CAL 103 "The Case against Character" by Kwame Anthony Appiah

                Being virtuous is not something you can obtain, you either do it naturally, or you force yourself to do it for your own motive. For example, the Catholic Religion is somewhat based around helping the poor and being virtuous, but are you really doing it to help them? Or are you helping them so you can get into heaven? If you are doing the latter, you really aren't being virtuous, you are being selfish. The definition of virtuous to me means, going out of your way to help someone for no reason.

                My biggest problem for me being virtuous is the statement of "No good deed goes unpunished.". An example of this is letting your neighbor borrow your lawn mower, and you may not receiver the lawn mower back, or at least in the same condition you gave it to him. Why lend it to him in the first place? Aristotle explains eudaimonia, it will bring happiness to you and your neighbor. I think eudaimonia can only be effective if everyone was virtuous all the time, but than we would live in a perfect world. 

               Although there is punishment for good deeds there is another side of the spectrum that Buddhist's and Hindu's, would love to argue about and that is karma. They explain how good deeds give you good dharma and vice versa. Once again, does it really make you a virtuous person if you are only helping people to benefit yourself? But how do we make people virtuous without a reward?You can't, you either do it naturally, or you force yourself to do it for your own motive. 

                 What I don't understand out of everything I read was the line, "Being virtuous is part, at least, of what makes a life worthwhile."(402, The Case against Character). I don't understand how being helpful to everyone around you, will benefit your life.