Classical Ethical Systems and Christian Ethical System

[Logos]

In Matthew Arnold’s ‘An essay on Marcus Aurelius’ he points out an observation made by Mill from his book on ‘Liberty’ that “Christian morality is in great part merely a protest against paganism; its ideal is negative rather than positive, passive rather than active.” He points out that in most aspects it falls short of the morality of the ancients. Arnold’s response to this it to compare the writings of Stoic philosophers with that of Christian Apostles, in the sense that human life has a goal and living is the striving towards the goal. Beautiful quotes from Epictetus and Aurelius follow only to be again followed by even more beautiful quotes from the Old and New Testaments. The distinction Arnold makes in his essay is not the validity of one over the other ( Christian vs. Pagan ) but rather that “But the moral rules, apprehended as ideas first, and then rigorously followed as laws, are, and must be, for the sages only. The mass of mankind have neither force of intellect enough to apprehend them clearly, as ideas, nor force of character enough to follow them strictly as laws. The mass of mankind can be carried along a course full of hardship for the natural man, can be borne over the thousand impediments of the narrow way, only by the tide of joyful and bounding emotion. It is impossible to rise from the reading Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius without a sense of constraint and melancholy, without felling that the burden laid upon man is well-nigh greater than he can bear. Honor to the sages, this sense of labor and sorrow in his march towards the goal constitutes a relative inferiority; the noblest souls of whatever creed, the pagan Empedocles as well as the Christian Paul, have insisted on the necessity of an inspiration, a joyful emotion, to make moral action perfect; an obscure indication of this necessity is the one drop of faith in the ocean of verbiage with which the controversy on justification by faith has flooded the world. But for the ordinary man, this sense of labor and sorrow constitutes an absolute disqualification; it paralyses him; under the weight of it, he cannot make way towards the goal at all. The paramount virtue of religion is that it has lighted up morality; that it has supplied the emotion and inspiration needful for carrying the sage along the narrow way perfectly, for carrying the ordinary man along it at all.


This observation by Arnold is full of tremendous implications if true. What thoughts do the members have of these implications?

...................Logos

[Peter]

From the psychology of human motivation we know that it is much easier and more effective to encourage people along a particular path if you provide hope and positive inspiration associated with the desired goal, than if you follow the policy of linking failure in the quest with guilt or punishment. To this extent the superiority of both Christian and pagan inspirational figures is confirmed

But history shows us that the Christian approach to morality has varied tremendously in this respect throughout the ages. At some times it has been positive and inspirational, at others it has been puritanical and guilt-ridden. It was the medieval Christians, after all, who refined the doctrine of Hell, whereas the pagans had only the haziest concept of an afterlife and had certainly never dreamt of everlasting fire. So great is the variability within the Christian tradition that it is not helpful to talk in terms of a single Christian approach to morality. The most meaningful difference is inspirational and positive versus oppressive and negative, and it is possible to find both approaches in pagan and in Christian morality

[Logos]

Peter;
Thank You for your reply.
I agree that it is evident that an emotional appeal has been made to promote both hope and or fear- the carrot and stick approach- within Christianity historically. It is also my understanding that pagan philosophy, as you point out, did not threaten eternal damnation as Christianity did and does.
What interests me particularly about the Arnold essay is the observation that the facts of existence, of our reality, as disclosed by “sages” are not enough for most people to act on them and make changes in their behaviors. Now, it is one thing to do the right thing for its own sake, because a person knows it is the beautiful, the correct thing to do for a given situation. It seems quite another thing entirely to do the right thing because you are told to, motivated into ( whether positively or negatively ) without understanding. The response is emotionally constructed.
Is not doing because of knowing far more profound? It is my hope we can explore this question.
……..Logos

[Peter]

You're right. It is more profound.....but it is late (in Europe), so I'll continue the conversation in the morning.

Peter

[Peter]

A new day dawns.....

In morality, as in other fields, a small number of gifted and creative individuals carve out the cultural parameters within which the rest of us measure out our existence. The original moral thinkers are comparable in this respect to the great poets, scientific geniuses and artists who create the culture which we inhabit. Without going down the road of Nietzsche's ubermensch it is clear that a small number of great individuals do exercise a disproportionately large influence in shaping our worlds. The subjective experience of such originators must be very different from the mainly conformist outlook of the rest of the human race.

From a sociological perspective, of course, it can be argued that the ratio of few leaders to many followers is the correct proportion for allowing society to function. An excess of original moral thinkers, like an excess of political/military leaders would be a recipe for conflict and instability. The smooth functioning, indeed the continuing existence, of society depends on the majority being conformist.

I am not a pessimist on this subject. We live at a time when growing prosperity, increased access to education, political liberty and emancipation from authoritarian belief systems make it possible for a greater number of gifted individuals to come to the fore than was the case in previous societies. The majority of the population, while remaining conformists in the sense of acting within the cultural picture which is mapped out by the greats, will be conformist in a more critical and provisional manner. (When applied to the political sphere this is called democracy.)

