Category: Ethics

Douglas Frame Ethics, individualism, objectivism, philosophy of religion, political philosophy

Revolution and the Christian Death Cult

Revolution is not necessary. At least in the ordinary way revolution is thought of. Violence is never an option. Even if violence pointed toward victory it would be setting a bad precedent. A movement established by violence is based on a violent tradition. A history of violence results in a future of violence.

The USA for instance is a very violent culture. This is no surprise since it is founded on slavery and genocide. One might think that such a culture is superior because it has spread and supplanted much. The main reason though why this violent tradition has spread is because it is more effective in destroying its opponents and its opponents have been eliminated. This is not a judgment of the tradition, just simply a statement of fact.

Evolution determines the path of humankind. Each change in human history is determined by its past as well as present circumstances. The dominance of certain cultures has resulted in the elimination of peaceful ones nowadays most cultures are those cultures that have a history of violence. The peaceful cultures that have been lost would find a fertile soil today but they are long gone.

One cannot allow for further world wars because of the dire consequences. The world is armed to the teeth. There is a passé tradition called MAD which was in vogue during the cold war between the former Soviet Union and the USA. MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It was thought that it was somehow an advantage for two nations in this case two that were equipped with thermonuclear weapons in that they would not attack each other because mutual destruction would result. This was a deterrent to any sort of attack. This shows the insanity of modern weapons policy.

It is thought today by the ruling elite in the US that none can attack us and harm us because our position militarily is so superior to other nations. But in the meantime nuclear technology is readily available to other nations and the US can be attacked if such weapons can be smuggled in to the US. Also a terrorist attack on a nuclear power station would result in terrible destruction.

Nevertheless the US has threatened to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran. The use of nuclear conventional weapons is accepted by many in the US establishment. This is a radical change in strategy which is certain to result in changing attitudes toward the use of such weapons around the world. This is very similar to the change in the US posture regarding first strike policy which has advertently resulted in the recent crises with Iran and North Korea. The US long thought a moral leader now sets the standard for immoral aggression.

In addition to this aggressive posture coveting world control comes naturally the lack of regard for quality of life. Capitalistic fervor manifests in the desire for world control is resulting in a steady decrease in the valuing of life and degrades living condition for all including those of the ruling elite. Now with the rise of the evangelical right and its emphasis on increasing population and the destruction of other species and environmental degradation this has caused a continuing degradation in the quality of life. While some people might be inclined out of self interest to turn back and address the needs for survival of the human species with the growing influence of the evangelical right the emphasis is on material possessions as showing God’s favor results in an ever increasing extent of environmental destruction. In order to rationalize what is obviously impacting the world’s environment some evangelicals have gone so far as to put faith in the coming rapture which will lift the believers off this putrid planet. There is even an impulse among the evangelicals to hasten this destruction so as to allow the rapture to begin.

Such a movement cannot be met with force. This movement has no compunction against taking the lives of the infidels. In fact to take the lives of the infidels may in their view be taken as a show of their devotion to God.

The world is dominated by the destroyers. Largely those that emphasize peace have long been destroyed. Those that compose the destroyers have developed more effective weapons as they delight in killing. How can we develop weapons more effective when the weapons that already exist threaten all life on earth? Rather it seems more effective in fact it seems to be the only option to develop ones consciousness and erase from our being hatred and fear. Perhaps the haters will destroy you but in doing this they may become aware that by destroying you they are destroying any hope for themselves.

In understanding the limitation of the worldview of the egoistic self one can see that holding on to life desperately is simply a way of denying the all of All. While taking a peaceful perspective may make one another target of the destructive perhaps some can be made to see the futility of their own position. It is clear that destruction which has enabled the spread of the violent around the world is not an option now as the violent face each other at the precipice. Those that fear for the self may in fact be persuaded, although the emphasis in a Christian death cult is becoming more and more prominent. Perhaps we can try and remind them that the religion is based on love and charity and perhaps the final calamity can be avoided. Hopefully then a violent revolution can be avoided and instead a spiritual revolution may take place.

Douglas Frame Apprehension of Reality, epistemology, Ethics, objectivism, political philosophy, rhetoric

The Oblique Premise in Rhetoric and Counseling

Abstract

This paper attempts to show how the Logic Based Therapy [LBT] syllogism and the Enthymeme also called the Rhetorical Syllogism are in many ways related. An examination will be made of how these two compare, especially investigating the centrality of the major premise in both. Also discussed is how the major premises in both the LBT syllogism and the rhetorical syllogism, can be missing, disguised, or even suppressed. This wily premise I will call the Oblique Premise.

