In looking for ethical maxims we often search for a universal mark that can be applied to all scenarios, yet this is something which always one can produce paradoxes or quandaries which place the maxim in conflict with itself, in at least to some degree. As a guide to ethical behavior, I find these four Stoic virtues interesting though. While each on its own certainly can be taken to be socially relative, the four together seem to work in concert, balancing out the deficits in the other. While they do not set a standard which grades out every situation perfectly, I have run the usual moral puzzles through them – Nazism, abortion, death penalty, war, female circumcision, suicide, etc. - and they seem to fare pretty well as a standard. If anything, one can at least assess in which manner one is exceeding possible bounds, and one can then ask oneself whether that excess is justified, or would more ethically be constrained. This question of course would not apply to those who are outright ethical Nihilists, but those that do believe that there might be such a thing as ethical behavior and search for ways to possibily describe it by priniciple. In contemplating a potential action, does it serve to ask yourself, am I acting in justice, in temperance, with courage and in friendship? How does one feel about these four measure of ethical behavior, and can you come up with situations upon which these would not shed ethical light?
Reading this at your behest from the Platinum rule thread.
I find the four interesting. I admit that I can’t think of one of those handy scenarios ethicists use to show some inherent cotradiction within the four themselves, I also noticed that (as they are presented) the four virtues seem rather open to a person’s interpretation. Perhaps with some definition added it may seem that the virtues are quite inflexible (or can be).
Or the flaw in them (together) may rest on how an individual perceives each one in concert corresponding to any given situation. Meaning that Billy Bob’s Idea of Justice and/or Temperance, Courage, and Friendship may be vastly different from mine.
Also, some Post modernist might complain that the four seem too Euro Centric or some such crap. A hairy legged feminist might decry friendship as an appeal to masculine hedgemony.
What I am saying is, you will have to define the four concretely so as to counter these (and like minded) complaints.
Or the flaw in them (together) may rest on how an individual perceives each one in concert corresponding to any given situation. Meaning that Billy Bob’s Idea of Justice and/or Temperance, Courage, and Friendship may be vastly different from mine.
I know, I played around with this difficulty, because it is the most obvious weakness of this vocabulary. I imagined different possible interpretations from different ethnic and historical backgrounds, and examined moral quandaries in this way. While no clear cut rule emerged, what I did notice was that the 4 somehow balanced each other out, that if under a particular perspective for instance “justice” moved in a direction that to my instinct as extreme, “temperance” or “courage” would reign it back in some. Or if “friendship” was too over zealous, “justice” might pull it in. My thinking on this certainly was not exhaustive, but at least suggestive.
What I am saying is, you will have to define the four concretely so as to counter these (and like minded) complaints.
I somehow imagine that they might work better undefined, or in interaction within the defintions a person might hold themselves, as if a cultural sense of right and wrong might be reflected in structure by these four.
I think that all four of those are noble pursuits, but I find it hard to use them to strictly define a stoic approach to nature, or as it is, a definition of nature in stoic terms.
I find it hard to define ethics or morals at all, as I believe it all to be a big sham (not to say that I don’t abide by “ethical” standards), as it seems to me that any “universal mark” is applied by a thing on the universe, rather than the universe applying it on the things of it., ie…
If you’ll permit me the leeway - and I apologize as I realize after I had already started writing that you specifically exclude from analysis “ethical nihilists”, which is totally okay as I’ve often wondered whether there’s some moral code out there to which, flatly and simply, I am not attached -, I’d like to quickly comment on those four maxims you propose. This awfully reminds me of “The Republic” which I felt I had to stomach - mostly because my professor was an ass, and probably high on cocaine every lesson.
Justice in my eyes is a sham word - a futile effort to create balance in a world on a scale of an individual’s personal design. Billions of people trying to create objective balance in the world according to billions of personally constructed meters of morality and ethics. If you’re talking about “not being mean to people” or “enacting retribution for emotional trauma incurred”, then either of those or the full descriptions should be, in my opinion, substituted. Now, I do assume you’re talking about real, objective Justice rather than rules imposed by society for its own protection, which I think of as something else.
Temperance is a word I really like, and I think it is very important to stoic philosophy. To me, I see it as logic over impulse and emotion - an ability to view the will of the body in a manipulated and casual way, as an element of a system.
I’ve never totally understood the need for courage specifically - its like some hand slapping you forward on the butt whenever you’re not doing something you should be doing. For instance, you have deemed an action appropriate, but you don’t do it. Why? This doesn’t seem to be a lack of courage - but rather, some sort of fear that is holding you back. I don’t think a perfect stoic necessarily has courage, but instead, lacks fear - and approaches situations for what they are, distinctly and directly.
