Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Just got in from a long day off island and heading for bed. So am just going to open this week's reading for those ready, but not try to find something intelligent to say with a fried brain and exhausted body.

I wonder how Cicero would choose in the Trolley Problem?

For and explanation of what the Trolley Problem is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6...

For an explanation of the differences involved with the choices of the two scenarios of Trolley Problem:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGD...

David wrote: "I wonder how Cicero would choose in the Trolley Problem?

For and explanation of what the Trolley Problem is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6...

For an explanation of the differences invo..."

Ah, the famous Trolley Problem. Don't get me started on it!

David wrote: "I wonder how Cicero would choose in the Trolley Problem?

For and explanation of what the Trolley Problem is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6...

For an explanation of the differences invo..."

Lol! Good question, David. I am wondering if he wouldn't put the trolley problem under the heading of things that are "useless and obscure"? The ethical implications of the trolley are important to think about, but I think Cicero is too practical to give it serious thought...he is more concerned with problems people face every day.

If I were fat enough, I would jump over the bridge and try to stop the trolley myself. That solves all ethical problems, doesn't it??

I, too, paused and thought about current culture when l read Cicero regarding foul language; regarding (136, 137) anger: "nothing can be done rightly or thoughtfully when in anger," "avoiding abusiveness."

I am surprised by Ciscero at 150. To me, it seems illogical that paid work for the things society needs---fish to eat, meat cut, food cooked, crafted furnishings and useful items---would be categorized as "demeaning."

Do you think this is ... elitist... thinking...
Or am I missing something in Ciscero's reasoning?

Patrice wrote: "150 is fascinating isn't it? rome was a class society, patricians and plebeians. what he says sounds like a description of British society, they took their lead from Rome.
some of it is a holdover..."

It is. Note that the FIRST criteria of a demeaning occupation is one that other men dislike.

These are occupations that are NECESSARY for the Country, and Cicero is very pro Country---make the sacrifices you need to make for the sake of the Country..."cast all aside, if [the] country [is]suddenly and critically endangered and come to its relief"...except...seemingly...do nothing to help your country if it is considered by others to be "demeaning."

Trade on a small scale apparently brings no cache, though it benefits the country.

But a large scale trade that brings cash to the owner allowing him leave that trade.. to benefit on a personal level and to retire comfortably to the country where he can oversee those productively engaged in demeaning labor...that is deemed "good."

In our last reading (The Blithedale Romance), Covedale remarked that people went to the commune to be ennobled by labor, but found that it was just hard work.

In laying out his principles and consistently placing society's needs over the individual's needs, has Cicero created a well reasoned moral argument for promoting altruism?

I think Cicero may be concerned with his own society's need, not the needs of all humanity.

I do not think that Cicero promote altruism, if I remember well the concern for others is in the end of the list or priorities, the fatherland came first, and even fatherland do not means all the people who lives in it.

Then is he getting at the seeds of altruism? One may call it country, fatherland, or just their own society and not all of humanity, but it is still a population's needs over an individual.

[160] In sum, we must consider the matter settled: in choosing between duties, the type of duty that is more important is the one that tends to hold together human society.. . .In any community there are levels of duties, from which we can discern the following gradations: first, to the immortal gods; second, to our country; third, to our parents; and lastly, to those remaining as they ought to be rendered.

It is true he does not appear to explicitly suggest sacrificing one's self, although that is an inherent risk of miltary service, or every day politics in Rome. Maybe he is just descibing a life of service.

What would Cicero have said to the idea of a "duty to all of humanity"? I think perhaps he would thought it nonsense. He admitted a duty to one's country and to one's parents, I think because one has received benefits from them. But from the mass of humanity one receives no benefits.

Patrice wrote: "doesnt altruism mean putting the other before yourself? I don't think it means putting every single person before yourself. Duty to God, country, family, sounds so familiar. Very American. or british..."

I'm curious. Why does duty to God, country, family sound very American or British? What about the rest of the world? Don't people in other parts of the world have a sense of duty to God, country, family?