 

 

Aristotle revolutionized the way we do deduction. His innovation in doing deduction is the syllogism. Applying the two premises and conclusion, proofs can be used to buttress a larger belief. Yet not all syllogisms are the same. Aristotle introduces the Enthymeme[i] where one (or more) of the premises or the conclusion can fall into question and may not be clearly understood because of the questionable nature of the major premise[ii]. The [LBT] subject may have inculcated beliefs based on societal norms where the syllogism can modify behavior.

Aristotle, the originator of the syllogism, presented his system in many works which are coined today as the Organon. Not only was it used as a proof for deduction, but a similar model is also used for induction. The syllogism is presented as a device in his Rhetoric; referred to as an Enthymeme or the Rhetorical Syllogism which contains special characteristics.[iii]

This major premise can be missing from the argument unlike standard syllogisms. With the enthymeme, Logic-Based Therapists and Consultants wrestle with enthymeme like syllogisms where the major premise is crucial, and its importance may be largely inscrutable. These two types of syllogisms, Counseling based syllogism [CBS] or rhetoric based syllogisms [RBS] that are similar and may even be directly related. The enthymeme may be reflective having a like nature of the LBT syllogism, including the major premise.

Both involve missing, suppressed, or unconscious major premises. Both [CBS and RBS] influence behavior by inducing a somatic reaction in the individual, especially in the conclusion. The rhetor uses RBS to bend belief, whether intentionally or blindly, and the sufferer of [CBS] misery often arises from similar fallacious states. These states are bound to logic based stories one tells oneself (CBS) or are told by another to themselves, or by themselves to themselves.  Both rely on thoughts, attitudes, and a universal bonding with the obtuse syllogistic major premise.

Both involve a basic syllogistic structure; both are amenable to Modus Ponens, and by implication Modus Tollens as well, as other consistent logical structures. Often the Major Premise is a Modus Ponens. Because of these similarities, I claim that these two dictas (CBS and RBS) especially in the gestalt of the Rhetoric Based Major Premise [RBMP] and the Counseling Based Major Premise [CBMP]. These are not a different subject matter, but rather just the same dynamic, resting as different topics, which stand in opposition. These oblique major premises stand against each individual as two inverted mirrors facing each other.

The top of the rhetorical mirror where the [RBMP] reflects across from one mirror to the other, from the rhetor to the auditor, connects the two together at the same level bringing satisfaction or exhilaration. The reflection descends downward with the [CBMP] subject beginning with the loftiness of the rhetor, to the opposed mirror at the bottom causing despair and grief.

Depending on what is perceived by the receiver determines the message of the [CBS] and [RBS] syllogism. This can be universalized categorically in its Weltanschauung. On the contrary both the action of the CBMP and the RBMP can be both depressing and exhilarating depending on the mode of action in the content to the receiver. This varies depending on norms of society. This is the uncertain nature of the oblique premise.

The rhetors [RBMP] reflects from the top of the mirror in its loftiness of oratory skill, (e.g., ethos, pathos, and logos) straight across to the other mirror, while its reflection at the receiving mirror (the auditor) stands in awe of the rhetor or downward to the bottom of the opposing mirror the [LBT] subject who suffers greatly.

The LBT subject wallows in abject despair. Previous learning can be internalized being the cause of the malady. One is externally applied by the rhetor, [RBS] and accepted by the [LBT] subject [CBS], where the purveyor of which the lie or mistruth is created by the demagogue.

This dual nature of both [CBMP and RBMP] impact the recipient (e.g, both the LBT subject and the auditor). These two ends of the mirror possibly being activated by the receiver (the auditor or the [LBT] subject) is a characteristic of the Major Premise’s obliqueness. These learned beliefs are internalized by both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. Of course, not all rhetoricians are demagogues and are very good people. For our comparison we will focus on the rhetorical (e.g, the auditor) or personal deception as it effects the [LBT] subject based on previous learning. This deception, the obliqueness of the syllogisms, can go awry.

