The Paradox of Virtue
The Paradox of Virtue attempts to show that moral goodness or virtue is commonly thought to be desirable, but actually leads to peoples downfall or misery. The Paradox of Virtue is also known as the Catch-22 and is most commonly demonstrated in the fictional works of Joseph Heller and the classical works of Josephus and Euripides.
The paradox of virtue argues that a person who pursues moral perfection would be required to sacrifice their own interests, values, and values of their community in order to attain this moral perfection. In theory, this person would have to sacrifice their claim to fame and personal pleasure in order to reach their goal of perfection, yet at the same time, the moral perfection would be impossible to achieve without recognition. The paradox of virtue states that if one does achieve moral perfection, they will receive neither recognition nor approval but only misfortune.
The Catch-22 inherent in the paradox of virtue is the inability to attain moral perfection without receiving recognition or approval, which leads to ones downfall. Furthermore, it suggests that a person who pursues their own interests and values is more likely to be successful and to be accepted by others. This paradox also suggests that one must make tradeoffs between moral perfection and individual success, since they are mutually exclusive goals.
A classic example of the paradox of virtue can be found in the works of Joseph Hellers Catch-22, a novel that takes place during World War II. The protagonist, Yossarian, is a member of the military who suffers from the Catch-22 paradox. The military has established a policy stating that in order to be discharged from the military, an individual must be recognized as insane by their superiors. Yossarian attempts to establish his sanity by proving he is not insane, however, this only reiterates his claim of being insane as his superiors refuse to accept his proof of sanity.
Another example of the paradox of virtue can also be found in the works of Josephus and Euripides. Throughout Josephus The Jewish Wars, Josephus portrays the story of the Maccabees who are a group of Jewish warriors who fought a long hard battle against the Romans. The Maccabees fought the Roman forces bravely and sacrificed much in the name of their faith, yet in the end their fate was to be destroyed by their own people who were persuaded by their enemies that they were traitors and enemies of God. Similarly, in Euripides Antigone, the moral hero Antigone finds herself in a similar situation as the Maccabees. She stands up against the government and speaks out against the laws which she believes to be unjust. In the end, Antigone dies as a result of her attempt to uphold her moral beliefs.
The Paradox of Virtue can also be seen in philosophy and politics. Many philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have argued that morality is based on duty and sacrifice for the greater good, and that momentary pleasures should be rejected in favor of what is truly right. This concept of sacrificing ones own desires for the greater good is seen in politics with the Concept of the Greater Good being used to support certain political policies, however, these policies are sometimes blamed for certain negative outcomes. The Paradox of Virtue thus shows that morality is not always beneficial in the short term and that one must be careful to consider long-term consequences when making decisions based on ethical principles.
In conclusion, the Paradox of Virtue is a difficult concept to put into practice, as it often involves sacrificing ones immediate desires in order to do what is morally right in the long-term. The Paradox of Virtue can be seen in literature, philosophy and politics, and highlights the difficulty of engaging in moral decision making. It also demonstrates that morality and individual success are not mutually exclusive and that sometimes a tradeoff is required in order to achieve moral perfection.