The military oath in the US is to the Constitution. A Canadian colleague told me that in that country it is to Queen and country. I prefer the American version--you can justify a lot of things to yourself if you convince yourself that it is for the good of the country. The oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution is an oath to follow a particular duly instituted popular government, not some other authority that claims to be better for the country.

Under the Nazis the armed forces were made to take a personal oath to Hitler. This turned out to be a serious issue when some soldiers saw that he was leading the country to disaster.

I've heard that in Communist and Fascist countries the oath was to the Party.

To me, the reasoning seems that one's most important treasure in life is one's own soul---the basis of freedoms in the Declaration was attibuted to "our Creator."

Next in priority is freedom.

Without a country that stands for freedom and guarantees freedoms on an earthly basis, what is life? One's own life and the lives of one's family would then be subject to what "the government"/ the king, the unrepresentative Parliament, the dictator, the local mob might decree. One then might not be able to worship freely according to one's own conscience, indeed, one might be compelled to contribute to or to swear belief to a religion one finds untrue/ repugnant... What then happens to one's soul (the first priority)? One's family, too, would be at equal risk--spiritually, physically, financially. Hence the founders swearing their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to their new formed nation that supported their God-given ("endowed by our Creator" rights and freedoms. To restrain "the government.")

Our families we love. Which is why God and country take precedence.

That seems to me to be the reasoning.

Book Two, #8:

"We argue against every opinion on the grounds that what is in fact persuasive could not be revealed unless the two competing sides of each case had been heard."


I immediately thought Berkeley, etc. People trying to SHUT DOWN speech.


EDIT: With the version of the book i have, sometimes i have to estimate which # . Should i be moving this to the 3rd week, since it's Book 2?

Adelle wrote: "To me, the reasoning seems that one's most important treasure in life is one's own soul---the basis of freedoms in the Declaration was attibuted to "our Creator."

Maybe it is just a question of symantecs, but starting by claiming one's own soul is the most important treasure in life seems a little too self-centric for those more civic minded. Compare this to Jefferson's starting point of respect for each person's conscience.

. . .consider what Jefferson says to Virginian Miles King (September 26, 1814) apropos of implantation of the moral sense in humans in reply to a lengthy letter from King concerning “vital religion.”

I have trust in him who made us what we are, and know it was not his plan to make us always unerring. He has formed us moral agents. Not that, in the perfection of his state, he can feel pain or pleasure from any thing we may do: he is far above our power: but that we may promote the happiness of those which whom he has placed us in society, by acting honestly towards all, benevolently to those who fall within our way, respecting sacredly their rights bodily and mental, and cherishing especially their freedom conscience, as we value our own.

The sentiments avowed are that deity helps them who help themselves and that each person is empowered to help himself, which cannot occur without helping others.
Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision

Not sure what you mean by semantics?

Could you explain?

I would say that i don't equate conscience with soul. Is that the semantic equivalence you mean?

Patrice wrote: "i was just listening to a teaching company tape on Rome. The lecturer said something that gives new meaning to the title, obligations. i havent thought it through yet but i thought id throw it out ..."

The client system was not a 'rigid hierarchy,' but it may have been the key to such events as the struggle for power which ended the republic. Doesn't Cicero quote Crassus's adage that no man can be independent unless he can raise an army of his own?

(I may be getting some of my reading mixed up)

It does strike one as typically Italian, doesn't it? Basically, you had people obliged to you, because you protected them.

Eventually, not so eventually, big shots like Sulla had to start proscribing non-clients so he could pay off clients.

Adelle wrote: "Not sure what you mean by semantics?"

1. Symantec, semantics, I work in IT and used the wrong one...LOL

2. Your post was really awesome but I did mean to substitute concern for one's own soul with a more inclusive respect for each person's conscience. From his Notes on the State of Virginia, published in 1782, Jefferson discusses the rights of conscience.

But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. . .

Jefferson also counsels his nephew, Peter Carr to use his own reason in his inquiry of religion (please note all of the "ifs"):

Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort & pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love.

