Ancient and Modern Ethics Combined
Introduction
One challenge of societies in the twenty-first century is
the conflict of norms between different cultures. In ancient Greece, too,
such conflicts arose, and great thinkers offered great solutions. In this
contribution we will argue for the following:
- Ancient ethical theories were not only individual ethical theories but
also social ethical theories.
- The ancient methods of scientific examination are useful not only in
classical sciences but also in ethics.
- Accepting the result of (2) yields highly interesting theoretical
results about conflicts of norms between different cultures.
On Ancient and Modern Ethical Theories
Sometimes the following difference between ancient and
modern ethics is stressed: Most of the ancient ethical theories are theories
of
individual ethics; they are mainly investigations concerning
the way to live. Most modern ethical theories are theories of
social ethics; they are mainly investigations concerning a
person’s responsibility for actions with respect to others (cf. Birnbacher
2003:3). But this claim is only partly true:
Thesis 1 : It
is true if we talk about the domain of Hellenistic Greece—third to first
century BC—considering the ethics of Epicurus and the Stoics. It is
false if we talk about the domain of classical Greece—fifth to fourth
century BC—considering the ethics of Socrates, as passed down to Plato
and Aristotle.
Aristotle introduces one of his main ethical works, the
Nicomachean Ethics, with the phrase “[the knowledge of the good
for man] would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which
is most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature”
(
Nicomachean Ethics 1.2). He concludes this
work with a connection to his
Politics, in which he
discusses the relationship between social ethical behaviour and individual
ethical behaviour. More precisely, he asks whether a citizen is virtuous if
and only if he is a good person. Aristotle claims that an answer to this
question depends mainly on the definition of “citizen” and the social status
of the person. He concludes that only for leaders of the state does it hold
that they are virtuous if and only if they are good (
Politics 1.4). So Aristotle discusses ethics in the context of
social ethics, and his discussion in this context is, as Aristotle himself
claims, the core of his ethical investigation.
Something close to this holds true also for Plato. In his main work on
politics,
The Republic, he examines the meaning of
“a good action of someone in the society,” and concludes: Someone acts well
in a society if and only if he fulfills exactly his duties in his state. As
Plato suggests a social structure consisting of three classes, there are
mainly three duties: kings should lead their state, soldiers should protect
it, and craftsmen should produce goods for it. On the basis of this result,
Plato examines the meaning of “is a virtuous person” by mapping the three
classes to the three virtues of wisdom, courage, and consideration. Each of
these virtues has a proper domain in which someone should act according to
that virtue, and a person is virtuous if and only if the person has these
three virtues and acts exactly within the proper domain of each (Plato
Statesman 4.6–13). So Plato also discusses
ethics in the context of social ethics. That the case of Socrates also
supports thesis 1 is evident for a reader of Plato’s
Apology of Socrates .
One may ask why social ethical theories were so important in classical
Greece. Without going too much into detail we can draft the following
explanation: If a city is experiencing a tremendous amount of immigration,
then social problems arise in that city. If social problems arise in a city
and there are thinkers in the city, then theories for handling social
problems in that city are developed. Many poleis in classical Greece were
experiencing a tremendous amount of immigration and had great thinkers. Hence, to solve social problems for many of the poleis, social ethical
theories were developed.
As we have argued, the cradle of social ethics lies in classical Greece. Some
authors think that not only the cradle, but also fully matured theories of
social ethics can be found in works of this age: “[The] most coherent and
ultimately helpful approach to the general question of the good life as
lived in community lies, to my mind, in Aristotle” (Young 2005:6). We are
not going to discuss this view now; rather we will go on to examine a method
for discussing problems of social ethics—namely the method of
axiomatization.
Ethics as Both Science and Practice
Many of Aristotle's claims about ethics we are not going to
agree with—especially in the case of ethical methods: for example, in the
Nicomachean Ethics he says that every ethical
investigation is rudimentary and not mathematically exact (2.1–3). This
opinion is not shared by many philosophers, and is especially contested by
followers of the tradition of analytical philosophy. In this community it is
common sense that ethical theories are understandable, criticizable, and
useful only if they can be axiomatized, or at least can be discussed in an
exact manner. To axiomatize a theory is to give a set of logical rules by
which one can derive from some sentences, called “axioms” (which are
invariable), every sentence of the theory and only sentences of the theory. In his writings on the philosophy of science, Aristotle himself suggests
that an ideal scientific theory is an axiomatized theory (
Posterior Analytics 1.2). But ethics, he says in the
Nicomachean Ethics, is a theory of human actions, and
there are no strict regularities in human actions (2.1–3); since a theory
can only be—at least partly—axiomatized if it deals with strict
regularities, ethics cannot be axiomatized. Such a view, however, seems a
bit too pessimistic.