This is a dynamic which a rhetor applies to an auditor, or what an individual [LBT] subject ultimately does to themselves using a similar major premise. This forms a possible error in reasoning. Both are subject to logical refutation based on major premises, which are suppressed, repressed, and may be unconscious.

Both syllogisms have the same structure. Like any other Aristotelian syllogistic argument, the actions of both the [CBS] and [RBS] can be seen in the traditional form with the two premises and then the conclusion which follows resolutely, although the proof may in [CBS] and [RBS] may be unsound because of inconsistency of the major premise. The major premise is present or not or even in flux like Carroll’s Cheshire Cat[iv] from Alice Through the looking glass, appearing or disappearing at will.

As a result, both the [CBMP] and the [RBMP] have impetus from the fact that the oblique premise is malleable and is absorbed by the auditor or assumed by the LBT subject; and therefore, can have the greatest effect. The rhetorician finds solace in ethos (e.g., ethics or more specifically the normative inclusion of societal and personal norms), absorbed by the counseling subject themselves, or the seeming righteousness of the rhetor, and pathos (e.g., pain of the counseled or the pleasure and satisfaction of the auditor) and logos (e.g., the logical motif of a seeming universal truth or order).

These three dynamics process and modulate the ideas throughout. This process is difficult to see as the major premise and may be suppressed, repressed or even unconscious. In both logic-based paradigms, [CBS] and [RBS], this little known or unconscious oblique premise, [CBMP and RBMP], is the most pernicious cause of behavior change as one finds themselves confused in so many ways.

First, understanding the relationship in this hylomorphic process can help one better to understand the effects of [CBS and RBS]. Having this knowledge of the similarities between [CBS and RBS] and the position in the argument of [e.g., the CBMP and RBMP], one can flesh out the operant of the functioning. Lastly knowing that both positions are related, [RBS and CBS]; this will give us insight into how this process works, not only with the actions of a demagogue, but also one suffering from a pernicious logic causing psychic malady.

The movement of the oblique major premise activates receivers at different positions on the mirror. The movement of the premise might be from Rhetor -> Auditor at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> LBT at the top of the mirror, Rhetor -> Auditor at the bottom or Rhetor -> LBT subject at the bottom. On the other hand, the Rhetors position is fixed. These positions vary according to their somatic outcome in the conclusion.

Understanding how this commonality in structure can happen, why it happens and ultimately how knowing these two separate positions (e.g., [CBS] and [RBS]) one can be successful in overcoming the obstacles this blindness brings.

Engaged in [CBS] and [RBS] are ethos, pathos, and logos. In many cases pathos contains the emotional cathartic that is in the [CBMP] and [RBMP] which drive the conclusion and is therefore beyond cognition. This is the universal premise that holds categorically. It is these proscriptions (e.g., premises) masquerading themselves as a truth, that in fact can be subliminal or subconscious, moving toward seeming infinite divinity within the rhetor to the auditor, or at the bottom of the opposed inverted facing mirror an inferno with the LBT subject. This transience, translucence and variety in function gives the Major Premise its obliqueness.

Both can begin with an activating individual minor premise, a second universal premise and then a conclusion that follows necessarily [CBS and RBS]. The universal major premise demonstrates the ethical necessity and helps demonstrate the veracity of much of the pain and pleasure that ties the finite with the infinite, where logic forces the judgement of the existential lived condition in the syllogistic conclusion.

The proclamation of the rhetor, and the supplication of the sufferer, or the satisfaction of the auditor, can be bound together both allegorically in discourse and substantially in being. With this hylomorphic synergy, not only do these two sources (the rhetorician and the auditor or LBT subject (i.e., the subject, and the object), show similar structure, but an intertwining manifesting itself becomes apparent. Unwinding the primordial cause in one’s role as the philosophical practitioner and the understanding the rhetors tools can perhaps explain the birth of each.

Syllogisms are commonly presented as a form of inference, where if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true as well. Yet one feature of the premises is that one or more of the premises can be false, but the conclusion can still logically follow, and this can be the case in the Enthymeme. In this formulation one of the two premises is what I will call the existential while the major premise is universal with the conclusion following existentially. In the standard format of the enthymeme, the major premise is the universal premise. The conclusion often holds the somatic response

In Logic-based therapy (LBT) in the syllogistic structure there is the universal premise. In the enthymeme the major premise is assumed where the audience see their beliefs enshrined in universal truths. These truths are exemplified by the major premise as universal because they hold categorically. The LBT subject finds themselves bound by the same sort of universal premise, although in most cases these unfortunate individuals who suffer infirmities, the premise has a negative emotional import. While beyond the scope of this paper, it might be useful to consider such cases where [CBS] results in positive emotional affect from the activating premise (the minor premise) moving to the major categorical premise and ending with the conclusion. This is another example of the circumnavigation of the oblique major premise. Other forms of activation exist for the recipient.

