Ethics 101 - The Greek Philosophers

They adopted unorthodox practices in their teaching: firstly, and most notably, they charged fees for their lectures, and secondly, they disregarded the moral contents of an argument, instead highlighting its linguistic merit – in an era of austere ethical discipline. For this, they wrought criticism for being monetarily – not spiritually – bound to their profession and debauching Athenian society and youths by repelling them for obeying moral and religious traditions – exacerbated by their stringent scepticism. The Sophists’ rhetorical style stemmed from their moral relativism: that there is no objective truth regarding objects and beliefs – rather, it varies with each individual depending on his senses.

Protagoras remains known for his ‘Man-Measure’ statement – extending from sensations to rudimentary qualities, such as justice, beauty, and morality. For example, a man living in the Arabian desert will feel cold in Marseilles, whilst an Eskimo would be dismayed at the heat. Since an individual’s perception of anything varies with his experience and discernment, Protagoras concluded that no ‘truth’ can be known. Even scientific knowledge – based on observation – cannot be objectively known, leading to the corollary that knowledge is relative and never consentient.

Protagoras’ relativism met intemperate criticism from Socrates and Plato – the latter wrote that: “If what each man believes to be true through sensation is true for him – then how [...] was Protagoras so wise that he should consider himself worthy to teach others and for huge fees?”. His notion seemed contractive: if the truth depended on the individual, everyone would be accurate in his beliefs, making discussion and education infeasible, including Protagoras’ lectures. He countered these assertions by claiming that the person functions by wisdom – which deviates between individuals – not just truth. The heterogeneity of knowledge should be utilised to reach expedient common ground in counteracting wrongdoing.

Gorgias held that there is no truth; hence, since reality is subjective, nothing exists – disregarding fixed ethical systems. If anything exists, he claimed that it could not be comprehended, and even if understood, there was no means to communicate it faithfully – since language – down to vocabulary and tone – only reflects the speaker’s opinion; therefore, knowledge could not be shared. To prove his notion that what exists cannot be apprehended, one can imagine a unicorn grazing, but such an occurrence is impossible – showing that what is processed in the brain is distinct from reality.

Socrates was born in 469 BCE in Athens during the zenith of the Athenian Golden Age: a period in the fifth century BCE marking the city-state’s cultural supremacy regarding the flourishing of its literature, architecture, politics, military and philosophy. Socrates was a product of his time: after serving valiantly during the Peloponnesian War against Sparta, he attended political discussions in the Ecclesia and later became an established presence in philosophical debate. In 399 BCE, Socrates was brought to court following accusations of corrupting young Athenians’ mentalities and chose to be administered a fatal dose of hemlock: the culmination of a fascinating life and ‘career’ which determined the course of Western philosophy for many centuries.

The dialogue commences with a general discussion of a concern, theory, or observation, and gradually grows in specificity: with the scope of deducing a factual definition of the related issue. Rigorous queries are then raised on the details of the argument – to make it consistent, explicit and congruent with other applications. Socratic irony is employed to clarify the accuracy of the knowledge being referenced – typically incorporating a broad question, such as what justice is. Elenchus was another integral tenant of the process, serving to root out contradictions in the argument to amass a unified theory. Moreover, to extract as complete an understanding as feasible, Socrates would pretend to be ignorant about a subject and inquire about elaborate explanations on the subject; this could progressively rectify incomplete or inaccurate notions.

The Socratic Method customarily does not culminate in a fixed definition of the topic at hand but resolves many pertinent inconsistencies or misinterpretations. Akin to Zen Buddhism, it results in one’s perception of his existing knowledge altering – leading him to the blunt realisation of the magnitude of aspects he is yet to learn. Socrates’ mantra that “The only true wisdom is in knowing that you know nothing” reflects the significance of committing oneself to refining his outlook on subjects, with the scope of edging closer to the Truth: fulfilling the soul.

Whilst Socrates independently devised his theorem, his disciple and student Plato preserved his work through such works as ‘The Apology’ and ‘The Symposium’. The latter’s inspiration from his tutor manifests in most of his ideas: for instance, he transformed Socrates’ theory on Truths into ‘Forms’: which can be comprehended through reason – and not senses (empiricism) – and by seeking to unearth new knowledge to evaluate that which is already known (represented in the Allegory of the Cave). Plato’s theory of the soul – which he considered the individual’s conscience and ‘compass’ to righteous behaviour – also sources impetus from Socrates.

The human species is the only organism having a ‘rational’ soul; therefore, it is (supposedly) the highest form of earthly being – above plants and other animals. In ‘Metaphysics’, Aristotle claims that: “All men by nature desire to know” – implying that wisdom is a fundamental, non-categorical characteristic of a human being. Besides being analytically and scientifically competent, the soul permits humans to morally deliberate their actions.

