Moral Issues and Technology: Possible Lessons from Ancient
Greece
Preamble
According to the organizers of these “Dialogues,” the legacy of
ancient Greek culture may still potentially offer solutions to problems faced by the
world today. Something similar happened during the Renaissance period, when the Greek
culture was used both as a source of information, and as inspiration for and
expression of new ideas. I subscribe to the hope that a dialogue between ancient Greek
experience and modern situations may indeed be productive, and I propose that we test
this expectation in the case of moral aspects of the technological process.
Mythology
It is nowadays recognized that mythology does reflect reality slightly
more than was thought in the past. This is why it seems profitable to explore ancient
Greek mythology on the issue of “morality and technology” as well.
The passions of deities
The view that technology does not produce immorality, but merely
accentuates previously known moral issues, seems to be confirmed also in the case
of the various automata described in Greek mythology.
Hephaistos, for example, invented a contrivance to entrap the illicit lovers
Aphrodite and Ares in bed (
Odyssey Θ 272–281). This
understandable reaction by a cuckold, however, does not match Hephaistos’ other
invention: two automata of “almost real naked beautiful young girls” helping him
to walk (
Iliad Σ 417–420).Such seems to be a very early
relationship of high tech with some ethical issues.
A giant automaton, the metallic android of Greek mythology, the famous Talos,
patrolled the coast of Crete thrice a day, and protected the kingdom by throwing
rocks at any foreign ship approaching the island. Talos, however, was mechanically
disabled and destroyed by the witch Medea, suffering from Jason’s infidelity. In
this case, however, technology was not to blame.
The Protagorean Prometheus
The Protagorean version of the Promethean myth probably expresses
an important development in the Greeks’ views on gods and men: it is no longer the
cruel παίγνιον between Zeus and Prometheus (who was called for this purpose)—a
game deciding the fate of men through successive devices such as the artful
distribution of the sacrificial animal or the concealment of fire in the hollow of
the ash tree (Hesiod
Theogony 548, 566).
On the contrary, in the version of the platonic Protagoras, we are dealing with a
series of events of surprising rationality for a myth. Prometheus, a legitimate
partner in the creation in the present version of the myth (Plato
Protagoras 320d), makes a
critical assessment of the
outcome of the first creation of man: “Prometheus sees humans naked, barefoot,
unarmed, and nestless” (321c). That is, he ascertains the Need, the mother of all
technology. And how does he respond to this realization? As a partner in creation,
he saves the situation with a correction of the first creation, by offering
expertise and energy. Here, the mythical-religious projection of the known
complementarity of technology to nature is obvious. And indeed, “thus, prosperity
in man’s life is produced” (322a); survival has been achieved—and such a
fundamental potential for technological advancement can hardly be underestimated
by developing countries today.
However, consequences of major sociological importance ensue.Thanks to technology
and the prosperity that followed, people “wished to gather together and be saved
by building cities” (322b);
[1] civilization had begun—together, alas, with all its failings: “They were
wronging to each other and then they were dispersed again and destroyed” (322b). Thus the city appears as “the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” as a path
to Ethos in the old tradition of the East.
Then Zeus, in the face of this second mistake of creation, takes upon himself a
f urther correction, and complements the creation of man with another element, the
necessity of which was
revealed after the consequences of technology
became evident: “Zeus sends Hermes to bring to men the feeling of
responsibility and
justice ” (322c).
Here we have the earliest historical warning of the “side effects” of
technology—though in this respect technology acts only as an agent
accentuating disproportionately the intensity of existing moral
problems. And this is another lesson to be learnt from Greek antiquity.
It is also of great importance that, after the manifestation of the human
immorality in the city, people were leaving “Paradise”—but not due to divine
intervention, as in the case of the Old Testament. On the contrary, God, instead
of “punishing,” accepts his own omission as evil, and offers the therapy himself. So while the first scenes of creation are similar to those of the Hebrew
tradition, the final position of the Greek god seems to be more human. Even more
so as to Hermes’ (rather senseless) question “to whom shall I bestow these new
(moral) goods?” the father answers (not without a slightly reproving tone perhaps)
“to every one—since cities could not be established if only few were taking part”
(Plato
Protagoras 322d); an early lesson in democracy,
possibly.