These two formulations of universality in the major premise ([RBMP] and [CBMP]) both rely on a universal truth to form or reinforce beliefs and associated dogma. The orator asserts truths about government and politics in addition to other subjects, the [LBT] subject inadvertently tells oneself lies about individual failings.[v] These somatic results can and often are based on lies, whether it is the exhilaration of the auditor to the rhetors sleight of hands, or the despondency of the [LBT] subject.

The rhetor may speak to dissuade one, persuade, or cajole, or the [LBT] subject may internalize dialogue that punishes themselves. Both involve deception, although the demagogue’s oration is objectively the most pernicious, the [LBT] individual subjectively finds emotional incapacitation of their individual self the most destructive.

Like ordinary syllogisms, both the counseling and rhetorical syllogism are subject to refutation. The is the key to avoiding manipulation by the rhetor and the infirmity of the counseling subject, whether by counterexamples by another rhetor, or the philosophical antidote of the philosophical practitioner. This special characteristic of an enthymeme is called the refutational rhetorical[vi] syllogism, since they all rely on common knowledge, new facts may dissuade the auditor or the [LBT] subject.

How does this happen? The LBT subject may internalize beliefs about the way the things should be. These “shoulds” are firm beliefs which hold universally (and categorically). Because of the way things should be helps delineates shortcomings falling short of their lofty, and unrealistic, aspirations. The rhetors tools are often subconscious and maybe even unconscious, as these translucent arrows fly out of the rhetors oblique bow [RBMP].  These rhetorical statements [RBS] are surrounded by more general belief systems. “The world is unjust!” the rhetor or the LBT subject might proclaim. More often with the LBT subject one may try to be perfect but can never achieve their goal.

Like [RBS], [CBS] can have missing premises and act like a rhetorical syllogism although often with a negative import. In such cases the conclusion might be an emotion not consciously understood. Emotions are a product of a of Intentional objects and ratings. The rule tends to be a modus ponens that holds universally and categorically.[vii]

Contrarily the orator of the enthymeme, when prevaricating platitudes, whether there is honest appraisal of these platitudes or not, purveys beliefs that confuses the facts. While the auditor might take these convoluted facts as a complete truth, which when examining an enthymeme, with its implied missing premise, does not fall into question. With the [RBMP] the demagogue conjures up the “rule” when this universal premise is constructed.

This rhetor major premise is below the “radar” and yet lies below as a truth trumpeting that which is clearly deniable or at least is malleable and uncertain. For example, one might think the foundations for employment are just or unjust. Depending on the audience, whether a previously discriminated group (i.e., farmworkers who become unionized) or a group that feels newly disenfranchised (i.e., workers displaced due to Artificial Intelligence). Depending on the audience’s contingent situation determines the meaning of the syllogism.

Perhaps the rhetor might say “This is what cooperation has brought you!” whether this refers to the audience of field workers newly unionized or the collective acquiescence in a non-union shop to the employer where the displaced workers are summarily dismissed. The first has a positive and the second has a negative somatic result. This can bring satisfaction or anger depending on the makeup of the audience.

Also, with the [LBT] subject, depending on their view of the world, especially the ethical ramifications of a situation can construct positive or negative results depending on the story one tells themselves.

These assumed selfishly held universal premises loom largely in the variety of things. The rhetor has at their disposal the keys to constructing syllogisms as a lynchpin for larger arguments. The rhetor may do this being blind to the result of the universal premise but often, at least in the case of the demagogue, works manipulatively or malevolently changing thought and therefore behavior.

These universal truths the rhetor expounds may be transferable to the LBT subject. Whether the rhetor is a politician, a minister, or a union organizer, this trust can be used to modify behavior in the individual. Moreso it may be true that many of the truths that are inculcated by the individual are from learned behavior. An individual may assume the role as teacher, or brandishing a school of thought, or even proclaiming societal norms.

