Ethics from the bible??
Offline I've been reading a fair bit about the Stoics recently and there are some fairly interesting points about this ancient school of philosophy (founded by Zeno of Citium in around 300BC) and all of them prove that morality and ethics do not stem exclusively from the Christian Bible or other holy texts. In fact the Stoic moral code is very similar to the Buddhist 4 noble truths (another philospohy which predates Christianity):
A primary aspect of Stoicism would be described as improving the individual’s spiritual well-being. Virtue, reason and natural law are prime directives .Natural law here takes the meaning first given to the phrase by the Stoics: the Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which spelled out action that accorded with virtue.
The foundation of Stoic ethics is that good lies in the state of the soul itself; in wisdom and self-control. Stoic ethics stressed the rule: "Follow where reason leads."
For the Stoics reason meant not only using logic, but also understanding the processes of nature inherent in all things. Living according to reason and virtue, they held, is to live in harmony with the divine order of the universe, in recognition of the common reason and essential value of all people. The four cardinal virtues of the Stoic philosophy are wisdom, courage, justice and temperance.
The Stoics held that unhappiness and evil are the results of ignorance. If someone is unkind, it is because they are unaware of their own universal reason. Likewise, if they are unhappy, it is because they have forgotten how nature actually functions. The solution to evil and unhappiness then, is to examine one's own judgements and behaviour and determine where they have diverged from the universal reason of nature.
A distinctive feature of Stoicism is its cosmopolitanism. All people are manifestations of the one universal spirit and should live in brotherly love and readily help one another. They held that external differences such as rank and wealth are of no importance in social relationships. Thus, before the rise of Christianity, Stoics recognized and advocated the brotherhood of humanity and the natural equality of all human beings. In particular, they were noted for their urging of clemency toward slaves.
Although Stoicism was considered by many early Fathers of the Church to be a part of the philosophical decline of the ancient world, many of its elements were held in high esteem, in particular, the natural law, which is a major part of the Roman Catholic and early American doctrines of secular public morality.
Some quotes by Stoics:
"Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies." -Seneca
"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together..." - Marcus Aurelius
"I am formed by nature for my own good: I am not formed for my own evil." - Epictitus
"Everywhere and at all times it is in your power to accept reverently your present condition, to behave justly to those about you, and to exert your skill to control your thoughts, that nothing shall steal into them without being well examined." - Marcus Aurelius
"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens
- Login to post comments
Great post Snafu,
I too have read some of the Stoic writings. There's an interesting discussion (in audio format) here, along with others that might be of interest. Another book I read recently was Kathy L. Gaca's The Making of Fornication. She traces the development of early christian teaching on sexuality to much earlier Platonic and Stoic thought. I've been convinced for a long time that Christian morality is a homogenised one-size-fits-all response to the nature of the Roman empire. Magistrates realised the ideological utility of a generic religion. This became more formalised starting with Constantine and the early popes.
I don't find natural law convincing, since it commits what has been called the 'naturalistic fallacy'. Richard Dawkins has pointed out many times that he wants a Darwinian world view when it comes to Science but a distinctly non-(or even) anti-darwinian world view when it comes to ethics. By commiting the naturalistic fallacy we attribute agency or truth to nature and attempt an ethical formulation based on that understanding. However its patently obvious that, if one takes the darwinian perspective, nature has no agency (though it has given arise to agency, humans being the most evolved form of that). This leads me towards relativism over absolutism in ethics, something that religious people are often afraid of. Regarding Stoic philosophy I think this essay provides a good contemporary summary.
May Zeus be with you,
Tim.
hmm interesting.
I'm not sure I really understand the Natural Fallacy argument (despite reading several essays on it) but the main point I was trying t o make is that is clearly possible to arrive at positive set of morals and ethics without recourse to the Holy texts.
I find the term "natural law" itself a bit confusing. Bringing it up to date a bit from the Stoics and re-interpreting it into today's society we could easily say that:
there exists a rational and purposeful order to society and the means by which a rational being lives in accordance with this order is the natural law, which spells out action that accords with virtue.
By "society" I should also clarify that I mean an ideal society in which humankind lives in peaceful harmony with itself and other inhabitants of the planet and, indeed, with the planet itself and not some of the societies currently in existence around the globe.