Jefferson sums, “Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision.” What one believes, he seems to be saying, is inconsequential so long as what one believes is the product of guileless, evenhanded rational inquiry. If deity exists and sits in judgment, it will likely judge disuse or deliberate misuse of reason more harshly than drawing a wrong conclusion based on honest effort.

Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 539-550). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.

It is these rights of each man's conscience to reason for himself his own answer to the Creator, which may or may not include placing one's own soul as the most important treasure, if applicable,

Why does Cicero place God first in the hierarchy of duty? Is it out of the belief that a unity in belief makes for a stronger group/society, or does he wish to seek favor or the perception of favor, or avoid disfavor or the perception of disfavor from the God or gods on society?

Patrice wrote: "i didnt say the client system was a hierarchy but a way to moderate the hierarchy. it made connections between the classes.

i have to catch up with the reading but i am wondering how if at all, t..."

Sorry, Patrice, I misread your post. As for your broader question, I have to think about it.
"Ramping up" my participation, but I am enjoying the discussion so far.

Cicero says that we have duties to your fatherland. I agree, but recently I saw a facebook post and make me think about it.

The post shows two ways of been patriotic. An american one and a german one. The american patriotism means to hold the american flag (or the confederate flag) in you home and in your car/truck/etc, means to sing the national anthem in sports games. The german patriotism means to defend the increasing of taxes to help the poor, means to vote for public healthcare for free for everyone.

And I was thinking about this. To help the fatherland do not means to help who lives in the fatherland? Or patriotism (duty to your country) only means to adore or to worship the symbols of you country?

Rhetoric indeed makes certain questions appear simple, because its aim is to illustrate a point. Rhetoric is there to show us important considerations; in the end, it will be up to us to take the decision to shape our unique circumstances and future; and it is precisely the inherent complexity of the questions we face that makes life exciting.

David wrote:

I did mean to substitute concern..."

Thanks, David. I've read those Jefferson quotes now a number of times. Intend ;-) to respond...once I'm clearer on my reasoning. :-)

Rafael wrote: "Cicero says that we have duties to your fatherland. I agree, but recently I saw a facebook post and make me think about it.

The post shows two ways of been patriotic. An american one and a german ..."

I think Americans generally do enjoy the symbols...the flag, the anthem at events, red-white-blue plates on the 4th of July. I do. But...I don't believe that any American would say that any of that is what patriotism IS. More of a show OF shared patriotism.

And...this is just my take as there is increasing division in this country, but my take is that patriotism is in part following and considering the issues and voting what one believes best. *

Patriotism (my take) would not be that one should vote in any certain prescribed way. Vote for additional taxes. Vote AGAINST additional taxes. Your vote, totally your own decision as to how to vote. I lean towards Patrice's post.

And then everyone says to one's friends who voted differently, "How could you vote that way?!!" But I would never presume that their vote was "wrong" or unpatriotic, their vote is their vote.

(I would presume that their reasoning was wrong. As in, "What were you thinking?" But citizen has the absolute right to vote as they decided.)

* Jefferson:

"An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our suvival as a free people."

And let me throw in Tocqueville, too:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

Patrice wrote: "i would say its a false comparison. increasing taxes can hurt the country. the assumption seems to be that money grows on trees.
it is produced by individuals and taking money from, say, someone wo..."

Money do not grows in trees, but some european countries shows us that the rich can pay for the poor. Some people from the middle class sometimes team up for the riches (and riches don't give a damn for they) and I don't know why this happens. Maybe these two links for the Forbes explain this phenomena

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoz...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kiriblak...

Americans expect to be rich, so they defend that the riches do not pay higher taxes.

So, you think that the money that the government would "give" to some people could help they to use drugs? But why no one suspects that the riches would spend their money in a bad way too?

Patrice, if I understand paragraph 49 correctly, Cicero is not saying that speeches of prosecution are demeaning; he is only saying that speeches of defense are comparatively more praiseworthy.