In this relationship between the rhetor and the auditor, with the inverted mirror, the demagogue bestows “wisdom” on the docile and subservient subject, viewed as ascribing to the rhetor a character of magnanimity, or on the other hand this “ignorance” of the afflicted [LBT] subject of learned uselessness. This enables the rhetor to impact their subject’s behavior and contrariwise the [LBT] subject to perpetuate and even worsen their affliction.

In extreme cases the auditor remains entranced by the rhetor and the rhetor is looked upon as being infallible. In appearing before the auditor, the rhetor comes to signify that which the auditor (or [LBT] subject personally) sees as infallible: ethically, logically, and emotionally. This aggrandizement of the rhetor by the receiver finds the rhetors influential oblique arts are induced or enhanced in the subject; both the [LBT] subject and the auditor. While the rhetor cries “One must work hard to have a good life”, the LBT subject’s inner cognition is that they haven’t worked hard enough and deserve their lowly position in life and must eternally work harder, and because of the trauma and pain are driven to self-destructive thoughts and even self-destructive behaviors.

The universal premise serves as a focal point for this internalization of ethics, pain or pleasure, and the logic in the LBT subject or the auditor. All are specific tools used by the rhetor in the promulgation of an enthymeme [RBS] and by analogy the infirmity of the [LBT] subject due to the universal premise and the surrounding syllogism, the [CBS].

Not only does the subject, whether auditor or LBT subject, see the rhetor as a source of knowledge and perhaps virtue, but also since the rhetor has these perceived qualities, the logic shared with the subject finds the two joined together in the production of a universal truth (while often truth it may not be). This brings emotional aspect of satisfaction or pleasure in the auditor or pain in the LBT subject.

I assert these two types of major premises show a sort of similarity, at least in-kind in a role as a syllogism, especially the universal major premise that results in broken truths. These broken truths seem reliable but are not. The first broken truth is the deception of the demagogue who seems to speak earnestly, and especially with the use of the major premise. The second broken truth is an authority (i.e., the rhetor) in the [LBT] subject or lies one [LBT] tells themselves based on learning.

It seems conceivable that parallel strategies can be used to usurp the demagogue or to rescue the LBT subject through counterexamples. A courageous and enlightened auditor could come up with a refutative enthymeme using common sense or a philosophical practitioner could do the same and in addition come up with an antidote.

While it is unrealistic to use refutative enthymemes to solve all the world’s problems, they serve as an excellent starting point where first the individual familiar with the missing, suppressed; identifying the unknown oblique premise, one can devise strategies not unlike those that stop wannabe dictators or those who rescue a suffering soul. But perhaps this is a topic for another paper.

[i]                 W.D. Ross, ed., The Works of Aristotle, Translated into English  by Aristotle, XI Volumes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,  1928). For specific mention of relevant book and chapter numbers, etc., regarding the enthymeme in this series from Ross, consult the footnotes at the end of the introduction. Most central I believe are the following, Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Prior and Posterior Analytics. Also of value could be Aristotle’s De Sophisticis Elenchis, De Interpretatione as well as other works in Aristotle’s Organon. An understanding of Aristotle’s Topics would be instrumental in bringing the enthymeme into public discourse in a practical manner, and this is included in the above series. Also helpful is W.D. Ross, ed., Aristotle’s Prior and Posterior Analytics by Aristotle. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1949)  Book 1-7. (24a1-29b29). Another excellent source is Robin Smith ed., Prior Analytics by  Aristotle. (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1989). Book 1  Chapter 1-7. (24a1 – 29b29)

 

[ii] “Not so clear I think is the fact that infallible signs, can produce syllogisms that can be sound or unsound. One can say if there is smoke there is fire, but if no smoke does occur at a particular time (say they mistook for fog for smoke), then smoke), then no fire need be present. In that case there is no correspondence someone’s assertion that there is smoke, and something actually burning.” While the argument may seem to be valid and sound, when no smoke exist the premise is false and the demonstration is unsound. It is important to note that if while the residual in the air was fog, therefore the individual is deluded and has no idea they are wrong, yet the syllogism seems sound.”