Peter

[Logos]

Peter and members:
I think your answer nicely entails sociological and evolutionary models to explain the observation we have here. Taking this a step further, it also demonstrates why our current state ( sociological presentation ) is as it “should” be, in the sense that it is incapable of being anything different ( at this time at least).
Naturally in our range ( mass of humanity - sage ) there are individuals sitting at various points of the gradient. Thus those that are capable of appreciating at an intellectual basis the nature of reality will be more directly inspired by the discoveries of the philosopher. For example, this requirement for intellectual acumen is found in Aristotle’s ‘Nicomachean Ethics’. The view is not elitism so much as it is a description and philosophy based on awareness of the differing abilities of mankind. A fascinating consideration to be sure, and one of the most fascinating reads a person can undertake.
Does this not also explain the differences in a philosophical view point of ‘mysticism’ vs. ‘rationalism’ and or ‘empirical’ realism? By this is am distinguishing a grounding to the reality of this world as our real existence vs. another ( and better one ) to follow after death. It is mind boggling to consider the impact Aristotle had on the medieval mind when the west ‘rediscovered’ much of his work after well over a thousand years! A sociological wake up call that even the church could not ignore?

……………Logos

[Peter]

Thanks for that, Logos. There is no doubt that the translation of Aristotle into Latin in the 12th Century had profound effects on European culture - a leavening of logos in the Medieval mythos. Aristotle's influence germinated for several centuries, helping to produce the cultural climate which made the 15th Century Renaissance possible.

I have problems with the concept of myth which will become apparent later. I started a thread on this subject in the Epistemology section of this website, but so far without attracting many responses. Since it is relevant, I will repeat some of it here:

I find it helpful to divide thought processes and their contents into two types
representing two different ways in which we relate to our experience:

Type 1 focuses on prediction, precision and manipulation of our environment.
Type 2 consists of valuing, appreciating and finding significance.

Type 1 is likely to have originated as the kinds of thinking and mental attitudes necessary for our survival, consisting of anticipating, coping with and manipulating environmental events. Later it would have developed into organising the environment in accordance with our own priorities. Agriculture would be an example. Eventually this mode of thought resulted in technology, science and industrialism

Type 2 thinking appears to be fundamental to our personal experience. While Type 1 is instrumental in nature, following a means-ends pattern, Type 2 regards its objects as ends in themselves. In this mental attitude, things are valued and appreciated for their own sakes. Examples are aesthetic perception and moral and ethical ideals.

It should be noted that, while these types of cognitive activity can be distinguished as separate entities at the conceptual level, in practice any particular thinking process is likely to contain elements of both. Different styles of thinking are, however, differentially weighted towards either type. Particular mental disciplines can thus be positioned along a continuum according to how much of each type they exhibit. The various technologies on which our economies depend, for example, are clearly Type 1. Science is also heavily weighted towards Type 1 but perhaps with some elements of an attitude of awe and wonder characteristic of Type 2. At the opposite extreme, aesthetic contemplation would seem to be purely Type 2, but any creative art is also a constructive activity involving significant elements of manipulation of materials and prediction of artistic effects. Thus while art is Type 2 in its original vision, its translation into an artwork requires the practical skills of Type 1. Similarly, any basic moral value (eg “Human happiness is a good thing.”) is essentially Type 2 since it is pursued as an end in itself, while specifying the steps, policies and means to achieving this end draws heavily on Type 1 thinking


Despite my commitment to the scientific method and my awareness that our prosperity depends on technology, I believe that our culture is in some senses too dependant on Type 1 thinking. As a result the arts are either marginalised or, as in pop culture, turned into a saleable commodity.

My problem with myth is that it is clearly born of mankind's appreciative response to his experience but it purports to describe factual events. I include religion under this heading since a system of myths, given some intellectual elaboration and, historically, the backing of state power, evolves into what is known as a religion. We need to be clear that myth in all its forms is a poetic response to our experience and should not be taken literally as a statement of historical events. An important limitation of Christian morality is that, after the balance which was struck in the classical period between mythos and logos, Christianity (until rescued by the rediscovery of Aristotle and other classical influences) retuned to a morality based exclusively on myth, which was treated as a literal account of history.

We owe a debt to the Arabic sources which preserved Aristotle's work. Its introduction to Christendom led eventually to the Renaissance which in turn contributed to the 18th Century Enlightenment, that flowering of the values, and beginning of the achievements of which our civilisation is most proud.