I don’t know how to approach friendship - I do know that I personally have a loyalty to those who are close to me, but I reduce that probably to mere attachment, rather than direction by some ethical code. According to what I understand of friendship
Actually, thinking about it more, I think The Republic would shed some light on this situation, as, if I remember correctly, it breaks justice and virtue down into similar terms. I wish I could remember it better to maybe quote from it, but it’s been a while.
Even for those for whom there exists a real moral code, I think that these four wouldn’t necessarily define what the two of us might agree would be a morally appropriate behavior.
Nazism-
Justice - The Nazis believed that they were creating a balance in the world by eliminating the people that they did - they believed also, if I understand it, that they were enacting retribution for past acts, at least on certain groups, like the Jewish people that were murdered. Their system of eugenics was also an effort to create a “correct” balance in the world – ie., eliminating “criminals”.
Temperance - The desire to put aside emotion for the sake of a rational pursuit. This isn’t to say that there was anything rational about what they did, but the systematic nature of their actions represented thought over emotion.
Courage - This is a big deal in any military culture - and I know that courage was reinforced in Nazism, and also in religious environments… “the courage to do what is right” - the “courage” to sacrifice yourself for what is “right”.
Friendship - Comrodery of course was a big deal for the Nazis… bonding among the Aryans - Aryan pride, etc etc.
Tell me if there’s a symbiotic relationship between the four here that I’m not seeing, or if I’m interpreting the words incorrectly.
If I were to try to find the best way to outline stoicism, I would point to the introduction to Epictetus’s Handbook:
In case you hadn’t noticed - I always keep a copy of the Handbook close at hand - I think it’s spectacular.
I wish you the best in your pursuit, and hope for your success!
-Adam
Like I said, if you don’t believe in discoverable moral principles, there’s no point of going much further. But what I sense in these terms is that though they don’t rule specifically what should be done, when taken as a whole they seem to point to the moral weakness of an action. You are right that creatively you could define the terms however you woud like to justify any action, but your,
Friendship - Comrodery of course was a big deal for the Nazis… bonding among the Aryans - Aryan pride, etc etc.
For instance would, even for a Nazi, feel like a bit of a stretch, when gassing Jews, to say that this was an act of friendship. Perhaps to them a justifiable stretch, but still a stretch that signified the weakest link of their moral position, as would I think even the stretch necessary for Justice.
Looking at the four, they seem to support each other in a cross-weave, emphasizing the aporia left by too ardent a pursuit of the others.
I think that all four of those are noble pursuits, but I find it hard to use them to strictly define a stoic approach to nature, or as it is, a definition of nature in stoic terms.
I take these terms from Cicero’s summation of Stoic positions, if I recall his De Finibus, Bonorum et Malorum, which is among the best we have.
I never thought of it much but it would seem to me that each of these qualities are meant to rebalance deficits of human character or their all too human lapses. These ideal parities of behaviour are meant to be incorporated in the individual not in the state which is guided more by a philosophical ethic which in turn can and often is subject to the mutilation of doublespeak when expedient.
These qualities are accomodated solely by the individual which is the reason they stand out in societies singularly bereft of them. But as mentioned, they must work in tandem. Courage and friendship is a deadly pair if not under the purview of the first two. I think a good example of that imbalance would be Satan in Paradise Lost. But of course, this only makes him more fascinating.
Unfortunately, the usual counter-effect of being a near perfect stoic is to become at times perfectly unbearable in self-centered righteousness. Brutus had something of that in Julius Caesar. Such beings are simply more clever in camouflaging egos that have grown in tandem with their mastered stoicisms.
It is interesting that you say this, because ironically if I read right, Cicero’s work on ethics, “On Ends, good and bad” was dedicated to Brutus, and sent to him - and if I recall, arrived sometime just before his murderous act.
I’d agree that the virtues are about as complete as a group as is possible assuming benevolent intent. I’d also agree that attempting to narrowly define them, even in culturally specific ways, would invite superficial observation rather than participation within the spirit intended.
I’m wary of declaring specific virtues in that, as soon as I say where I am, I’ve also said where I’m not. Those with malovent intent use those virtues against us.
Of course, as a methodology that allows one to find personal guidance, the principles represented as virtue certainly have merit. Ultimately, it still comes down to intent. Offering rationality invites rationalization, and we all know where that can lead…
