I’m not sure when I first became conscious of the need for philosophy – or “a personal philosophy” – probably better termed as “ethics.” I remember joining the Marine Corps in college and being conscious of what I’ll call “noble traits” – what Aristotle and other Greeks might have considered character in its discrete parts: abstract concepts like honor, integrity, leadership, accountability, etc. But no matter how noble the trait, or even a set of traits, without a more comprehensive philosophy and ethic into which to fit those traits, they are mere dust in the shifting winds of life. Shakespeare’s “Othello” gives us a great example (albeit fictional) of a noble man who can be corrupted – I’ve previously referred to the Greek tragedy of Oedpius (in a different context). The larger point is that just deciding that you’re going to be “honest,” or follow “the Golden Rule,” or have “patience” are noble endeavors by themselves, but they don’t really get us answers in the concrete, day-to-day grind of our lives. What does it mean to be “honest” in your everyday life? Now, someone reading this is going to think I’ve either (a) lost my mind and have no contact with reality, or (b) am a lawyer and of course I would ask what honesty means. Let’s drill down on it a bit to illustrate the larger point.
Does being honest mean to say whatever you think when you think it? Is it dishonest to say nothing when asked a question and you’re uncertain about the answer? Or what if you’re pretty sure about your answer, but you’d rather not say until you’ve had time to think it over some more? Is that being dishonest? What happens if you perceive a blue car hitting a red car in an intersection? You stick around and decide to give a report- you tell the officer that you saw blue hit red – later it turns out that the cars were actually brown and tan, but it happened fast and you reported what you saw – have you been “honest”? These are pretty straightforward (for the most part), but it can get pretty tangly in a hurry.
For example, how about when you’re loved one is gossiping about another person – something you detest – and you’ve made clear you don’t like: is it dishonest to remain quiet to avoid the argument in front of the kids that you know will follow when you correct her again? Is that not being honest? I could come up with a million daily hypotheticals, each one successively more difficult than the next – so what the hell does this have to do with philosophy?
I think of the relationship between virtues and philosophy much like the distinction between morals and ethics. Virtues are “good” things – noble traits that comprise the character of an upright man or woman. But it’s not enough. Morals, much like virtues, are essentially the “rights” and “wrongs” of a particular culture or society (and I’m not going to waste my time at the moment debunking cultural and moral relativism – cannibals may be entirely moral in their context, but they’re not ethical; what I’m about to write next may help to explicate).
Ethics is the study of how to make competing moral choices. Most of the Greek tragedies (particularly “Antigone”) are about characters being faced with “moral dilemmas” – “good” people, of solid character, who find themselves faced with the conflict between equally compelling moral choices. In Antigone, the heroine is faced with the choice between two equally viable “traditions” of the time. Antigone’s brother Polynieces was killed by his own brother (and Antigone’s) in a rebellion against Thebes. Greek tradition required a burial for the dead. BUT, Greek tradition also would deny burial for traitors, and Creon – the Ruler of Thebes, issued an edict preventing burial rites for Polynieces by anyone, leaving the body to rot outside the gates in the sun. Antigone sprinkled earth upon her brother and performed burial rites and was caught – and faced death for violating the edict.
A personal philosophy – personal ethics – is a kind of proactive way of anticipating life’s competing moral dilemmas before they arise and at least having a sense of where you stand – what choices you’ll make when faced with those conflicts. For example, if your child commits a crime, and you know about, do you (a) go to the law and turn her in out of respect for the rule of law and the family of the victim? Or do you (b) say nothing and when compelled to testify go to jail rather than testify against your own child? What? You say I’m crazy – these things never happen? Casey Anthony anyone? Or the more “mundane” case in Massachusetts that spawned a debate over a possible parent-child privilege in the law (see this NPR article on point – here).
I’m not going to offer answers…yet. Right now I’m trying to demonstrate the necessity for a philosophy – which is probably better termed as “ethics”. Ayn Rand probably said it best in an essay/address she gave at West Point (called, not coincidentally, “Philosophy: Who Needs It” and later titled a book by the same name) – “Ethics…defines a code of values to guide man’s choices and actions – the choices and actions that determine the course of his life.” (Rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It,” p.4). It would seem, then, that having an ethic and integrated philosophy is at least worth considering. I’ll end this post with one final quote on the subject:
“…the principles you accept (consciously or sub-consciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they…have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought…- or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts, and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy…” (Id., p.5).
Next time, some discussion about how to arrive at an “integrated view of existence.”