How can we differentiate virtues and values or are they same in meaning. Please provide some examples.
Value is an ordering. Virtue is a habit:
I think that value refers to an ordering of actions according to what is good (in a moral sense). A virtue is an acquired habit to act pursuing a moral good.
I would say that values are less stable then virtues as they tend to be context-dependent and culture-specific.
The two can be in conflict. For example, modesty is a virtue. But it might be accorded a low value (or not considered as a value), e.g., during job interviews in specific cultural contexts (something along these lines has been demonstrated in the writings by Hofstede).
I could think about another possible distinction between the two - virtue can be private or personal and independent of social approval, not so with value which is by definition impersonal. Didn't pay too much thought about it, by could be a good starter.
Are you asking in reference to a type of ethical theory, as in Value Theory and Virtue Ethics? Or are you asking in a more general sense?
Virtue is a - perceived - characteristic or feature of a person, value is an - abstract - standard of conviction and behaviour.
Nothing offhand, but I would think that Kant might have something on the topic as well as Habermas. He has a lot on minimal consensus, the good life, and individual choices of values - it might be of use to you.
Are "Values" the Same as Virtues?
Centrepoints, Vol. 2, No. 2, Article #1, Fall, 1996
Reproduced with permission
Iain T. Benson, B.A. (Hons.), M.A. (Cantab.), LL.B. *
. . .It will surprise some people to realize that "values" is a term that obscures moral discourse rather than furthers it and that the term entered our language very recently. We all know, after all, that in contemporary usage, "you have your values and I have mine." A difference in "values" is virtually expected and no cause for concern. . .
"Search for values brings boomers back to church;" so ran the heading of a recent Vancouver Sun article. The journalist interviewed various people who had left the church while young, but later brought their own children back. A church leader said the reason some young families are returning to church is that "they want some help in fostering values for their children." A mother of young children stated that it is at church that children can learn "what's right, what's wrong" so as to get a "moral education...." Are these two people speaking about the same kind of things? Are "values" and "right and wrong" the same thing? It will surprise some people to realize that "values" is a term that obscures moral discourse rather than furthers it and that the term entered our language very recently. We all know, after all, that in contemporary usage, "you have your values and I have mine." A difference in "values" is virtually expected and no cause for concern.
The definition of values can be categorized into either "Personal Preference Values" or "Principle Values."
John Heenan, founder and Director of "The New Zealand Foundation for Character Education Inc." defines values this way;
"Values that are "Preferences" are personal choices that are subjective and changeable at any time."
An example may be your value for material things as your house or car or perhaps your special value put on a good education.
You will more than likely adjust these personal preference values as your life circumstances change.
"On the other hand values that are "Principles," like honesty and compassion and fairness, are consistent, transcultural and objective."
The greatest difference, is that "Preference" values are something: "To Have"…
While values that are "Principles" are something "To Be", like honest, kind, compassionate and responsible. (acquired through virtues)
Opatha, H. H.D.N.P., and Teong, L. K., (2014) point out that a virtue is a good habit and a good attribute that is useful for a person him/herself and other persons. Solomon (1999) states that virtue is an essential aspect of an individual. Solomon (1999) further states that the concept of virtues provides the conceptual linkage between an individual and his/her society. Opatha (2010) mentions that the virtues do not vary according to race, nationality, religion, culture or any other classification since they are universally accepted moral principles. On the other hand values may not be universally accepted beliefs or ideals. Values may vary according to race, nationality, religion, culture or any other classification. According to Opatha (2010) this is the main difference between virtues and values.
Opatha (2010) writes:
“In order to excel in a particular field, country or organization a person must possess a good personal character, in addition to the enhancement of technical competence relevant to the particular field. A good personal character is of utmost importance.”
Opatha (2010) further writes that:
“Absence of virtues results in the absence of a good personal character. Possession of virtues contributes to a good personal character, which leads to good personal quality. Good qualities or habits which do not harm a person are virtues. These are advantageous and favorable for self-development, others’ development and institutional development.”
References
Solomon, R.C. (1999), A better way to think about business, New York: Oxford University Press.
Opatha, H.H.D.N.P (2010), Personal Quality, University of Sri Jayewardenepura.
Opatha, H. H.D.N.P., and Teong, L. K., (2014). Enhancing your personal Q. Sintok; Universiti Utara Malaysia, UUM Press.
VIRTUE:
“There is perhaps no phenomenon which contains so much destructive feeling as 'moral indignation,' which permits envy or hate to be acted out under the guise of virtue.”
― Erich Fromm, Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics
VALUEl
“It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.”
― Aristotle, Selected Writings From The Nicomachean Ethics And Politics
Based on sources on the subject I have accessed in terminoology work, the term "values" has a broader meaning than "moral values" or "virtues'". "Values" covers material goods (values) and non-material goods (values), the latter understood as "moral values" or "virtues". To my mind, "moral values" and "virtues" stand on an equal footing, and can be viewed as synonymous.
The Theory of Dual Morality makes it clear that moral sentiment is a survival mechanism and that we are all born with two distinct ways we can see right and wrong.
Moral standards are defined as "values" in one of these patterns (set by the individual) and as "virtues" in the other (established by tradition and the group).
It proposes that just as we evolved the five physical senses of sight, smell, touch, hearing and taste to help us navigate our material environment of trees and tornadoes, so too did we evolve two distinct “social senses” to help us successfully maneuver through our environment of people and groups.
These two social senses come into play depending on how we perceive our surroundings. One of them guides our feelings of right and wrong in times of ease and plenty and the other takes over in times of want or danger.
Each of us carries both senses with us at all times, and each of us has a predilection to favor one sense over the other. But we are all capable of using either.
These social senses make themselves known in many ways:
In our political expression we recognize them as “liberalism” vs “conservatism”
As an economic expression we recognize them as “socialistic” vs “capitalistic”
When we describe the psyche we use the terms “personality” vs character”
When we are safe and feeling in our liberal mode of ease and equality we see right and wrong in terms of VALUES. These are fleeting things and people are at liberty to make up their own for themselves.
When we are in times of trouble and scarcity, it is the habits and established patterns of conservative group traditional behavior that are our VIRTUES. And we prove our worth to others by how VIRTUOUS we are.
That is, by how well we follow established norms and traditions.
We live in easy times now. When was the last time anyone referred to you as virtuous, courageous, honorable or brave? These are concepts that have meaning in poor cultures where knowing and trusting our neighbors matter. Our lives may depend on it!
In rich democracies we need not know who are neighbors are to survive. And we usually don't care to know them.
So terms like reputation have little meaning.
What one "values" becomes a matter of personal preference. Times are easy.
Virtue has little meaning in democracies.
Virtue is a moral behaviour of a person while value entail an acceptable moral disposition in an organization or a cultural group. It may seems synonymous but values encompasses virtue
Virtue is a habitual disposition or trait that enables a moral agent to achieve deliberated goals while values are standards, principles and ideas or beliefs that impel or motivate certain actions. Virtues are natural and acquired through habituation while values are created and promoted in relation to particular needs. Virtues are means to some ends while values are goals to be achieved.