Comments on: [some notes for] Chapter 9 Bourgeois Life Came to be Philosophized around 1700 http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/weblog/2007/04/17/chapter-9/ Deirdre McCloskey Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:33:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Deirdre McCloskey http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/weblog/2007/04/17/chapter-9/comment-page-1/#comment-193 Deirdre McCloskey Wed, 09 May 2007 16:15:19 +0000 http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/weblog/2007/04/17/chapter-9/#comment-193 Dear Sebastian, You touch on an important issue. Cicero said that virtues are not virtues unless extraordinary. But what we want is virtues in ordinary people--not all of them saints or heroes, but good enough for the society to flourish. Sincerely, Deirdre McCloskey Dear Sebastian,

You touch on an important issue. Cicero said that virtues are not virtues unless extraordinary. But what we want is virtues in ordinary people–not all of them saints or heroes, but good enough for the society to flourish.

Sincerely,

Deirdre McCloskey

]]> By: Sebastian Anderson http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/weblog/2007/04/17/chapter-9/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Sebastian Anderson Tue, 01 May 2007 17:58:57 +0000 http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/weblog/2007/04/17/chapter-9/#comment-162 "Middling virtues" makes it sound like we're trading down. Is 'sufficient' really what we want out of virtue? Certainly its better than nothing, as with the aristocrat who doesn't stoop to pay his tailor. But what of higher virtues? Oughtn't we aim for those instead (or as well?) And do higher virtues diminish the virtuousness of the middling people and virtues? “Middling virtues” makes it sound like we’re trading down. Is ‘sufficient’ really what we want out of virtue? Certainly its better than nothing, as with the aristocrat who doesn’t stoop to pay his tailor. But what of higher virtues? Oughtn’t we aim for those instead (or as well?) And do higher virtues diminish the virtuousness of the middling people and virtues?

]]>