
How is the Christian philosopher to respond to humility’s sorry fortunes? One response is to try to think through why it is that almost all moral philosophers recognize the centrality of, say, justice but overlook humility. A second, and related, response is to look carefully at how Christians speak about humility. Do we misrepresent it? If so, how badly? But a third response, I think, is the most important. It is to delineate the foundational role of humility in Christian ethics. We can, with profit, explore how secular moral philosophy comes to have the emphases it does and how we, no doubt, have contributed to that skewedness. But our first task is to set our own house in philosophical order. What is humility’s place in the structure of Christian moral philosophy?
The answer that I outline here is a Thomistic one. It poses two preliminary questions for consideration: (1) why humility is a virtue, and (2) where humility “fits” in man’s nature. Getting clear, or relatively so, about these questions will, in turn, show just why and how humility is central for the believer but only marginal for the nonbeliever.
Why should we suppose that humility is a virtue? On the face of it, humility seems opposed to, among other things, ambition. Of course, being opposed to ambition does not in itself discount humility’s being a virtue. For if we think of the virtues as a subset of deeply habituated dispositions, we have to determine which of such dispositions count as virtues and which count as vices. And how should we make this determination? It might, conceivably, be made on as many grounds as there are competing moral theories. Here, though, I will consider just two such bases for the determination of virtues.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! REGISTER TODAYSUBSCRIBE
You May Also Enjoy
Man is part of the world and also separate from it, embedded in a spiritual hierarchy that stretches infinitely beyond what we can see, touch, and hear.
Thomism is an integral part of the millennial flow of Western thought and cannot simply be consigned to the dustbin of misguided and superseded systems of philosophy.
The principles of fallibilist foundationalism are intrinsic to the nature of God and every human person, all of whom have been made in His image.