Virtue

I’ve been reading Aristotle’s Ethics lately. In it, he spends considerable time defining what it means to be virtuous. His investigations consider how one’s feelings or actions determine how one measures up virtue-wise, the general rule being the exercise of moderation in one’s behavior, avoiding excess on the one hand but acting when action is called for, providing it’s the right action to the right person to the right extent at the right time with the right motive in the right way.

As I think about it, it seems to me excessive behaviors are not something I might be accused of but perhaps I am a bit lax when it comes to social action. Even so, I wonder if I want the label. Assuming virtuosity as a personal trait seems a bit pretentious. I guess, though, there’s nothing wrong in having pride in one’s good behavior, but I have to wonder how capable I am of getting all the ‘rights’ right.

The Importance of Pluralism

As Christianity took hold in Rome following the dream that inspired Constantine to declare it acceptable, lawful and primary within the empire, church fathers imposed their political will.  Christian orthodoxy became the law of the land, all unorthodox believers subject to extreme punishment or death.  Huge numbers were forcibly baptized, making them subject to the will of the Church.  The results of this oppression suppressed free thought and led to the destruction of the learned texts and knowledgeable thought of the previous 500 years.  As these dark ages persisted literacy disappeared and western civilization reverted, learning replaced by mythical thinking. 

How are things different now?  Strong armed political will push a narrative aimed toward personal enrichment for a few without regard to the majority.  200 years of intellectual progress opened myriad ideas producing unprecedented cultural and technological innovation in a truly pluralistic society is being attacked.  The xenophobic fears of a populous looking backwards are in danger of finding themselves living in the kind of closed society that history informs us has been the demise of many earlier civilizations. 

The Demise of Closed Societies

The historical significance of an open society; encouraging immigration, acceptance of cultural and religious differences has produced over the centuries multi-cultural populations sharing diverse ideas that result in a more productive society; room and time for people to excel at what they do best.

Even so, there are those among us, a conservative population, comfortable with their neighbors of similar ethnicity, religious beliefs and culture, where the status quo is an undeniable rule. Immigrant populations are discouraged, disallowed to participate, denied an initial hand-up and isolated rather than given the means to assimilate, which is what they desire.

It should be remembered that over the course of history closed societies are destined for collapse.

Social Darwinism

After Charles Darwin’s, “On the Origin of the Species” was published in 1859, thinkers saw the need to reconcile the idea of life evolving, human from animal, with the conventional understanding of mankind as God’s creation, superior and soul-bearing destined for life ever after.

As popular thinking slowly grasped the notion that survival in a changing world required adaptation, that only the fittest organisms would survive and thrive, unfair advantage was taken. Within the social milieu of the late 19th century western world, evolutionary thinking justified rampant social inequalities, unequal wealth distribution, as properly rewarding the most fit.

Such a philosophic stance produced an uneven playing field favoring ‘robber barons’ who undermined and swallowed up competition. Any sense of moral empathy for the harsh working conditions of the common laborer became subordinated to the pursuit of wealth despite the dictates of the Christian Church. Individualism became the rule; acquire what one could despite societal needs.

Within two decades, it became apparent that singular selfishness will lose out to a shared cooperative existence and that empathy, innate in the human animal, will produce stability. Morality and ethics are necessary components for mankind to realize life’s primary goal: a degree of happiness.

Not sure if the lessons are being learned.

Plato’s Republic

Plato’s Republic is a dialectical exercise in defining the ideal society.

A Guardian class consisting of the best and most fit physically and mentally is to be selected at a very young age to receive an education through a carefully ordered curriculum that will instill those qualities most favorable to preservation of the state. These Guardians will learn to put the state first above all other considerations, will distain personal gain while living in communal groups without material advantage. the best of these Guardians will be chosen to lead as philosopher kings, ensuring justice for all in this Ideal State.

What could go wrong?

It was argued among the dialecticians that human nature, being what it is, drawn to personal gain, when beyond observation of the populous, will be compelled to forego the practice of justice to gain material advantage. Who will dominate: the just, being good and wise, satisfied with the status quo or the unjust, the bad and ignorant who seek personal gain?

