"I do not insist that my argument is right in all other respects, but I would contend at all costs both in word and deed as far as I could that we will be better men, braver and less idle, if we believe that one must search for the things one does not know, rather than if we believe that it is not possible to find out what we do not know and that we must not look for it."---Socrates

VIRTUE ETHICS

Part 1

(Please be advised that this essay is only meant as an overview of this topic. The essay contains some very brief summaries of some complex ethical theories. It is advised that if you wish to learn more, you should seek out books or other materials on this topic. There are many excellent books on this subject available at any major bookstore. There are also numerous resources available on the Internet.)

It is doubtful that anyone would contest that the most important aspect of Gorean philosophy is ethics, how one should live a proper life. This is strongly implied by the use of the term "lifestyle" that is used by some to reflect their Gorean beliefs. Ethics is also the key theme of many websites and message boards that discuss Gorean philosophy and lifestyle though it is rarely labeled as ethics or morality. In addition, these sites and boards more often than not deal with very specific issues rather than Gorean ethics in general. They most often provide pieces of an ethical system without providing an entire framework for Gorean ethics. Some even feel that a synthesis of an entire ethical system may be impossible to create.

But, if Gorean ethics is so significant to the philosophy, so vital, then it is especially crucial that we best understand the entirety of the ethical system of Gor. It is insufficient to understand the pieces without seeing the completed puzzle. Only the completed puzzle can provide the deep comprehension that people generally seek. One major issue that may deter full comprehension is that the ethical system of Gor is far different that what we are used to. We are not treading on familiar ground but are rather blazing across an ancient path, a dusty road that is often forgotten by modern man. So we need to learn about this ancient path and not simply rely on what we have been taught and exposed to all these years. We need to open ourselves to a new paradigm.

Let us first consider some of the ethical dilemmas of our world, major issues such as abortion, cloning, capital punishment, animal experimentation and illegal drug use. There is often heated debate on these controversial matters with some individuals in support of these issues and some individuals in opposition. These individuals either consider these issues to be good or bad acts, or even evil acts. In support of their position, their arguments may ultimately be based on the support of the Ten Commandments or Kant's Categorical Imperative. They might also be based on Jewish law, Islamic law, Bentham's utilitarianism or some other philosophical school. No matter what their position, there will nearly always be some type of underlying basis for their ethical stance.

Though all of these foundations are considered to be different ethical systems, they also all share a significant commonality. All of these moral systems are concerned with duty, moral obligation and rights. They all assess a person's "actions" and then determine whether such actions are good or evil, right or wrong. The "action" is the essential key. Each such ethical system could easily provide a list of actions that were approved or disapproved by their strictures. If you followed their approved rules, you would be considered a good person. The paramount rule in all of these ethical systems is that one performs the right actions.

This would seem to be an easy arrangement for any ethical system, standardized rules to judge how one is to act. You clearly know what is expected of you, though there may be some differences over interpretation or ambiguities of certain mandates. These types of philosophical systems are referred to as "action-centered" moralities because they are concerned with right and wrong actions. Action-centered moralities are by far the most common type of morality found in the modern world. They have been the most common for hundreds of years. It is highly probable that nearly all of us were raised to understand and follow some type of action-centered morality. The United States, as is most countries, is a nation of rights, duties and laws. Its entire foundation is based upon action-centered morality. Most religions rely on action-centered morality. Yet, action-centered moralities are not the only option available, though many people are unaware of that fact. There are few modern role-models though for alternative ethical systems, few places one can go to be educated concerning them. So yet again, we must delve into our ancient past in search of possible answers.

The earliest Greek philosophers were more akin to scientists than what we consider as philosophers because they were primarily concerned with trying to explain natural phenomena. They devised elaborate theories concerning the nature of the universe, often trying to determine the primary element of the universe, such as fire or water. Socrates is probably the first Greek philosopher who broke from these others, preferring to center his philosophy on a more personal level. He wanted to investigate how people should live, how a man should be moral. These were matters of little concern to most prior philosophers. Socrates spent his entire life investigating moral issues, often by questioning others who claimed to be wise in such matters. Defining moral terms was an important aspect of his questioning. Socrates' students, and other later philosophers, followed in his footsteps and continued to examine morality. Thus, ethics has become a major component of philosophy.

Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Posiedon, Dionysus. These are but a few of the myriad gods of ancient Greece yet despite their great numbers they made few moral demands upon the Greeks. The Greek gods did not provide their worshippers with anything parallel to the Ten Commandments or Islamic law. They did not provide an itemized list of which activities were approved. At best, there were some strictures on certain religious matters but these did not encompass a complete ethical system. The strictures were essentially guidelines on worship and sacrifice. Thus, the Greeks were far less concerned with evaluating the morality of specific actions. They lacked the necessary foundation to support such an evaluation. Instead, what was of primary concern to them was an individual's character, his inner nature. They felt that a man of good character, of good virtue, would only commit acts that were also good. This concept is radically different from modern day moralities.