I'm not certain if this avoids the natural fallacy argument but I know that I have arrived at my own moral and ethical code from taking the whole world around me in to consideration.
I'd be interested to know how you arrived at your own moral code.
"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens
Hi Snafu,
As stated originally by G E Moore back around 1900 or so it is kind of difficult to understand, I agree. The way I got into it was via the 'fact / value' distinction or 'is / ought' distinction. This is well expressed in a book by Steven Pinker called The Blank Slate. He argues that explanation is NOT exculpation. For example: a concern to explain why men rape or why 9/11 occured does not mount to a justification, it's simply an attempt to understand (the first in terms of evolutionary psychology, the second in terms of economic, geo-political and religious dogma)
From here Pinker investigates ethics based on naturalism (the most crass example I can think if is that homosexuality is not natural therefore it is wrong [setting aside that it is in fact natural and occurs in many species])
This is an example of the naturalistic fallacy.. what *is* in nature is what "ought" or "should" be. An attempt to build ethics along this principle would be hopelessly repugnant to many of us. Unfortunately it has happened.
Many around the turn of the 20th century (including progressive public intellectuals) argued for what is now called social darwinism (a vision that led to the gulags in WWII) and for the enforced sterilisation of more than 50,000 blacks in America in the first half of the 20th century. Both committed the same error of taking simplistic versions of Darwinian thinking and applying them to society. This continues today in the justifications for neo-liberalism, markets and post-Reagan / Thatcher economics ("There is no such thing as society", "There is no alternative"
. All are born out of a "strongest SHOULD survive" philosophy born of the naturalistic fallacy.
My point is that nature provided us with the capacity to develop sophisticated ethical and moral theory but does NOT make any recommendations itself and cannot.
Sciences triumph rests in its incessant self-critique. This opens science with its solid and trustworthiness prone to being hijacked by soft-science (economics) and politics (fasicsm etc..). We must always be on guard for such hi-jackings.
I will get further into my own ethical position in a follow-up post.
A couple of quick further comments:
You wrote:
there exists a rational and purposeful order to society and the means by which a rational being lives in accordance with this order is the natural law, which spells out action that accords with virtue.
I like to imagine a martian or alien anthropologist arriving on earth and making an assessment:
Just a handful of an almost infinite list of irrationalities. My point, of course, is that we our not the "rational economic actor" you get taught about in economics 101. Far from it. That doesn't mean some of us don't try to live more rationally: This very forum is testament to that.
Tim.
Here is a good link that explains natural law, and shows also that natural law is not per definition subject to the naturalistic fallacy.
But I think the whole notion of 'natural law' is misleading in the contemporary distinctions between 'law' and 'moral laws'. In radical 'natural law' there is an ought that demands 'law' to be similar to 'moral law' to be just.
But I gotta go attend my course on philosophy of law (I'm actually as an European, learning about US law), so I shall respons some more later today.
Looking forward to reading this Digital_Babu. I couldn't see the link there though.
Here is a quick response for now:
"Stoics asserted the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe (a divine or eternal law), and the means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this order was the natural law, which spelled out action that accorded with virtue.[13] These theories became highly influential among Roman jurists, and consequently played a great role in subsequent legal theory"
(source - wiki)
The stoic conception of natural law makes telelogical claims and is Platonic in a dualistic sense of pitting mans actions against mans perfect actions and calling virtue the proximity between the two. IE: That there are ("is"
eternal laws, followed by the claim that a life congruant with those will ("ought"
to be virtuous. Many theologians have been able (and very willing) to integrate this form of natural law because of its reference to 'divinty' and 'eternity'. But you cannot simply define something into existence, as they often attempted.
We now live in a world, thanks partly to Darwin, of rhizomes, emergent properties and 'bottom-up' over 'top-down' (much to the chagrin of those who wish to ground law or religion in eternal truths without evidence). This has removed the 'Sky-hooks' (Dennett) and hubristic projections of agency that existed when conceptions of Natural Law first came along.
I am of course aware of the later re-formulations (including Hobbes et al.) but we're debating the Stoic case.
Ciao,
Tim.