Why is it too pessimistic? Let us answer this via a historical digest: For
monadic categorical sentences, which are sentences in subject-predicate form
containing only monadic predicates like “Every Athenian is a Greek,”
Aristotle constructed a type of logic called “syllogistics.” Some theories
can be axiomatized using syllogistics, but only very simple ones. Aristotle
also discussed
modal sentences, which are sentences containing
a modal verb like “Necessarily every Athenian is a Greek.” In the Middle
Ages scholastic philosophers, and in the modern era first and foremost
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, advanced Aristotle’s theory of modal statements. Leibniz noted that there is a close link between modal forms like
“necessarily,” “possibly” and those like “ought” and “permit.” At the
beginning of the twentieth century, some logicians tried to develop a formal
theory for modal sentences, and in the fifties the Finnish logician Georg
Henrik von Wright succeeded in developing the first suitable formal theory
for modal sentences. Since this breakthrough, many logicians have been
optimistic that formal theories for many modal sentences can be developed
that will be useful in metaphysics, epistemology, jurisprudence, and
ethics.
We can easily see that the development of formal principles for axiomatizing
theories has, in fact, advanced. It is an open question whether the most
interesting ethical theories can be axiomatized, but there seems to be
little reason to be too pessimistic. Aristotle showed us the right way of
giving solutions to problems in his writings on the philosophy of science,
but he was too pessimistic to try to solve problems of ethics with the
method he himself suggested—the method of axiomatization. In the next
section we will cite and expand a little upon an example for a specific
solution to a problem in social ethics.
On the Difficulty of Imperfect Community
It was in a colloquium in 1934 at the University of Vienna
that Karl Menger, an Austrian mathematician, presented a mathematical
theorem intended to be applicable to ethics (cf. Dierker and Sigmund
1998:293–296; this theorem and another very interesting theorem are
presented within a modern framework in Siegetsleitner and Leitgeb 2010). Before we summarize and expand upon these results, we will have a look at
some of the intuitions behind them.
Many solutions of problems in ethics are as follows: The problem is that
there are two accepted, but conflicting norms—for example one norm
forbidding the wearing of headscarfs and one norm permitting the wearing of
headscarfs. A solution to such norm conflicts may be the following: Keep
ascending a hierarchy of principles, constantly asking why both norms should
be accepted because of these principles, until you arrive at accepted
principles within your hierarchy according to which exactly one of the two
norms should be accepted. If everything is for the best in this best of all
possible worlds, then there is exactly one such ascension for accepted
conflicting norms.
One way of ascending from two conflicting norms to their supporting
principles, proposed by Immanuel Kant, is the categorical imperative. This
method starts from a norm about a single action, and ends up in a question
about a norm about a very high number of actions. As an example:
Initial state : Should I accept “I am allowed to
lie”?
Directive : If you can, without contradiction, wish that
the original norm, when generalized—that is “I am” is replaced by
“Everyone is”: “Everyone is allowed to lie”—becomes a universal law,
then the answer is “Yes.” Otherwise it is “No.”
Final state : An answer “Yes” or “No” is given.
One may think—if she is not still ascending—that for the example with the
headscarfs, this way is no solution to the problem. In the spirit of Menger
we propose another method: In accepting or denying norms do not care about a
very high number of actions, just care about your attitudes! The question
that arises then is not “Can I really wish that all …” or the like, but “Is
there something that my attitudes have in common with all others of my
group?” Concerning this question there is, as Anne Siegetsleitner and Hannes
Leitgeb have shown, a rather happy result. The following definitions and
theorems are based on elementary set theory:
Given a language of propositional logics
L with the connectives
~ and
& , we define the term “is a Menger*
model”
(cf. Siegetsleitner and Leitgeb 2010:211):
Definition 1: < W,N,[ ] > is a Menger* model of
deontic logics of L if and only if
W is a nonempty set of formulas of L ,
and:
N is a mapping from W into
pot(pot(W))\0 , and:
[ ] is a mapping from L into
pot(W) which fulfills the following conditions:
For every propositional sign A of L it
holds that: [~A]=W\[A] , and:
For every propositional sign A and B of
L it holds that:
[A & B] is the intersection of [A] and
[B].
Comment . W represents a set of possible worlds
(these are, technically speaking, nonempty sets of formulas of
L ); N represents the norms and systems of
norms regarding a specific situation accepted by a person w ,
whereas norms are sets of possible worlds and systems of norms are sets of
norms. [ ] represents a mapping from formulas into the set of
possible worlds in which the formula is true or valid. For example: If
q represents “Maria is wearing a headscarf now,” and
w represents the actual world (that is the set of all
formulas that represent true and valid sentences in the actual world), and
if Maria is wearing a headscarf now, then w is in
[q] .
People do accept different systems of norms, but there are some
attitudes that seem to be more rational than others. As we will see soon, exactly
the
rounded attitudes seem to be rational, but first let us define the
technical term “rounded”:
Definition 2 : A unary mapping N is fully
rounded if and only if for every w it holds that:
A person accepting two norms also accepts all norms included (between
or) by them. Technically: If X and Y are in
N(w) and there is a subset Z of
Y that is a superset of X, then
Z is also in N(w) ( principle of
intermediacy ).
The conjunction of two admitted norms is admitted. Technically: If
X and Y are in N(w), then the
intersection of X and Y is also in
N(w) ( principle of conjunction ).