The Greek ethical system is considered to be an "agent-centered" morality because it centers on the individual, the agent, rather than his actions. And for most Greeks, their agent-centered morality was essentially a form of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics entails that there are certain virtues that are considered most conducive to a proper life. A person works on perfecting those virtues, making himself a better and more fulfilled individual. A person who possesses these virtues will not commit acts that others would consider bad or evil. He will lead a moral life that will positively contribute to society. He takes personal responsibility for himself, trying to avoid all that will injure his character. He possesses self-mastery to control his baser desires, his irrational aspect.

Though most Greeks shared an acceptance of virtue ethics, they also differed in their approach toward such a system. There were numerous variations such as in which virtues were considered most important or how one should obtain these virtues. Platonic virtue ethics varied from Aristotelian virtue ethics which also differed from Stoic virtue ethics. Of all of these systems, more people are probably familiar with the virtue ethics of Aristotle and his "Doctrine of the Mean." In addition, most modern day philosophers seeking a return to virtue ethics base their systems on Aristotle.

Aristotle believed that it was the rational control of our irrational nature that led to virtue. He did not believe you could construct inflexible rules of ethical action because a single response was not fitting for all situations. A person needed to use their rational mind to assess the proper response in each and every moral situation. Aristotle felt that if we permitted our irrational side, our emotional side, our desires, to control us then we would tend toward the extremes of a virtue. And too much or too little of a virtue was considered wrong, harmful to the individual. For example, accompanying the virtue of courage are the extremes of cowardice (too little) and rashness (too much). Aristotle believed that a man should seek the mean of a virtue, the middle ground between the two extremes. Aristotle acknowledged numerous virtues and felt that the mean should be sought in all of them. For Aristotle, the supreme good was "eudaimonia" which is more literally translated as "favored by the gods" but is more commonly translated as "happiness." But, eudaimonia has a far more encompassing meaning that what we know as happiness. Its core is what makes a life valuable, what makes a life fulfilled. And it is the proper application of the virtues that leads to eudaimonia.

But, as was mentioned in my previous essay on Plato's The Republic, many Greeks commonly considered there only to be four cardinal virtues: wisdom, courage, self-control and justice. They accepted numerous other virtues as being valuable and desirable but most considered the four cardinal virtues to be the most important. A person who possessed these virtues was seen as possessing "arête," which though is often translated as "virtue" is more adequately translated as "excellence." Such excellence can range from moral excellence to excellence in a trade or art. Its original meaning, from the time of Homer, was of military excellence, of skill in battle. A man possessing arête was highly regarded by the ancient Greeks.

There is also another major difference between the ethical system of the ancient Greeks and modern day moralities. Modern day moralities commonly have a firm conception of good and evil. But, the conception of evil is generally based on a theological foundation, and most often in western civilization on a Judeo-Christian framework. Nietzsche often talked about this very issue, calling for a redefinition of morality as he opposed theologically based moralities. He did not accept the term "evil" as a valid term of moral evaluation. Nietzsche was enamored of Greek philosophy, preferring their type of moral evaluation. The Greeks did not possess such a conception of evil. Their gods did not provide a sufficient theological foundation upon which to conceive of evil. For the Greeks, their primary opposing moral evaluations were good (agathon) and bad (kakon). The Greek definitions of these terms varies greatly from what we might commonly understand. For example, agathon encompassed such matters as noble birth, valor in battle, and excellence in a craft or skill.

Though the differences between bad and evil may seem slight, they are actually fairly significant though possibly more subtle. The concept of evil is charged with great emotion and symbolism. It most often implies a specific intent, an intention to commit something that a person knows to be wrong. A person who accidentally kills someone is not called evil. A person who intentionally kills someone, for no valid reason and fully aware of the consequences, is thought to be evil. In the Greek conception of bad, some said that a person committed a bad act only out of a lack of knowledge, out of ignorance. It was thought that any rational person would not intentionally commit a bad act. Bad acts occurred because we allowed our irrational aspect to guide our actions. There was far more sympathy for the person who committed a bad act, a desire to help set that person on the proper path.

There is actually a growing number of modern day philosophers who are once again turning toward the morality of the ancient Greeks because they are dissatisfied with the current action-centered moralities. They are not satisfied with how action-centered moralities have affected people and the world. Thus, they are seeking alternatives, something to be more positive and effective. They may alter some aspects of Greek ethical systems but they are trying to remain true to an agent-centered morality. Yet this is a matter that the common man often ignores. He rarely takes the time to examine his own morality system, to compare it with some alternative. He does not understand the differences between an action-centered and agent-centered morality. Yet, if he contemplates adopting a new philosophical system, it would behoove him to better comprehend different ethical systems. Proper knowledge and education is always important in significant life changes.

So, what does any of this have to do with Gor? There are a number of significant questions we can address concerning Gorean philosophy that relates directly to this topic. What type of ethical system does the Gorean philosophy possess? Is it an action-centered or agent-centered morality? Where does Gorean morality get its inspiration? Does the worship of the Priest-Kings provide a theological basis for the morality of Gor? Does Gor have a concept of good and evil? What is the place of the Caste Codes in Gorean morality? Do the Caste Codes create an action-centered morality? Since the Castes Codes are different for each Caste, does that mean there are multiple moralities on Gor?

Think on these matters and I will address these questions next month in Part 2 of this essay on Virtue Ethics.