 

Deduction and Enthymemeic structure page 51

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Logical_Nature_of_Aristotle_39_s_Ent/cxP7KKCmxQsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=inauthor:%22Frame+Publishing%22&printsec=frontcover

Master’s Thesis

Douglas Frame

 

[iii] “The enthymeme must consist of few propositions, fewer often than those which make up the normal syllogism. For if any of these propositions is a familiar fact, there is no need even to mention it; the hearer adds it themselves. Thus, to show that Dorieus has been victor in a contest for which the prize is a crown, it is enough to say, ‘For he has been victor in the Olympic games’, without adding ‘And in the Olympic games the prize is a crown’, a fact which everyone knows.”

 

The Internet Classics Archive

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html

 

 

[iv] From Alice in Wonderland

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rgs/alice-VI.html

 

[v] “Rule: If I am no longer able to achieve professionally, then I am totally worthless and might as well be dead.

 

Report: I have done everything that I have set out to achieve professionally and there is nothing left for me to achieve in my professional life.

 

Emotion: Depression”.

 

Elliot D. Cohen. What Would Aristotle Do? Self-Control Through the Power of Reason (Kindle Locations 1524-1526). Kindle Edition.

 

[vi] (xxv) Solution (refutation) of arguments may be effected by (1) counter-conclusions, (2) objections. The latter are obtained: (1) from the thing itself (the opponent’s enthymeme); (2) from an opposite; or (3) similar thing; (4) from previous decisions of well-known persons.

https://www.loebclassics.com/view/LCL193/1926/pb_LCL193.xliii.xml

 

[vii]

“(Rule) If O then R (Report) O Therefore R The rule here consists in a conditional statement that links the intentional object (O) to the rating (R). The report is accordingly the intentional object (O) itself; and the conclusion consists in the rating (R) detached from the object (O)”.

 

Elliot D. Cohen “The Metaphysics of Logic Based Therapy” https://npcassoc.org/docs/ijpp/metaphysics_of_LBT10V3N1.pdf

Douglas Frame Ethics

What Were Socrates’ Last Words?

Socrates lived 469 BC–399 BC, and was a classical Greek philosopher often credited with being the originator of western philosophy. His teachings are comprised in a collection of dialogues, compiled by Platowhere Socrates is engaged in a dialectic or Socratic Method (e.g., an analytic discussion) with others.

Socrates had many famous dialogues, and Crito is one that dealt with the idea of fealty toward government, and served as a precursor to social contract theory. Although justice is ideally the will of the people, the justness of an action is not always symmetrical with the will of the people.

Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory is the theory that the authority of government is derived from voluntary agreement (or consent) among all of its people to form a political community whose responsibility it is to obey the laws passed by a government, which serve to contribute to the public good.

People are obligated to adhere to these laws because first, all are protected, and second, one has an obligation to serve the state since the state represents the will of all it’s citizens. Famous social contract theorists include the philosophers Hobbes and Rousseau.

Crito’s Plea for Socrates to Escape Execution

In Plato’s dialogue, titled Crito, Socrates has been condemned to death. Under the terms of Socrates’ confinement, he finds that he has the ability to easily escape. His friend Crito argues that his death would be such a loss to to the world, and it was important for such a wise man as himself to live. Also, Crito tells him that he should try to live, because they don’t want him to die, and they care for him.

Crito further says that it will reflect poorly on him and Socrates’ other friends if they did not act to save him, and indeed do not save him. Surprisingly enough Socrates argues that he must not try and escape, even though he is able, even to save his life. His argument regarding his obligation to follow the dictates of the state forms the basis for social contract theory, and therefore one’s allegiance to the state.

The Importance of Acting Ethically

Socrates has an obligation to bring up his children and educate them to be ethical. If Socrates does not set a good example for his children, then he will be doing an injustice to them. In fact Socrates would be setting a bad example for all people if he fled.

It matters nothing whether what the state does is right, but rather the state must be obeyed by virtue of being the state even if the state represents the collective injustice of its citizens.

According to Socrates, to not follow the rules of the state one is to commit a great evil. As a result of the evil actions against Socrates, he is not entitled to an evil (e.g., escaping) act against the state. If he stays and is executed, he is a victim not of the injustice of the law, but rather the injustice of Athenian citizens, and history will judge them as unjust if they are so – this is not for Socrates to judge.

For Socrates, a decision to disregard the law and escape threatens to overthrow the law in Athenian society. Socrates talks about how by the excellence of the state he was conceived and educated. His marriage and children demonstrated his satisfaction with the state. Socrates believed that agreeing to be married in the state, his decision to birth and raise his children born in the state, and all other benefits of being a citizen, created an obligation to follow the laws of the state.

