What really is virtue?

What if we have a trolley problem where it becomes a choice between two bad options, like our current presidential race? Is there virtue in the lesser of two evils, or would it be more virtuous to make a point of refraining, as a form of protest?

The problem is that we are mobile organisms, constantly having to navigate our environment, consequently constantly judging and deciding between various options. So we project out that if some things are better than others, what is the best of the best? Yet the actual reality is more like a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors, where there is no actual, ultimate ideal. The only universal is where all form and definition cancel out. The flatline between the ups and downs. Yet we have an entire culture based on this notion of the pot of literal or figurative gold at the end of the narrative arc. Consequently we have this current situation of the ends justifying the means, without any real notion of what the ends should be. It might be virtue for some, but it might be more money than anyone else, for someone else.

The ideal is not the absolute. For example, a spiritual absolute would be that raw essence of sentience, from which we rise, not an ideal of wisdom and judgement, from which we fell. More the light shining through the film, than the images and storyline on it. Yet we are both the light and the story.

Life and growth are about pushing out from our origins, our seed and growing in the soil we find ourselves in, not the soil we think we deserve. We can't presume the ought, if we don't first understand the is.

People are linear and goal oriented, while nature is cyclical, reciprocal and feedback generated. The world really is round, not flat.