Finally, perhaps the even more philanthropic utopia of Aristotle, who envisioned
the liberation of our wretched kind from labor two millennia before Campanella,
belongs here: “If a machine (being ordered or having a foreboding) were able to
perform its own work, engineers would not anymore need servants nor rulers need
slaves” (Aristotle
Politics 1253b35).
Here, technology is offered as a remedy against the immorality of slavery—an option
frequently underestimated nowadays, under the pressure of stereotyped elitistic
technophobic thinking.
Technology and Economy
Moral aspects
I wish to discuss first the moral aspects of a persisting
prejudice against people practicing technology. We are witnessing
this strange phenomenon in some modern societies, where politicians should
preferably hold a degree in law or economics—as if technology were not one of the
basic components of actual political decision-making.
Xenophon can be considered as the only (somehow analogous) ancient Greek example of
such a prejudice: he maintained that Technicians were not capable of taking part
in political affairs “because a technical job ruins their souls” (
Economics 4:5). I will not comment on the oddness of the
justification Xenophon uses; suffice it to say that such a prejudice is nowhere
else repeated in Greek literature. Besides, Plato himself, despite his idealism,
admired the Technicians as “creative people, starting from the conception of a
product and reaching harmony through a synthesis” (Plato
Gorgias 503e, 504a).
Technology and slavery
Technology and slavery is another ethical issue frequently
addressed. In the case of ancient Greece, we should first examine the question of
the possible rivalry between technological development and slavery. I propose that
the Greeks’ innate technophilia (since Mycenaean times, up to the technological
peak of the Hellenistic period) was the motive force behind technology’s
continuous development, for purely economical reasons, independently of the
availability of slaves: slaves were only entrusted with the execution of lower
quality work, and the time needed was not always available. Consequently, the
invention, for instance, of dewatering machines, military machines, sophisticated
measuring devices, etc. would have probably taken place anyway, independently of
the use of slaves. On the other hand, the cost of acquisition and living expenses
of slaves in the Greek cities was increasing disproportionately. It is therefore
not surprising (i) to hear Aristotle dreaming of his utopia of replacing slavery
with robotic machines (
Politics 1253b35), or (ii) to see
Heron of Alexandria replacing the slave operator of the
ὓδραυλις pump with wind energy (
Pneumatics
1.43)!
A second moral aspect of the slavery/technology interface in ancient Greece was the
potential of technical activities to improve some slaves’ social status, thanks to
their capacity to specialize in a technical field. Pseudo-Xenophon (
Constitution of the Athenians 1.11) describes the class of
“slaves living apart,” i.e. slaves authorized by their masters to live outside the
house and exercise a technical profession for another employer, keeping their
wages for themselves, except for a certain percentage paid to the master. Thanks
to their specialization in technical matters, slaves were therefore able to
improve their lot and their status, or even succeed in redeeming their freedom. In
some cases, highly specialized slaves were emancipated and inherited factories, as
in the cases of Lysias’ father’s iron industry and Demosthenes’ father’s weapons
factory.
[2]
From these historical Greek data, I propose we draw an example of broader
significance: developing countries may find in technology a great ally, not only
in development but also in opportunities for social justice.
Military technology
Military technology, with its unrestricted financial means, cannot
serve as the best area in w hich to seek moral examples. But it may be interesting
to mention some cases in ancient Greek history where technology disproportionately
accentuated the consequences of war operations—and where this could be considered
as “immoral” if compared to a direct man-to-man fight.
- The systematic deviation of a river by the Spartans, resulted in rapid
erosion of Mantineia’s defense walls, without much fighting.
- The helepolis (the multistoreyed tank),
full of protected soldiers and catapults, captured cities from above the
walls, in Sicily, in Rhodes, etc.
