Progress: A View from Morality vs. Effectiveness
In terms of progress as a
precursor to human development or achievement, this idea has taken many forms.
The contemporary definition of progress is the advance or development toward a better, more
complete, or more modern condition. Looking
back at the earliest ancient philosophers the idea of Eudaimonia reigned
supreme. Although Eudaimonia was interpreted subjectively like other ideas, the
best understanding of the word we have is “flourishing,”
or “excellence.”
Socrates’ saw virtue (in
the modern sense) as both necessary and sufficient for Eudaimonia. He believed
that without moral virtue such as
self-control, courage, justice, etc., one cannot be happy, but with
virtue one cannot fail to be happy. Plato believed similarly that virtue was
most important and that it is sufficient. Philosopher and Plato’s older brother
Glaucon in The Republic presented a
challenge with a theoretical example of Gyges becoming King of Lydia after
stumbling upon a magical ring that could make him invisible. In summary, he
uses this ring’s power to kill the king, marry his wife, and take over the
throne. The moral of the story and point made from Glaucon was that “If Eudaimonia is to be achieved through
the satisfaction of desire (i.e. which could be argued is progress), whereas
being just or acting justly requires suppression of desire, then it is not in
the interest of the ‘strong’ man to act according to the dictates of
conventional morality.” Plato argues that, The unjust man’s soul, without virtues, is chaotic and at war with
itself, so even if he were able to satisfy most of his desires, his lack of
inner harmony and unity thwart any chance at achieving Eudaimonia.
In opposition, Aristotle
believed Eudaimonia was rather the activity
of exhibiting excellence in accordance with reason. He believed virtue to
be necessary but NOT sufficient. The ideal function of a human is the fullest
or most perfect exercise of reason meaning Eudaimonia is gained by proper
development of one’s highest and most human capabilities. Being a sort of
tabula rasa empiricist, he asserts that achieving Eudaimonia requires activity.
Wilhelm Friedriche Hegel and Auguste Comte
How does this idea relate
to that of Progress? Hegel and Auguste Comte
view the development of ideas over time as the fundamental change that causes
overall improvement. Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel in his work
The Phenomenology of the Spirit asserts that every Era can be looked at as a
kind of repository for a particular kind of wisdom and that progress is
never linear. He would tell us that the world makes progress only by lunging
from one extreme to another seeking to overcompensate for previous mistakes
(progress is messy). He believed it generally takes 3 moves before the right
balance on any issue can be found, what he called the dialektik (dialectic)
which is inevitable, and we should expect it and reconcile with it. In other
words, “practice makes perfect.” He also believed that important ideas can come
from those you regard at first glance as beneath contempt, i.e. Similarly,
Comte expressed that the gradual awareness and understanding of scientific laws
is the definition of progress. For example, you cannot have Physics without
Astronomy. Building on ideas to compensate for what is missing today was the
ultimate premise in their views on progress.
Immanuel Kant
A quick view of the works and beliefs of Immanuel
Kant helps us explore a different view on progress. Kant was a true
pessimist about human nature (an idea I ultimately share) contending that all
humans are naturally prone to corruption. He coined the idea Categorical Imperative in summary
meaning “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” This brings back the
virtue element in the Eudaimonia philosophical concept. Kant attempted to
accomplish the task religion sought to uncover, but in a secular viewpoint:
Understanding how the “better,” more reasonable parts of human nature could be
strengthened so as to win out over our innate weaknesses and selfishness. In
terms of individual and collective progress, he helps us by posing the duty (what
we must do) vs. pleasure (what we prefer to do) paradigm.
Niccolo Machiavelli
My personal favorite, Niccolo Machiavelli,
focused thoroughly on politics and government. He would tell us that it is
impossible to be a good politician and good person. In essence he painted a
clear picture of the effectiveness vs. moral good or virtue paradigm. He coined
the phrase “criminal virtue” from the source Virtu’ meaning strategy,
resourcefulness, or strength. He believed that in life we all encounter
something he referred to as ethical trade-offs meaning we (often) were faced
with sacrificing neo-Christian or moral kindness for practical effectiveness.
For example, we may need to lie to keep a relationship afloat or ignore an
employees feelings to keep a business going. Machiavelli believed in dealing with
the world as it is instead of how it
should be. In terms of progress, Machiavelli teaches us to do what works
or is effective rather than what is morally responsible for
achievement.
In visual of terms of what defines our individual
and collective progress as a society, it is beneficial to estimate that the
most progress of any form is attained through acting on what is most effective
or practical rather than what is moral. I believe that Machiavelli’s approach
of effectiveness over morality paired with Hegel’s idea of the dialectic makes for
the most successful formula if aiming for progress. Now, it is safe to consider
various forms of this approach as “dangerous” or “unreasonable,” however, this would
still test the limits and boundaries for what we currently know and institute
as normative behavior, inevitably arriving us at a more clear and purposeful
future. Life is a daily battle of morality vs. effectiveness for any individual
or group attempting to make the most of themselves and only the individuals
that take on the most realistic view of these realities in life will prosper.
Discussion Questions:
1. Do you agree with the idea that effectiveness is more important than morality?
2. Is Kant right that we should always treat people as an end unto themselves?
3. Do you think Socrates would look at our society today and agree that we have made progress?
Quiz:
1. Who coined the categorical imperative?
2. Who said the unjust man's soul is at war with itself?
3. Did Machiavelli agree with dealing with the world as 'how it should be?'
Sources:
Posts commented on:
https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/12/final-report-blog-post-section-11-ramey.html?showComment=1575580712714#c2333739812143180613
https://cophilosophy.blogspot.com/2019/12/niccolo-machiavelli-sam-gougeonpoole-13.html?showComment=1575581758268#c5535507383804615802
Comments
Post a Comment