Patrice wrote: "i have just read 49 and im sitting here dumfounded. prosecution is demeaning? defense is glorious? strange. yet i remember my father shaking his head and saying ...hes a prosecuter...as though the ..."

Is it a matter of translation? I did not get the sense that the prosecution was "demeaning". I wonder if it makes a difference but my edition is a recent one translated by a trial lawyer and states:

{49} We have the oratory from the prosecution, and that from the defense. Working for the defense is generally more praiseworthy, but quite often the prosecution side should be commended as well. I spoke earlier about the abilities of Crassus; but the young Marcus Antonius did nearly the same thing. An indictment also showed clearly the eloquence of Publius Sulpicius, when he hauled a corrupt and conspiratorial citizen named Caius Norbanus before a tribunal.

Curtius, Quintus. On Duties: A Guide To Conduct, Obligations, And Decision-Making (Kindle Locations 1990-1993). Fortress of the Mind Publications. Kindle Edition.

In {50] he says it may create a less envious reputation to be known as a prosecutor.

It seems to take a harsh man, or a man bereft of human emotion, to bring to trial a large number of capital cases.[cxxxiii] It is dangerous for a prosecutor, and damaging to his reputation, to be permanently labeled as a “prosecutor.”

Adding Christ into the question makes things a little more complex. Had Jesus' prosecutors not done their job what then? No punishment for all of man's sins, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no Christianity. God sent his son/self to suffer and die, so someone had to torture and kill him, right? Along with Judas, maybe those prosecutors should all be granted sainthood for they had the toughest jobs to do in helping God carry out his plan of murder/suicide by Roman Law?

My take was that there were a number of separate considerations in his saying that. And...some of it is fatherly good advice to his son.

(48) Cicero is big on glory and eloquence. He himself was considered very eloquent --- and what Roman hadn't an eye towards glory? He would like his son to accrue glory, too.

C is speaking of men in general...and (I think) how to bring them to your own side...esp if one deals in the law and public cases. To rise, one must after all garner more votes than one's oppenent.

"It is however difficult to say to what extent friendliness and an approachable manner of conversation will win over men's hearts "

(Would the average voter want to have a beer with the candidate?)

The advice of the three fathers to their sons:

"They give advice to woo the hearts----(the hearts, not the intellects)---of THE CROWDS...whose hearts---(again, hearts, not intellects)---judge him wiser and more understanding"

Cicero says defense is more likely to win praise.
Perhaps the audience generally responds to the positive rhetoric that can eloquently be employed in a defense rather than a string of negative remarks. Perhaps even after the case, long-term, the people will remember more favorably the defender rather than the prosecutor. Garnering goodwill to be used in advancement of one's career.

But note. Cicero says SOMETIMES a prosecution is approved. (1)...Publius Sulpicius against Gaius Norbanus, "a seditious and worthless citizen, " i.e. someone so accepted as guilty and worthless (my take on what C said) as a citizen that the crowd is in favor of prosecution from the start. The audience is with you emotionally.

(2) prosecution on behalf of the community. (The people will be with you emotionally.)

(3) for revenge (Does anyone know the story of the two Luculii?)

(4) or to fulfill a patron's obligation. (One might not have, in such a case, the backing of the people, but one needs patrons... See note at end.)

In 50: "For it seems a hard man indeed, or rather scarcely a man at all, who prosecutes a large number on charges that threaten their civic status."

My end notes read, "In his day upper-class defendants were not retained in prison before or after sentence and usually withdrew into exile."

Prosecution of enemies of the state, or pre-judged "bad" men the people don't want in Rome anyway, sure, prosecute THEM and your career will probably advance...there will be that aforementioned approachableness. But Roman citizenship was valued. To go after citizens such that they had to leave Rome... pretty harsh...no warm feelings are generated.