Monopolies
Monopolies may be more easily imposed by people owning a special
technology. This was, for instance, the case of the great mathematician, engineer,
and philosopher Thales of Miletus, who for one year rented all the olive presses
of the region, and earned a fortune out of this monopoly (Aristotle
Politics 1259a12–17). A more bold speculative proposal was
submitted by Pythokles (fourth century bce) to the Athenian State, namely to
monopolize the sale of the lead produced in Lavreion, and thus increase its price
by 200% (Aristotle
Economics 2.1353a:15–18). In modern
times, technology assessments always seek to instate alternative technologies, in
order to minimize monopolistic tendencies.
Technology-related corruption
Technology-related corruption may be another interesting field in
which to look for possible ancient Greek examples. My first example will be the
case of Dionysios the Elder, tyrant of Syracuse (fourth century bce) who,
preparing his final attack against the Carthaginians in Sicily, paid extremely
high fees to military engineers: non-Greek engineers were also recruited, with
even Carthaginians among them (Diodorus Siculus
Library of
History 14.41.3). Money before patriotism, that is.
Another example is related to one of the most profitable technological enterprises
in history, the mining and metallurgical industry at Lavreion, owned by the
ancient Athenian State; many hundred tons of silver were produced there, through
the centuries. Obviously, the most basic fuel for this industry was wood, feeding
hundreds of metallurgical furnaces; it was rare, it was mainly imported, and it
was expensive. And here comes the almost unbelievable story of corruption of a
rich man, Medias, commander of a trireme of the Athenian fleet: disobeying the
orders given to all commanders patrolling the Euboean Gulf to return immediately
to Piraeus, Medias sails to the Euboean coast, loads a large quantity of wood onto
his military ship, and goes first to Lavreion to sell his load, before arriving
(with considerable delay) in port (Demosthenes
Against
Medias 167). Here again, in a highly technological environment, money
trumps duty!
It is not too encouraging to observe that, nowadays too, selling high-tech products
is frequently the cause of corruption, even in developed countries.
Aristocracy
Finally, it is interesting to note that whenever the economy of a
small Greek city was based mainly on technical professions, there was no room for
an aristocracy. In fact, in such cases, technical specialization itself offered a
“knowledge-capital” to each single citizen, as opposed to masses of unskilled
agricultural workers who would more easily submit to “protection” and despotism. Trading of technical products in exchange for agricultural goods allowed such
small cities to settle in less fertile areas, less enviable to possible invaders. Moreover, there was not enough accumulation of wealth to attract foreign usurpers,
and consequently a simple citizens’ army was sufficient for the city’s defense,
without recourse to aristocratic military leaders. Although there are not many
examples of such emblematic cases in Ancient Greece, it is worth noting the most
characteristic of them, that of the island of Pithekoussai (eighth century bce), a
colony of the Euboeans in the gulf of Naples.
Technology and Environmental Moral Issues
Although technological development and overpopulation did not yet
threaten the planet, it seems that ancient Greeks already had a sense of unease
regarding their relationship to nature. Let us then briefly examine this category of
data.
Mythology
In mythology first, we note that the “Mother of all gods,” Gaia
(the Earth), has fabricated a technical product (a giant, extremely sharp steel
sickle) as a weapon against oppressive Ouranos (the Sky), to free herself and her
children; technology as a protection of the Earth, perhaps? On the contrary,
technology will play a threatening role in the case of the mythical king
Erysicthon: his greediness to build enormous palaces, consuming more and more
timber cut from the sacred forest of Demeter, was made insatiable by the goddess,
and he ended up devouring his own flesh. We might therefore coin the term
“erysicthonism” for our modern tendency to build excessively, to the detriment of
the environment.
Classical times
In classical times, we note the general view of pre-Socratic
philosophers that “all beings belong to a common world.” This view permeates the
entire Greek philosophy: “A commonality connects sky, earth, gods, and humans”
(Plato
Gorgias 507e, 508a). I maintain that such a
persisting holist ic sentiment could also be helpful in today’s ecoproblems.
