Talking about vice, or similar topics such as character or virtue, has become unpopular. There is something almost distasteful about using these words unironically or without being self-conscious while doing so. One can hardly utter these words without hearing the sneers or picturing the smirks of those who have grown accustomed to either reject or ignore such topics. Western cultural influences (likely beginning with postmodernism in the 1960s) have switched the focus from being good to being clever and praises what is sarcastic over what is authentic. This rejection of the concept of virtue has been detrimental to society and has weakened the sense of agency for individuals, often resulting in nihilism.

Despite the lack of serious conversation about character, virtue, and vice, there is still much agreement as to which characteristics are virtues and which are vices. In these instances, the difficulty lies in living up to one’s own standards and in many cases exerting one’s will. Determining how best to maximize one’s (for lack of a better phrase) willpower so that one can lead a virtuous life an interesting topic, although it is just as important that what one is striving towards is actually what is virtuous. While the agreement is considerable, there are still points of disagreement or confusion, however, and this is where worthwhile discussion can occur. Three common mistakes involve the typical categorization of being humble, being nice, or being empathic as being virtuous.

There is, rightfully, consensus that hubris is a vice, but what about humility? As Schopenhauer wrote “whoever attributes to himself no merits, because he actually has none, is not modest but merely honest”1. Unless humility is taken to be “honesty about one’s self while conversing with others”, which seems too narrow of a definition to be considered a virtue, it is at best an application of another virtue. It has never been virtuous to undervalue yourself, but it is even less so given the climate in which we live. Humility too often provides an easy transition to self-deprecation—and self-deprecation frequently turns into self-depreciation—and therefore should not be admired.

The closest alternative to humility that can be offered is honesty, which can protect against both hubris and humility. I’m uncertain whether there is a less controversial stance than praising honesty, but most people tend to subordinate honesty to humility in their lives. Humility is beneficial in the extent to which it makes one honest about their weaknesses, however it falters when it comes to its requirement to be dishonest about one’s strengths. There is something to be said against bragging and flaunting, which is obviously repugnant, but fully embracing humility is an extreme response which amounts to praising timidity. As is often the case with virtue, the best option is to have a healthy sense of self-worth without being overconfident.

Being nice, at least in part, has the same problem that humility does in its clash with honesty. Often one justifies to him- or herself that they are lying to be nice and prevent hurting another person’s feelings. In reality, most of this lying is actually done to avoid awkward interactions. If one is asked by a somewhat-pudgy friend, “Do you think I’m overweight?” The easy reply is something like “Of course not!”, but for whose benefit is this done? One can always justify this by saying that it was the nice thing to do, but what is commendable about lying to a friend? To lie to someone “for their benefit” is to claim you know what is best for them and that they shouldn’t have an accurate representation of reality. This is not only deceitful, but also condescending2.

Instead of being nice, one should try to be kind. The distinction between kindness and niceness may seem artificial and pedantic, but I believe there is a genuine distinction to be made regardless of the terminology chosen. Niceness, or at least how it will be used here, applies to conforming to social norms to avoid confrontations or friction with others. Kindness, comes from a genuine sense of caring. Being nice is oriented towards one’s self, whereas kindness is oriented towards others. Being nice is often the easier thing to do, it is certainly less awkward and avoids confrontation, and is done because it is best for the person who is being nice, whereas being kind is about doing what helps others despite the cultural norms or what helping will make others think of one’s self.

Empathy, which is often treated as a virtue, is little more than a measure of the ease with which one can be persuaded to act irrationally. Empathy is what causes one person in the wake of an Islamic terrorist attack to adopt an anti-refugee, closed border stance and another person to advocate for completely opening the borders after seeing a picture of the horrors happening abroad. Whatever one’s stance is on the issue, it is obvious that it shouldn’t be dominated by pictures or video clips. If the most empathic option is ever the best option it is only ever by accident or coincidence. It is never the most reliable way in which to arrive at the solution.

The positive alternative to empathy is compassion, which can be understood as caring constrained by reason3. Without either compassion or empathy, psychopathy seems inevitable, but that is not an argument for empathy since compassion is possible. Being compassionate results in wanting what’s best and knowing that the best way to ensure what’s best occurs is through thinking rationally. Compassion avoids a fatal flaw in empathy: the ability to empathize with others, and in turn, the amount we care about and value others is influenced by factors we would upon rational reflection, consider to be unfair. For that reason, one must often choose between equality or empathy, whereas compassion allows for the best aspects of both.

These vices are certainly not the biggest problems facing individuals or the world at large, but the fact that they are misconceptions makes them important. This means that people who are attempting to be virtuous may just be uncertain what exactly that means. Too often discussions on ethics or how one should live get singularly focused on extreme cases so much so that they must become abstract and over-intellectualized. Personally, I think providing principles which can satisfy all edge cases with perfect consistency, but fail to help any actual person lead a better life is a far worse solution. Discourse on topics such as how one ought to live should be practical and the concepts of virtue and vice provides the best means for doing so.

1The World as Will and Idea by Arthur Schopenhauer, whose writings are always a great source of cantankerous quotes like the one above.

2A similar idea, not with being nice, but with lying directly, is explored in Sam Harris’s book Lying. The same stance it taken concerning when it is alright to lie to others

3Attacking empathy is becoming more popular since the Yale psychologist Paul Bloom started writing a series of papers on the topic and the book Against Empathy. My views on empathy are largely shaped by what he has written and said on the subject.