Is Virtue Its Own Reward?
By: Craig Clifford and Randolph M. Feezell

We all like to be rewarded for doing the right thing And when we are in a position to reward someone else for doing the right thing, we should reward them. In a perfect world, some people like to say, virtue would always be rewarded. But in the imperfect world humans inhabit, often it's not.

Why choose virtue over vice, then--or, in more contemporary language--good character over whatever feels good at the moment?

One arena in which this issue is constantly at stake is sports. Often good character is rewarded in sports. Respect for teammates usually results in good teamwork, and good teamwork is usually rewarded by more victories--that's an easy one. But what about the honesty, self-control, and fairness that are required in order to treat opponents with respect? Your good character might inspire your opponents to raise themselves to a higher moral plain, in which case the game can then be determined by athletic performance. But sometimes your self-control and fairness will earn you no respect from your opponents and possibly even the ire of your teammates or coach.

What if you could increase your chances of winning by provoking a fight with the other team's franchise player, say, by taunting him about his mother just dying? Both of you get thrown out, and your team wins. What if you're the coach and you know that your star player has five fouls and should sit down, but the officials don't catch it? She stays in and makes the winning shot. Sometimes--especially in a culture that tends to reward winning at all costs--bad character wins.

Is virtue its own reward, then? That's a clever way of saying that we should choose virtue, good character, right action, not in order to be rewarded, but because it's better to be a person of good character than a person of bad character. It's true that good character will enable us to accomplish good things, that others will benefit from being around us if we have good character, and, if we're lucky, that sometimes we'll even be honored for our good character; but good character is also worthy of being chosen for its own sake. Moral well being is better than moral depravity, just as physical health is better than illness. In more philosophical terms, virtue is the health of the soul.

I heard a politician running for office say recently that he would rather lose the race running an honorable campaign than win having run a dishonorable one. "There are some things it's worth losing for," he said. Whether in this case it was genuine sentiment or calculated rhetoric, the idea is worth thinking about.

Anything less than our best effort to win within the rules and customs of the game, in sports or in politics, would be disrespectful to the opponents and would show bad character; but, if it comes down to it, playing by the rules, upholding the highest standards of conduct, cultivating excellence of character--aren't those worth losing for?