Virtue and Obeying the Dictates of the State

According to Socrates, if he was unhappy with the state, then he could have left and lived somewhere else prior to his arrest. And if he does leave now that he is condemned to death, other states will look on him with a suspicious eye, as the supposedly virtuous philosopher who ran away and therefore acting unjustly.

Like Socrates, under social contract theory, all are obligated to obey the dictates of the state. This is because the state represents the will of the people to consent to the rules of the state in order to be protected. In order for the will of the people to be respected the government mandates must be followed even if the rulers act unjustly. To follow the dictates of the state is to act ethically and morally according to Socrates.

Resources:

Honderich, Ted, Ed. The Oxford Companion To Philosophy Oxford University Press: Oxford 1995.

Jowett, B., M.A. The Dialogues of Plato. Volume One. Random House Inc.: New York 1937.

Douglas Frame Ethics

Utilitarianism and the Categorical Imperative

While both Mill’s consequentialist Principle of Utility and Kant’s deontological Categorical Imperative seem both to have ethical import, the applicability of each depends on the situation to which they are applied. Utilitarianism is that the goodness or rightness of an ethic in question, depends on the desirability of its consequences.

On the other hand is the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative, where according to Kant the value of a maxim that holds categorically or universally (e.g., the Categorical Imperative), depends on one acting out of duty (e.g., Deontologically). If an act is moral, then it must hold categorically, as understood through reason (i.e., one must not steal, because to steal would result in nothing belonging to anyone – respect for private property being a maxim or law that holds categorically using reason). While both these principles seem vitally important, how is one to decide which is paramount when their ethical proscriptions overlap?

Mill’s Utilitarianism

Mill’s ethical system is consequentialist, that is the value of the ethical act depends on the consequences. Mill’s system depends on the Principle of Utility. According to the principle of utility, the desire that people share is the desire to be happy. And to be happy depends on how much pleasure one can have in their life. Something is ethical by maximizing happiness (e.g., pleasure), in the greatest good for the greatest number. Mill’s system has been criticized as being hedonistic, (e.g., the base pleasures being the highest good) but in fact other pleasures besides the sensual pleasures are included. Lucidity in thought can result in pleasure. Or loving another can bring pleasure as well.

One unfortunate byproduct of utilitarianism is that when one wants to maximize happiness for the greatest number, this often is to the detriment of the minority. Being that this is so, the rights of certain individuals can suffer.

For example, say one was misbooked on a ship of sadists, and they weren’t a sadist. In order to maximize happiness (e.g., pleasure), one must allow oneself to be abused in order to make the majority happy. So the question that becomes apparent, when looking at Kant’s and Mill’s ethical systems; where do rights of others end and the rights of the individual begin?

Kant’s Categorical Imperative

Kant’s categorical imperative takes a contrary view. In conformity with the first formulation of the categorical imperative (i.e., one must always act in such a way that the principle in which one acts holds categorically or universally), is the second formulation of the categorical imperative, where Kant states that none should be treated simply as a means, but also as an end in themselves, where the principle of how one acts holds universally as well. What Kant is saying is that not treating someone as a means refers to not denying the rights of another. In others words not treating someone as a means to an end, but rather respecting their autonomy.

By one being an end in themselves, one can consent to being used in which case ones autonomy is not violated. For example a bank robber might think they are justified in robbing a bank, because the outcome for instance is that the bank robber parent can buy their children food. Yet one is not treating the teller as an end in themselves, because the teller has no option but to obey and doesn’t part with the money willingly.

Why are Rights Important?

Freedom may be abridged by the principle of utility. Yet according to the founders of the constitution this freedom is not abridged as a right of the state, because rights are god given, not something that can be bestowed on autonomous beings. In the case of free speech rights, rights are based on the principle that in order for there to be a just society, all speech must be respected. Yet how is one to balance the safety of the public at large with the right of the individual (i.e., free speech?).

The best way, and one of the safeguards of free speech, is to ensure that the society one lives in is a just society, where everyone’s rights are protected. For example the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s led by Dr. Martin Luther King Junior, would not have happened at all if the rights of African-Americans were first protected.

