There’s a question that I’ve been thinking about which, although it does not directly relate to any of our discussions, it is imperative to answer if we take ethics seriously. Namely, I’ve been wondering what should we make of a philosopher’s (or politician’s, teacher’s, religious leader’s, etc.) teachings when he or she does not live up to them or when his or her best students betray them?
I was started on this train of thought when thinking about the tale of Nietzsche’s insanity. According to the story, Nietzsche, after years of growing more and more depressed, one day came upon a man whipping horse in the town square. Nietzsche ran to the horse, wrapped his arms around its neck to protect it with his own body, and then fell to the ground, never to recover his sanity again. Now, was this a repudiation by Nietzsche of his own philosophy? One might argue that the man, as the owner of the horse, was in a position of strength over this animal. In whipping the horse, then, was this man not expressing his strength as strength? If one takes this line, it seems that Nietzsche was unable to accept the implications of his own philosophy when they were actually carried out. What, if anything, does that say about Nietzsche’s philosophy?
Or to attack the question from the opposite angle, let’s consider Aristotle and Alexander the Great. Aristotle was Alexander’s personal tutor, and thus it is safe to assume that the philosopher taught the young Macedonian prince the details of his moral philosophy. As we know from the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s moral philosophy is based on the notion of the mean. It would be quite difficult to argue, however, that Alexander was a man who lived with even the slightest nod to the idea of the golden mean. If any man has ever been addicted to war and conquering it was Alexander. I mean, after reaching India and waging war there Alexander and his men had so much treasure that they had to burn most of it in order to keep on marching! Here was a man who had the greatest expert on intellectual virtues as his personal tutor, and yet his life is in many ways the exact opposite of Aristotle’s virtue ethics. So what do you guys make of the question from this angle? Do either of these examples, and the many cases similar to them discredit the philosophy’s that they are supposedly attached to? Or can we cleanly separate the idea from the man who betrays it?
I think your post really brings up how relevant the cliche "do as I say, not as I do" is. While coming up with the ideal way in which to conduct oneself is easy, actually following such a code often proves to be nearly impossible. Just as we can never achieve a truly perfect society, neither can we achieve individual perfection, and most philosophies fail to fully account for this.
ReplyDeleteColin,
ReplyDeleteFirst, this was a very interesting topic for your post, and I appreciated reading something that wasn't about Dan Savage or the heaviest burden (of which I am guilty).
I wonder if you can really count the anecdote about Nietzsche as an example of him betraying his own philosophy. Like you said, he was in an advanced state of depression, and his actions could easily be explained by his declining mental health. This may seem like the way out, but I still think it's a plausible answer.
As for Aristotle and Alexander, I think there's something to be said about the distinction between teacher and student here. Aristotle taught Alexander, but Alexander could (and I think in fact did) misapply his lessons, or formed his own responses to them. Alexander's life of conquest and excess doesn't necessarily mean that Aristotle betrayed his own philosophy, but rather that Alexander betrayed the teachings of his mentor.
Hmmm, great question. It seems to me that inability to accept the implications of a philosophy does not speak to the objective truth/untruth of the theory, but it does reveal things about human nature.
ReplyDeleteNietzsche's decision to intervene must have arisen from his human nature rather than his philosophy. However, it seems to me that actions arising from nature alone can't invalidate a theory. A person might commit murder out of revenge, and that would be an action arising from human nature. However, I would hardly say that this murder would invalidate ethical convictions that murder is wrong.