Moreover, Socrates appears to deny any natural difference between humans and
animals, since they may mutually be transformed into each other through
reincarnation (
Timaeus 92b). Plato will additionally
introduce vegetation into this society of living beings: plants “are another kind
of animals,” including “a substance akin to human nature,” he says (
Timaeus 77a).
I took the liberty of starting this paragraph with such generalities, in order to
allow a better appreciation of Plato’s deep interest in the consequences of some
technical developments against nature. In fact, in
Kritias (111g), Plato recalls the good old times, when Attica had
intact hills full of forests, but deforestation resulted in soil erosion and loss
of rainwater into the sea (111d).
The Hellenistic period
During the Hellenistic period, following the surprising
Aristotelian view confirming the existence of soul both in animals and plants
(Aristotle
De Anima 1.5.411b27–29), let us recall the
very modern opinion of Theophrastus, who considered technology as a “perfection of
nature when it is incomplete and [is supplemented] by means of technology” (
On the Causes of Plants A 16.11)! Theophrastus himself,
however, was aware of the fact that “violating Nature is dangerous” (
On Plants 4.14).
Transparency and Public Works
The wealth of the Greek cities was rapidly translated into many public
works. Their management, however, had to observe the rules of the democratic regimes
extant across Greece after the classical period. Transparent use of public money, as
well as open procedures for selection of designers and contractors, contributed to
further improvements in the field of construction. In some of our countries, however,
the public works sector is not the best example of transparency; that is why recalling
ancient Greece may be profitable.
Call for bids and selection of contractors
The Assembly’s resolutions, engraved on stone, regarding large
public works were also used as a “call for bids.” Otherwise, oral announcements,
as well as special envoys sent to other cities, served to advertise the call.
Specialized technicians and contractors (
εργώνες )
coming from abroad to demonstrate their skills or to bid were entitled to receive
their travel expenses, independently of the competition’s final result—a very
intelligent provision: more and better bidders were participating; thus both
quality and economy of the work were enhanced.Examples of this provision are
found in the contract of the Epidaurian tholos,
[3] which involved fourteen contractors from
several Greek regions (Epidauros, backface lines 50–55; EMAET 2002:24).
After the assignment of important works to a contractor, one or more Guarantors
(
εγγυηταί ) were needed for each contract;
their names and affiliations were mentioned in the resolution of the Assembly
(
βουλή ) of the City.
[4] Obviously, the guarantors were citizens,
whereas contractors were most frequently
μέτοικοι (settlers from other towns) or just specialized
contractors invited from other cities; this was for instance the case of Athenians
working the marble (from Mount Penteli) in Epidauros.
Apparently, a contractor’s previous experience and reputation were taken into
account. In the case of the Epidaurian tholos, several well-known metal
technicians were repeatedly appointed by the authorities—some of them (like
Nikostratos from Argos and the Athenean Molossos) having worked also on the
construction of the temple of Apollo at Delphi (Tsuli M., EMAET 2002:30).
Supervision and fines
In the specific case of hydraulic works, the
Επιμεληταί των Κρηνών (the “curators of aqueducts”)
were responsible for supervision. In some other cases of large and durable works,
a committee of managers was assigned as job directors; their generic name in
Epidaurus was
εγδοτήρες, or, depending on the
kind of construction they were dealing with, they were called
ναοποίαι ,
θυμελοποίαι,
θεατροποίαι, etc. This committee had several
responsibilities:
- Locating and purchasing materials (even abroad)
- Collaborating with technicians and contractors
- Collecting the penalties imposed on some contractors and suppliers
Except for the BOT (build, operate, and transfer) works (like the Ptechai
drainage), the whole construction was split into several components; thus several
contractors worked on the site. The concept of a general contractor was not
frequently used. Thus, the need for continuous and highly specialized supervision
was obvious. Except for the quantity survey and financial administration
undertaken by the committee, purely technical supervision was performed by the
engineer (
αρχιτέκτων ) and his staff (also called
αρχιτέκτονες ). In most cases the engineer
was the designer himself; he was also frequently supposed to explain to
contractors numerous technical details of his project or even to show them his
models for specific works.In some specific works, the supervisor (
επιστάτης )
[5] was constantly present during the relevant technical activity. This was for instance the case of the preparation of the copper alloys used for
the construction of the poles of column drums (Eleusis, lines 28–31, EMAET
2002:64).
