Furious Ethics Part One

Furious Ethics (Part 1)

The following is a dialogue between the characters Michael (the narrator) and Cephalopod, whose name will be abbreviated to Ceph.

Now Ceph, to truly understand ethics or propose a system of ethics we must first examine all those philosophers who came before us and look at their blunders. A logical place to start seems to be with the ancient Greeks, and more specifically, Plato, as they are the first Philosophers whose works we may read.

Yes, yes, replied Ceph. If we are to formulate a groundwork for ethics that will not have the holes of a common colander, then looking at the ancients is a marvelous place to start.

Thank you Ceph. Perhaps Plato's most consequential work is his Myth of the Cave. Now, many people partake in the dangerous business of reading more meaning into a work of writing than the author intended to insert therein. Plato's Myth of the Cave is one such over interpreted writing. Let us review the facts: Plato's teacher Socrates was a wise man and teacher who was executed for “corrupting the youth” with his ideas. In Plato's Myth of the Cave the prisoners are chained inside the cave, seeing the shadows, hearing the echoes of the guards and believing such things to be real. Then one lucky prisoner is freed and led outside the cave. As his eyes slowly adjust to the light he sees “symbols” such as reflections of things in water, the things themselves, the moon and stars at night, and finally the most significant “symbol” of them all: the sun. Naturally he feels a compulsion to inform his former prison-mates of the unreality of their world, but is ridiculed and killed upon returning to the cave. A more fitting title would have been The Myth of the Cave (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Accept the Death of my Mentor ).

Oh Alas, it's true, it's so true, exclaimed Ceph. But all you have done so far is proved the uselessness of the Myth of the Cave; what about Plato's ethics? Will you not discuss those, or are you content to waste my time with your irrelevant departures from the stated purpose?!

Please Ceph, you must allow me to lay a comprehensive base for my system of ethics. Of course, to the untrained observer it may appear as though I am wasting time discussing unrelated matters, or even that I may say in 1,000 words what could easily be said in 100, but I reply to those by reminding the complainer that such is the nature of philosophy. I personally didn't decree that all philosophers be long-winded and boring, I merely conform to that ideal.

Now if I may continue: Plato deals with the problem of justice. Some of his characters argue that justice is simply the whim of the powerful man, or even that people are by nature unjust and will always act in a despicable way when there is no danger of apprehension. One such character, Glaucon, offers the story of the “Ring of Gyges.” One day a shepherd finds a magic ring that provides the gift of invisibility to the wearer. Once our shepherd discovers the power of his new ring he arranges to become a messenger to the king, commits adultery with the queen, kills the king, and takes over the kingdom. (Yeah, it's an Oxford comma and is perfectly acceptable, so back off with the red pen). Glaucon then claims that everybody would act the same in that situation. Ceph, as the junior woodchuck philosopher here, why don't you try to explain what is awry in Glaucon's argument.

A simple task, replied Ceph. Clearly Glaucon is attempting to make an encompassing statement about the evil will of all men from an example centered on the evil doings of only one man! Such an example is incapable of producing universal truths.

I'm afraid you disappoint me, Ceph. See, the problem lies with the queen. The ring only made our dear shepherd invisible, not sexually desirable. Was the queen turned on by invisibility? When confronted with an invisible shepherd, was she so overwhelmed with passion she consented to his every wish? I find that prospect highly unlikely and the entire story invalidated.

That thought did not even occur to me! Clearly Plato's work is inconsequential if his opponents in the dialogue are so dimwitted. Proving such buffoons to be incorrect is hardly a demanding task. I suggest moving on to the work of Aristotle.

An excellent suggestion, Ceph. Some philosophers are wrong with their claims, and other philosophers are so wrong that I break down weeping upon hearing their names. While wiping the tears away I will attempt to elucidate the failings of Aristotle's ethics. First and foremost, if I am to internalize and follow his teachings, then I will be of the belief that practically no man can achieve happiness. Aristotle's broad definition of happiness is exercising one's rational faculties in accordance with excellence or virtue for a full term of years, but he continues on to claim that external goods determine happiness as well: “For a man is not very likely to be happy if he is very ugly in person, or of low birth, or alone in the world, or childless, and perhaps still less if he has worthless children or friends…”

At this point Ceph interrupted in disbelief. Astounding! Never have I heard such horribly depressing philosophy! Even if a hypothetical man possesses the virtues held in high esteem by Aristotle, is physically attractive, born into a rich family and socially upstanding, he will not achieve happiness if he has a wayward son!

What's more, Ceph, I replied, is that suppose by some amazing stroke of luck you happened to acquire all of the above mentioned traits but were struck by an automobile and killed at the age of 30. You would not achieve happiness as you would not exercise your faculties for a full term of years. I consider myself a happy guy as all my basic needs are met, so I think we can disregard Aristotle.

In the interest of people with short attention spans Part One ends here and Part Two will continue by talking about Kant and the Utilitarians. The story behind this dialogue should be fairly obvious, but for the benefit of the slow web surfer it is mainly about how stupid I think most of Western philosophy is and how stupid I think their writing style is most of the time.

Furious Ethics 2