The disjunction of two admitted norms is admitted. Technically: If
X and Y are in N(w), then the
union of X and Y is in N(w)
( principle of disjunction ) (Siegetsleitner and Leitgeb
2010:213).
That every person with rational attitudes should accept exactly
these three principles is shown by Menger’s theorem called “Ein Satz über
endliche Mengen mit Anwendungen auf die formale Ethik”:
Theorem 1 : For every w and every Menger* model with
W as its first element and N as its second element,
the following holds: N(w) is permitted or forbidden or obligatory
or enforceable or (permitted and enforceable) with respect to w if and
only if N(w) is fully rounded (Dierker and Sigmund 1998:294ff.).
Technical supplement
N(w) is permitted with respect to W iff
N(w) is identical with the set { X:
X is a subset of W and w is in
X }.
N(w) is forbidden with respect to W iff
there is a Y such that Y(w) is permitted with
respect to W and N(w)=pot(W)\Y(w).
N(w) is obligatory with respect to W iff
N(w)={{w}}.
N(w) is enforceable with respect to W iff
N(w)=pot(W)\{{w}}.
According to theorem 1, every attitude of a person with respect
to systems of norms that is a permitting, forbidding, obligating, enforcing, or
permitting-and-enforcing attitude, is also a fully rounded attitude. Since only
permitting, etc. attitudes are rational, only fully rounded attitudes are rational. And this means that everyone who has rational attitudes also accepts the three
principles above.
In a group of people who have different attitudes with respect to systems of
norms there may occur the following problem, called the “difficulty of
imperfect community”: All members of the group have pairwise at least one
system of norms in common (both accept it), but there is no system of norms
that is accepted by the whole group. In short: Although bilateral talks
succeed, there may be no overall consensus. For example, if all members of a
group accept in bilateral discussions a common system of norms about wearing
headscarfs, there is no guarantee that the whole group will accept a common
system of norms about wearing headscarfs.
According to the following theorem the situation is not as bad as it seems to
be:
Theorem 2: For every W' and
every Menger* model with W as its first element and
N as its second element the following holds: If
W' is a subset of W, for every
w in W' it holds that N(w) is
fully rounded and for every w and every w' of
W' it holds that the intersection of N(w)
and N(w') is not empty, then there is a subset
X of W such that X is in the
intersection of all N(w) for every w in
W' (cf. Siegetsleitner and Leitgeb
2010:215).
According to theorem 2, the problem above is avoided if
the people of the group have rational attitudes. The slogan is: If bilateral
talks succeed and all members of the group have rational attitudes, then
there will also be an overall consensus. For example, if all members of a
group accept in bilateral discussions a common system of norms about wearing
headscarfs, and if all these people restrain their emotions and talk
together in a rational manner, then there is a system of norms about wearing
a headscarf that is acceptable to the whole group.
A small extension of theorem 2 is the following
corollary:
Corollary 1 : For every W'
and every Menger* model with W as its first element and
N as its second element, and for every Menger* model
with W as its first element and N' as its
second element, the following holds: If W' is a subset of
W, for every w in W' it holds
that N(w) and N'(w) are fully rounded, and if
for every w and w' both of W' it
holds that the intersection of N(w) and N(w')
is not empty and the intersection of N'(w) and
N'(w') is not empty and the intersection of
N(w) and N(w') is a subset of the
intersection of N'(w) and N'(w'), then there
is a subset X of W such that X is
in the intersection of all N(w) for every w in
W', and there is a subset Y of
W such that Y is in the intersection of
all N'(w) for every w in W', and
X is a subset of Y.
According to corollary 1, finding common systems of norms becomes more likely
the more tolerant people in the group are (a person
w is more
tolerant in accepting a system of norms than another person
w'
if the accepted systems of norms of
w' is a subset of the
accepted systems of norms of
w ). The rule of thumb is: If you
get an optimum for both participants in bilateral discussions within a
group, then you get also an optimum for the whole group.
Conclusion
In 1934 Menger was one of the first to present a
mathematical theorem applicable to ethics. This theorem is about the
criteria for rational attitudes of persons. Siegetsleitner and Leitgeb have
shown that with these criteria everyone who reaches a consensus in bilateral
discussions also reaches a consensus in the long run. We have expanded a
little upon this result by giving a hint to the corollary: that two
participants of a bilateral discussion reach a better result for the whole
group the more tolerant they are.
Bibliography
Birnbacher, D.
2003. Analytische Einführung in die
Ethik. Berlin.
Dierker, E., and K. Sigmund, eds.
1998. Karl Menger: Ergebnisse eines
Mathematischen Kolloquiums. Vienna.
Siegetsleitner, A., ed. 2010. Logischer Empirismus, Werte und Moral. Eine
Neubewertung. Vienna.
Siegetsleitner, A., and H. Leitgeb.
2010. “Mengers Logik für Ethik und
Moral: Nichts von Sollen, nichts von Güte, nichts von
Sinnlosigkeit.” In Siegetsleitner 2010:197–218.
Young, M. A.
2005. Negotiating the Good Life. Aristotle
and the Civil Society. Aldershot.