One of the characteristics of the system of supervision used in public works in
ancient Greece is the very severe and repetitive penalties imposed on contractors. These disproportionately high penalties may reflect rather severe lapses in
business ethics:
- Lusiadas paid 540 drachmas because of delays in cutting the black stones for
the wall-stanchions (Epidauros, line 74; EMAET 2002:24). Note that the same
person was fined three times during the building of the tholos of Epidauros
(c. 370 bce)!
- Megakleidas, the contractor for the transportation of marble from the harbor
to the temple, received in advance the sum of 1775 drachmas (Epidauros, line
68). Nevertheless, the same person paid the sum of 1070 drachmas (i.e. 60%!)
for delaying this transportation (Epidauros, line 100)!
Detailed and publicized accounts
It is remarkable that in all cases (at least under democratic
regimes in Greek cities), spending of public money was thoroughly followed by the
authorities. To this end, a detailed system of accounting was devised. Continuous
control of finances was carried out by a person named
Κατάλογος (in Epidauros),
Απόλογος
(in Thasos), or
Λογιστής (in Attica). This
person was a representative of the Assembly and had to perform this duty only for
one month. His name is always reported in the written final accounts of the public
work. These persons checked the finances of the entire city; and since the city
was financing all public works, the control process encompassed the payments and
expenses of these works too.
It is impressive to see that every payment made by the managing committee was
carved on a stele (“stone archive”) and publicly exhibited forever, during and
after the construction period. Such archives were incorporated in a partition of
Erechtheion (Kritzas C., EMAET 2002:59). It is also characteristic that even small
money was systematically recorded: for example a payment of 3 oboluses (0.5
drachmas) to workers to put down a scaffolding at Erechtheion (line 155; EMAET
2002:56). This is also an indication of the “ethos” of public works management in
ancient Greece.
Based on ample written evidence, we may conclude that in ancient Greece, not only
was technology well advanced, but its practical application in public works was
carried out in a meticulous way, making use of most of the administrative,
financial, and quality-assurance methods known today, thus contributing to
considerable transparency and discouraging possible corrupted relationships,
currently rather frequent in this economic sector.
Possible Lessons to be Learned
Technology does not “create” new moral problems; it merely
accentuates—(sometimes disproportionately)
existing moral issues, both in
terms of their intensity and their number. Besides, economic development that is based
mainly on technological growth encounters several ethical dilemmas; most of them may
have important consequences of an economic and political nature. That is why moral
issues related to technology continue to be of interest to modern societies. Hopefully, some of the ancient Greek examples mentioned above may also be useful in
facing some of these issues today:
- Regarding individual morality related to technological
developments, we have shown (1.b above) that humans are not always ready to handle
the occasionally controversial consequences of such developments.
- Collective responsibility (“social morality”) was challenged on
several occasions in ancient Greece in relation to technology, economy (2.a, b, c)
and the environment (3.a). Interesting solutions were given, and some examples may
be profitably followed.
- Managerial and administrative measures (2.c, d and 4) related to
technological activities were successfully taken in some cases in ancient
Greece.
Footnotes
Note 1
So, the city is turned into a paradise of a trading people, and
replaces conceptually the heavenly garden of the nomadic and pastoral
people in the Old Testament.
Note 2
Baloglou, C.
2006. Economy and Technology in Ancient
Greece (in Greek). Athens.
Note 3
EMAET— Epigraphic Museum of Athens: Ancient Greek Inscriptions
with Technological Contents (in Greek). Athens, 2002. (“EMAET
2002”)
Note 4
Examples: Κηφισοφών (from Afidnes) in the case of
Eleusis (line 34; EMAET 2002:64), Ηρακλείδης
(from Oēs) in the case of Erechtheion (line 101; EMAET 2002:54), and six names of
Eretrian citizens in the case of the Ptechai lake drainage (Ptechai, line 41;
EMAET 2002:74).