Peter

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Logos

In Matthew Arnold’s ‘An essay on Marcus Aurelius’ he points out an observation made by Mill from his book on ‘Liberty’ that “Christian morality is in great part merely a protest against paganism; its ideal is negative rather than positive, passive rather than active.” He points out that in most aspects it falls short of the morality of the ancients. Arnold’s response to this it to compare the writings of Stoic philosophers with that of Christian Apostles, in the sense that human life has a goal and living is the striving towards the goal. Beautiful quotes from Epictetus and Aurelius follow only to be again followed by even more beautiful quotes from the Old and New Testaments. The distinction Arnold makes in his essay is not the validity of one over the other ( Christian vs. Pagan ) but rather that “But the moral rules, apprehended as ideas first, and then rigorously followed as laws, are, and must be, for the sages only. The mass of mankind have neither force of intellect enough to apprehend them clearly, as ideas, nor force of character enough to follow them strictly as laws. The mass of mankind can be carried along a course full of hardship for the natural man, can be borne over the thousand impediments of the narrow way, only by the tide of joyful and bounding emotion. It is impossible to rise from the reading Epictetus or Marcus Aurelius without a sense of constraint and melancholy, without felling that the burden laid upon man is well-nigh greater than he can bear. Honor to the sages, this sense of labor and sorrow in his march towards the goal constitutes a relative inferiority; the noblest souls of whatever creed, the pagan Empedocles as well as the Christian Paul, have insisted on the necessity of an inspiration, a joyful emotion, to make moral action perfect; an obscure indication of this necessity is the one drop of faith in the ocean of verbiage with which the controversy on justification by faith has flooded the world. But for the ordinary man, this sense of labor and sorrow constitutes an absolute disqualification; it paralyses him; under the weight of it, he cannot make way towards the goal at all. The paramount virtue of religion is that it has lighted up morality; that it has supplied the emotion and inspiration needful for carrying the sage along the narrow way perfectly, for carrying the ordinary man along it at all.


This observation by Arnold is full of tremendous implications if true. What thoughts do the members have of these implications?

...................Logos

First, Christian ethics tend to see a human family, and a larger God, and if we can believe Jesus on this; One that blesses almost everyone in some fashion.

Second, the God christians have reverted to is Judaic at best, and pagan at worst. Their God is no longer the God of all, but is only the God of Christians, and the mere fact that a man may whorship a God that is all too Chrisitian if one may take the words of people like James, though they be called Muslims, means they can be killed with the blessing of the Christian community. We believe we can turn the head of God, and can bribe God as surely as any pagan, and not only that, we believe that our God is small minded and powerless, and cannot really see what is in our hearts.

This discussion is based upon a misunderstanding on the part of Arnold about the nature of Ethics which can be considered as custom, and character. It is not philosophers, for all their talk, that give ethics, but mothers. They teach their children how to behave with family, and how to rank relations above strangers. In this they are aided by the fact that children are naturally fearful of strangers. But the encouragement of society toward honor within ones group reinforces the ethical lessons learned early in childhood.

It is a positive step that the early Christians made of seeing all as equal in the sight of God, and also of seeing all in a community of Christ. To cast its authority in concrete the Catholic church corrupted the message of Jesus beyond belief. At the same time they destroyed the honor and the authority that once held primitive peoples together. It took up the philosophy of the pagans to justify its own Meritocracy. The Protestants have done little better and much worse, turning Christianity into the dark shadow of Judaism. But, Jesus had the right idea. The law was made for man. And he was right to point out the innumerable ways religious authority only leads to a wealthy priesthood and an impoverished population. We all all blessed, and we do not have to purchace the blessing of God with sacrifice. We do have to have an open psychological relationship with God, however one defines God. We cannot treat God as pagans once treated their gods, as a danger that can be bribed off, stupid and myopic.

[Logos]

Fido and members:
Thank You for your response. A beautiful, thoughtful response. I am struck by the sensible view that God is God for all people and not just for the members of a particular religion. This is striking because it appears as a given that whatever God is, it makes no sense at all that God requires a membership. In fact, as you point out, the Catholic Church with the monstrous doctrines of Augustine applied fear and shame ( original sin, eternal damnation, inability to direct one’s fate but for the grace of God ) to force or control.

It also appears perfectly true that mothers ( and culture ) are the direct teachers of children, not the “philosophers for all their talk”. However, one is also aware that many of a mother have taught the very corrupted message of Jesus to their children via the church. The Spartan mother who informs her son when going off to battle to ‘come home with his shield or on it’ exemplifies the direct voice of ethics through our most intimate other ( as a child most often )- mom. That message was developed though society to fit the needs of the given society. Mom exhorts it. The messengers before mom ( on a macro level ) being the bards, the rhapsodies. Here one need only to think of Homer and his influence to identify nobleman, warrior excellencies or virtues. The vehicles being myth telling and poetry.

The philosopher is ( and here I mean the classical philosopher ) of value to this system because of his change in direction of recommended/emphasized human virtues. The greater excellencies are identified with rationality. Rationality has a consequent morality to be addressed, to be understood. This is inevitable when tied to the awareness that one’s actions have effects. The goal is to understand morality ( and all of reality ) through rationality. Aristotle creates tools and schema as an attempt to do this. The figuring out, the awareness, the ability to choose…the responsibility is mans ( traditional use of word for humanity - ανθροπος ).

Religion with its simpler, clearer and emotive appeal is an easier pill to swallow than the type of investigation mentioned above. Think of the anti-rationality of the early church. Add a good deal of Authoritarianism and the meek shall be members. Isn’t this the promise, “the meek shall inherit the earth”. ?

………….Logos