In the US, it is generally felt that non-violent demonstrations are acceptable, or at least tolerable. This has become the norm as a sort of compromise between the destruction and violence that can come from demonstrations and the respect for free speech.

References:

Honderich, Ted Ed., The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press 1995.

May, Larry et al., Applied Ethics: A Multicultural Approach. Third Edition. Pearson Education, Inc. 2002.

Moore, Booke Noel., Steward, Robert Michael., Moral Philosophy: A Comprehensive Introduction. Mayfield Publishing Company, California State University, Chico 1994.

Douglas Frame Ethics

Are Atheists Moral?

Can atheists be moral? It is often thought that an atheist, one who does not recognize the dominion of God, or God at all for that matter, somehow cannot act ethically. One fundamental question is, if one does not recognize the laws of the Ten Commandments as commands from God, then is there a basis for being a moral individual?

Yet there are other criteria to be moral. Philosophical ethics propounds many ethical theories based on rational principles. Examples of these include Utilitarianism, where that which is ethical is that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number. Another example is Kantianism, which relies on such dictums as the Categorical Imperative where principles are universalized as maxims that hold true categorically.

Not surprisingly, there are many arguments in ethics about what constitutes moral principles, and what theory should be adopted, but according to Christian theists, one must accept the commands of God as interminable, that this position is not open to debate. Are the moral teachings of the Abrahamic religions beyond doubt? Is it possible to question such a position? Is fealty to God necessary for one to be moral? Does the existence of God ensure morality in the world? Socrates, who was executed for among other things impiety, addresses this issue in the Socratic dialogue the Euthyphro.

One charge against him, Socrates states, was that “I invent new gods and deny the existence of old ones”. Because of this charge, Socrates is especially interested in what constitutes piety. Talking to his friend, the theologian Euthyphro, Euthyphro tells him that he is pursuing his father for murder. A field laborer in a fit of drunken passion slew one of his father’s domestic servants. His father bound him hand and foot and threw him into a ditch. A messenger was sent to a diviner by Euthyphro’s father to inquire what he was to do with the laborer. Before the messenger returned the laborer had died of exposure.

Socrates curious about this, wondered if the ethical principles gleaned from this event might be useful in his defense, wondering if Euthyphro was right to seek out his father for murder. Would the instructions from the diviner, have made a difference as to whether Euthyphro’s actions were pious or not? Euthyphro gives a definition of piety, as “that which is dear to the gods and impiety is that which is not dear to them”.

Socrates asks “the point which I should first wish to understand is whether the pious or holy beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods” The preceding argument’s is a formulation is what is called the Divine Command Theory. According to Divine Command Theory, if something is not holy, and not moral in itself, but only if God commands it to be holy. A question can be raised that if something is moral in itself, does an ethical act require God to make it ethical? If it is true that God is needed to make something holy, then it seems God could command anything to be holy, which seems counterintuitive. On the other hand if something is ethical in itself then what is the role of God?

If God is not necessary to determine whether some act is ethical or not (i.e., a thing as moral in itself instead or being moral because God commands it), then what role does God have in this context? With the Divine Command Theory, God’s role in rooting out evil is unclear. Yet some might argue that because God gives one free will, one is free to not obey his commandments, and therefore suffer the consequences of sin, but this provides no insight into the direct role God plays in morality.

The atheist may claim, from a philosophical standpoint, that belief in God is not sufficient to determine ones moral being. The philosophical positions propounded by different philosophers regarding ethics are not settled issues either. Finding what is ethical can be elusive. Assumptions about ones certainty, about ones own ethical being or actions may be at the very least misguided, whether philosophical or religious. Nevertheless, The Divine Command Theory propounded by Socrates, casts doubt on the idea that only those that believe in God can be ethical, and furthermore can anyone make the claim to being ethical at all?

A more important question must be asked then what constitutes ethics? An even more radical question must be asked is, is ethics possible at all? Is there a basis for one to act ethically? All feel they can act ethically but what supposition must be adopted to insure that an act is ethical, and if one cannot be found, then what is the basis for saying one is a moral being? Finally the question must be asked that if there is no supposition to support the claim of some act being ethical, then is ethics simply a social construct? Furthermore if the virtue of ethical acts is simply a social construct, then can different people have different ethical systems and therefore are these ethical systems strictly subjective? Such issues are problems for a unified system of ethics.