How can it be that modern philosophers reflect on the ethics established by thinkers from ancient Greece over two thousand years ago? After all the developments in history since then, it is absurd to believe that we, in our radiant sophistication, share the same morals as our wide-eyed philosophical forefathers. Upon a closer evaluation of the ethics in ancient Greece, however, one will begin to see that modern ethics are not very different in principle. Christopher Rowe explores this idea in Ethics in Ancient Greece.
Greek ethics can be seen as individualistic, with some requirement for co-operative behavior (127). In ancient Greece living morally was more self-imposed, and focused on eudaimonia and arete (122). Wisdom, justice, courage, moderation, and piety comprised the grounds for “functioning successfully,” (124) and one acted for the sake of one’s own happiness. Virtues contribute to the overall happiness and pleasure in one’s life. Life’s goal would be to avoid pain and do what is pleasurable and this will free one from frustration and unfulfilled desire (126-7). Living a good life emerges from rational processes (126).
Today we live morally by abiding laws or showing respect for the people and things around us, and we do it for the sake of the laws—religious and legislative. Modern ethics place emphasis on generosity, conservation, and oppose self-centeredness. If we are selfish, we feel guilty. Modern ethics are derived from religion and laws, and are reflected in our consciences. To appease one’s conscience, and to avoid feeling guilty, people often donate time or money, which in turn provides a sense of accomplishment. Happiness comes from that sense of accomplishment. Isn’t it true, by that model, that people in modern society only do what is considered good to get a feeling of happiness, or pleasure?
The reasons for living morally seem to be different now, but the things that we and the ancient Greeks considered to be ethically good have not hugely changed. “Right” and “good” actions matter to us, but on what grounds do we define such actions? This question was raised by the Greeks and continues to be asked in modern society—how do we know what is morally right? Greeks said right action contributed to pleasure. Today we still do not know how to define morally right behavior. If we think in terms of achieving eudaimonia, our morals do not drastically differ from those of the Greeks.
Despite all of the advances in modern society, people still adhere to morals that closely resemble those from ancient societies. This suggests something about human nature. Socrates claimed that humans have an innate nature to follow one’s knowledge of right and wrong (126). Plato and Aristotle elaborated by saying people acquire a disposition to act rightly, and even when the time comes to think, reason will confirm the rightness of one’s action (126). When inspecting the motives behind one’s actions, it appears that the innate ethics of human nature and the inclination for pleasure remain constant through the ages. This fact justifies modern thinker’s, including Rowe’s, “search for understanding” through the ancient Greeks.
1 comment:
I wanted to ask your opinion. You say in your post that ethics has not changed too too much through the ages, and I don't really disagree. But as a general rule, I feel like many people do not think moral and civic responsibility is as strong. Many people would never do, let's say "nice things" for other people unless enforced by the law. Do you think that this is a contemporary phenomenon or does it seem like Aristotle addresses such issues in his Ethics? For example, the lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled her own cup of coffee. That is arguably an unethical action, but ethics has, arguably, not changed....?
Post a Comment