The human soul is bilateral, being divided into two segments – housing a conflict between wisdom and desire. Its first segment is the ‘irrational’ component, comprising the vegetative and appetitive parts, which bestow the individual with the desire for biological sustainment and fulfilment of sensory desires, respectively. The second is the ‘rational’ component, which aims at reason. The conflict between these components raises the issue of morality, empowering one to develop principled traits to live a satisfied life of areté (excellence).

In acknowledging every action and object’s lasting impact on one’s happiness – weighing out their ‘appetitive’ and ‘rational’ qualities and prioritising the latter – one can fulfil rational thinking in everyday life. Implementing this thought process as a lifestyle fosters habits promoting correct thinking, choices, and behaviour. Aristotle claimed that such pragmatic moral thinking (‘phronesis’) must apply to how humans exercise virtues – gradually perfected with experience. This is the essence of 'eudaimonia' (welfare of spirit, or happiness): the key to a good life.

The mean alters with each individual depending on the circumstances; for instance, a moderate amount of food must be consumed, but adults require more than children. Similarly, sometimes one may need to remain relatively secretive – deficient in honesty – to avert concerning others. Hence, some criticise the supposed vagueness or lack of specificity of the Golden Mean – that there is “very little about where or how to draw the dividing lines, where or how to fix the mean.” (J. L. Mackie). Aristotle intended these guidelines to be subjective and adaptable to the situation – suiting the practical element of his ethical system.

Epicurus claimed pleasure was the agent to bring happiness, contrary to Aristotle’s distinction of the two. He saw that humans' behaviour are centred around gratification, and that this should be the end goal in life. This does not entail indulgence; rather, Epicurus taught to exercise virtue and moderation to acquire tranquility. However, Aristotle maintained that pleasure is the consequence of perfecting human nature, and not vice versa. Basing actions on the achievement of pleasure rather than ethics would invariably stray from the proper function of humans – to reason. Nevertheless, Epicurus and Aristotle converged in acknowledging the necessity of balance in one's behaviour – a recurring pattern in both Western and Eastern philosophy. Despite the rivalry between their ideologies during the Hellenistic Period, Aristotle's virtue ethics would generally remain more popular in the Western World.

By refuting the existence of any active (involved in the present universe) supernatural entity, Epicurus declared that pleasure is the sole aim of life. He deemed atomic theory and determinism (that the sequence of events in the universe is predetermined, occurring without reason) sufficient in explaining universal occurrences, rendering the purported gods unnecessary. For example, he countered the problem of intelligent design by delineating organisms’ tendency to adapt, similar to Darwinist natural selection. His definitive argument against the existence of god is sourced from the problem of evil – that an omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent spirit/deity is not compatible with the prevalence of malice in society.

Epicurus concluded that no supernatural force exists, meaning that no universal virtues or god must be abided by. Hence, one’s own benefit must be sought above all, claiming “self-sufficiency [to be] the greatest of all wealth”. Every form of existence must be material, resulting in the impossibility of an afterlife, as the body’s atoms would merely disperse and not transition to another realm. However, death should not be of concern, seeing that “when we are [conscious], death is not come, and, when death is come, we are not [conscious]” (‘Letter to Menoeceus’).

The third type of pleasure – that vain – cannot be fully sated; if one aspires to be a famous chef, they will constantly yearn for more and more fame. Hence, it must never be sought. The unnatural desire for opulence or overindulgence must be eliminated to achieve peace of mind (‘ataraxia’) – a state of serenity and content. To obtain gratification (‘hedone’), Epicurus professed the need to live by natural pleasures – being satisfied with little – and reject indulgent desires. One may notice a similarity with Buddhist thought, as Siddhartha Gautama also promulgated a lifestyle in accordance with nature. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, any fear of death or god – of the supernatural – only serves as an obstacle to happiness and hence needs to be eliminated.

Furthermore, many accept that the problem of evil – one of the lynchpins of his naturalism – has been resolved by theodicies, especially by Augustine of Hippo, claiming that evil is a human construct rising from an abuse of free will. God may not be responsible for immorality – humans have been bestowed the ability to think and decide freely; since society has created evil, it must, in turn, mitigate it. On the other hand, many thinkers remain ardent to Epicurus’ mechanistic viewpoint due to the lack of empirical and (claimed, by sceptics) logical evidence for divine intervention in the universe’s origins.

This blog is part of a set concerning the ETHICS AND THE GREEK PHILOSOPHERS. The rest can be accessed from my Philosophy series, listed consecutively as the first category of blogs.