Morality emerges as a potential control factor. (Plato’s)Socrates identifies the soul existing in all people containing the Good as presented in the perfection of the Forms from which the imperfections of the material world are but flawed copies.

Plato’s allegory of the cave relates mankind’s lack of understanding: prisoners chained facing a dark wall, unable to turn, experience only shadows of reality. Not until they are allowed to turn can they see the beauty and complexity of the world. Such is the state of man.

Human Nature

A Pragmatist is someone who sees true reality and works with it, within the limitations of what is at hand. An Idealist sees the reality of what is, finds it lacking and seeks to change things for the better. In either case, these are all people of action, seeking positive outcomes, though the results they seek may differ, one being of a personal nature the other altruistic.

There are, however, those pragmatists who choose a life path of least resistance as they seek the easiest means of finding a comfortable existence, which might mean overstepping legal and moral imperatives, taking advantage of an open society. And there are those idealists, who, finding society resistant to change, are unable to reach their goals, give up, living out their lives amorally on the social fringes.

Human nature determines the path taken, but success and well-being will require a moral commitment.

Sigmund

In the late 19th century, Sigmund Freud developed his theories on the nature of the human psyche. The primary motivation for most everyone’s behavior, he determined, was the sex drive. Beginning in early childhood, oral and anal fixations, then phallic and genital fascination defined the libido, the personality and life-force through the id, ego and superego: the realization of desire than tempered with age.

Problems of social adjustment were often caused, he surmised, by suppression of one’s natural sex drive, so, through psychoanalysis, he believed he could cure his troubled patients by making them aware of their latent sexuality.

Certain personality disorders Sigmund traced back to a childhood infatuation with his mother from whom the patient’s sexual inhibitions originated, an illness he labeled an Oedipal Complex after the tragic Greek figure Oedipus who fell in love with his mother and killed his father.

Anecdotally, it turns out Sigmund was his mother’s favorite and while he did produce progeny, it appears his sexual activity was short-lived.

Dignity

I was reading a while ago about the idea that all anyone really wants from life, in terms of one’s existence within a social perspective, is dignity: the knowledge that one is recognized as being of value as a person, not just a member of humankind but someone of intrinsic worth.

I wonder, as we look out upon the people, we see on the street going about their daily tasks: bus riders returning from work, clerks, administrators, colleagues, if we take the time to see them as what they are, if we recognize our common humanity, afford them dignity.

We all are, after all, strugglers, strivers, driven to seek a modicum of success that will provide a sense of security for us and our families. It’s good, I think, to realize sometimes everyone’s in need. Cooperation, compassion, and empathy are things we can all provide and receive.

Evolutionary Upheaval

I’ve been thinking lately about the monumental impact the discoveries of Charles Darwin had on the religious communities of the early 20th century.

The early Christian conception of mankind as being created by God in his image were found to be in total contradiction to Darwin’s evolutionary theories. His discoveries of the evolutionary changes to finch populations on the Galapagos Islands as their habitat changed were irrefutable. Subsequent connections realized between humankind and simian populations exacerbated the matter. Christian revivalists preaching ‘Hellfire and Damnation’ condemned evolutionary thinking, creating fury among the conservative religious community.

Still an issue, I guess, for some, but morality as a uniquely human trait that spurs love of neighbor and awareness of a presence beyond the physical should ease the matter, although such understanding does require nuanced thinking.

The Disappearance of Truth

What to believe? It appears many of us (more than 50% of the U. S. population some sources estimate) get our news through social media, a source of information through which anyone can post thoughts of their own, ideas that may or may not be consistent with reality.

Expecting, as we do, our daily consumption of news to be based on fact, social media offers instead biases of opinion sometimes meant to deceive or to shock. Motivated by self-interest, unedited, the scroll of ideas repeated over and over will take hold, algorhythms feeding intuitions, reinforcing what the individual consumer believes to be true, bad enough in itself but made many times worse by exacerbating societal divisiveness.

We owe it to ourselves to dig deeper into the news of the day, to seek the facts beyond our intuitive inclinations, as uncomfortable as that may be. Moral truth is out there to be found.