Re need for patrons. Background info. (view spoiler)[
" the Republic was governed by the rule of law but did not operate a public prosecution service, and elected politicians acted as judges. Both in civil and criminal cases it was left to private individuals to bring suits. Usually litigants delegated this task to professional Advocates, who acted as private detectives, assembling evidence and witnesses, as well as speaking at trials. Officially these Advocates were unpaid, but in practice they could expect to receive gifts, favors and Legacies in return for their services.

There was no penal system, and prisons were used for emergencies rather than for housing convicts. Penalties were usually Exile or a fine and capital punishment was rare" (p. 11, Cicero: The Life and Times)

(hide spoiler)]

Patrice wrote: "ying ying heres one of the lines that made me think...

putting yourself in the situation of being called the prosecutor is both hazardous to your person and demeaning to your reputation.
this is w..."

Patrice, I went back to those lines and would say that those words by themselves seem to be arguing severely against prosecution. However, if you read it in context, the meaning just changes.

The sentences just above your selection says:
If, however, someone has to prosecute more frequently, he should undertake the role on behalf of the state, for it is not blameworthy to take vengeance on its enemies time and time again. But there should be a limit to this activity, for it is seen as the act of a heartless man, an act indeed bordering upon the inhuman, to prosecute many people on capital charges

The sentence below your selection says:
There is this further stipulation which obligation demands should be carefully observed: you must never indict an innocent person on a capital charge, for in no circumstances can this be undertaken without doing grievous wrong.

Hence, it seems that Cicero is only reproving of
a) the frequency and its potential bad reputation of being known as "The Prosecutor" and
b) the danger of prosecuting someone innocent, as that which is done cannot be undone.

I thus concur with Adelle in her exposition above that Cicero sometimes even approves of prosecution.

To the question whether children would listen to parents, I would say this depends on the culture and values of the society. If family was of high value, I would not be surprised, if the obedience level were high. Especially given that I was born to a very traditional Chinese family that values respect for the parents, almost to the extent of "what my dad says is God's word" :D

Adelle wrote: "I, too, paused and thought about current culture when l read Cicero regarding foul language; regarding (136, 137) anger: "nothing can be done rightly or thoughtfully when in anger," "avoiding abusi..."

My first thought on these sections was that he would hate modern social media...

'just as throughout our daily lives the golden rule is to avoid metal disturbances when excessive emotions fail to obey the reason, in the same way our conversation ought to steer clear of such feelings'

He'd HATE Twitter.

Patrice wrote: "thanks for that roger. i definitely agree the oath should be to the constitution. so why do we know this other motto? i think i remember presidents saying it. the more i think about it the more dif..."

I'm with you Patrice, my first obligation is going to be to my family, then the law of the land. Nothing for religion, nothing for a political party, nothing for monarchy.

Perhaps the most important to me is my personal morality, my obligation to be true to myself which is close to Cicero's idea of following my nature maybe?

Emma wrote " He'd hate Twitter.."

For the language and anger, yes.

But also, I can't imagine Cicero making his point in 140 characters.

Cicero:

today it's a good day, @brutus_thebest is f*cking awesome, he just killed the motherf* @caesar with his gang

#etTuBrute
#Romecomesfirst
#ITeachMySonInGreece

Rafael wrote: "Cicero:

today it's a good day, @brutus_thebest is f*cking awesome, he just killed the motherf* @caesar with his gang

#etTuBrute
#Romecomesfirst
#ITeachMySonInGreece"

Serious love for this Rafael!

Adelle wrote: "Emma wrote " He'd hate Twitter.."

For the language and anger, yes.

But also, I can't imagine Cicero making his point in 140 characters."

One of those who just put a link to his blog post??? :)))

Patrice wrote: "i don't know that Cicero would approve. Brutus was a big hero in Rome for following the law and killing his own sons. For a Roman stoic the first duty is to Rome. what if everyone put themselves fi..."

I think most people would these days. Does that mean we have a fundamentally different idea of the state we live in or is Cicero completely missing the essential part of human community- that of our desire to protect our family above all virtue? This whole book is evidence of his desire to teach and guide his son, did his obligation to family actually mean less to him than the gods? the state? the rest of the community?

:)