مفهوم الانتحار فى الادب العالمى من هوميروس الى دستوفسكى

مفهوم الانتحار فى الادب العالمى من هوميروس الى دستوفسكى

تعد ظاهرة الانتحار  احد الظواهر القليلة التى شغلت الفكر الانسانى بكافة ابعاده ونواحيه , وربما لا يعادل الانتحار اهمية فى اهتمام الفكر الانسانى ببحثه وفحصه على كافة المستويات سوى الموت .

من هنا خضع الانتحار كظاهرة انسانية الى الفحص الادبى  من عصر هوميروس وحتى دستوفسكى .

فنادرا ما نجد اعمال اديب ما تخلو من عمل يتناول ظاهرة الانتحار , سواء اخذت الاعمال الادبية صورة القصة او اخذت صورة المسرحية او اندرجت تحت لواء الاساطير , وعالم ما وراء المجسات الحسية والمحسوسات المرئية  دائما ما نجد للانتحار مكانا ما فى هذا الادب او ذاك .

فكيف نظر الادب الى الانتحار : فهل هو فعل مباح ام لا ؟ وهل يعد الانتحار عملا اخلاقيا ام هو فعل مضاد للطبيعة الانسانية ؟ وهل يمكن تبرير الانتحار , بمعنى هل هناك ظروف معينة اذا مر بها الانسان يمكن تبرير الانتحار عقلانيا ؟

 كيف اجاب الادباء على هذه الاسئلة ؟ دعونا نبحث ونفحص وننظر فيما ارتكنوا اليه من مبادئ ...

1- هوميروس :

هوميروس شاعر يونانى , عاش فى الفترة ما بين القرن الثامن والقرن السابع ق.م , ومن اهم اعماله : الالياذة Iliad والاوديسة Odyssey . اما الالياذة فتدور احداثها حول حرب طروادة Trojan War فى حين تدور احداث الاوديسة حول عودة اوديسيوس Odysseus بعد سقوط طروادة الى وطنه ايثاكا Ithaca .

وقد عرض هوميروس موقفه من الانتحار فى مؤلفه الاوديسة حيث يروى رحلة اوديسيوس الى العالم السفلى . ففى هذه الرحلة يقابل اوديسيوس " جاكستا " . وجاكستا وفق ما تروى الاسطورة قد تزوجت اوديب وهى لا تعلم انه ابنها , وانجبت منه اربعة اطفال .. ونتيجة لاكتشافها هذا الامر المفزع قررت جاكستا الانتحار . هنا يتعامل هوميروس مع الانتحار كفعل مقبول يصدر نتيجة موقف كارثى , لايمكن للمرء ان يتحمله , فصدمة اكتشاف هذه الحقيقة بالنسبة لجاكستا كان بمثابة النهاية التى لا يمكن ان يتلوها اى استمرارية وجودية .. فالانتحار هنا فعل مقبول وليس موضع استهجان اجتماعى , بل هو على العكس من ذلك امر مرحب به لا سيما اذا عزت البدائل , وتأزمت المواقف ..!!!

2- دانتى :

قدم دانتى موقفه من الانتحار فى مؤلفه الاشهر " الكوميديا الالهية " , وفى هذا المؤلف يرى دانتى ان الانتحار هو عنف موجه نحو الذات . هو ابادة ذاتية تنطوى على ضعف حب الانسان لذاته اولا .. ثم هو ثانيا , يدمر ما خلق الله .

فى ضوء ذلك رفض دانتى الانتحار , وذلك لانه من ناحية يبيد الموجود الانسانى ثم هو ثانيا يدمر الانسان الذى هو صنيعة الله .

لهذا كان جزاء الشخص الذى يقدم على انهاء حياته ان يكابد الويلات والعذابات فى الجحيم .

بيد ان دانتى لم يضع المنتحرين فى ذات المرتبة من مراتب الجحيم , ولكنه قام بتصنيفهم وفق دوافع الانتحار : فوضع كليوباترا فى المرتبة الثانية من مراتب الجحيم فى حين وضع يهوذا فى المنطقة الرابعة من الدائرة التاسعة فى اعماق الجحيم . وتفسير تباين هذه المراتب عند دانتى هو ان حب الله مقدم على حب الذات ومن ثم كان جزاء من يكفر بالله - كما هو الحال بالنسبة ليهوذا -هو المرتبة الرابعة فى الجحيم فى حين كان جزاء من يكفر بذاته ويقع فى اسر الخطيئة - كما هو حال كليوباترا - هو المرتبة الثانية من مراتب الجحيم .

من الواضح هنا ان اساس رفض دانتى للانتحار واعتباره اياه فعل مرفوض , انما يستند الى منطلقات دينية مصدرها الكنيسة التى كانت تشكل تعاليمها فى تلك الفترة القوة المحركة للشعور الفكرى الغربى . بيد انه يتجاهل الحرية الفردية ويسلب الانسان حريته فى انهاء حياته وهو ما سبق وان وجدناه عند افلاطون . فهنا لا نجد دانتى يقيم اى وزن للقرارات الانسانية او قدرة الانسان على ان يختار البدائل المتاحة امامه لكى يتخطى مواقف الحياة لا سيما تلك المواقف ذات الطابع المأساوى او الكارثى ..

3- دستوفسكى :

ربط  دستوفسكى الانتحار بالاخلاق , الخلود , والارادة .. فيرى ان من لا يؤمن بالحياة بعد الموت , لا يستطيع ان يفهم وجوده الارضى على النحو الصحيح , وبدون هذا الفهم يصير الانسان كالحيوان , اذا وجد الباب مفتوحا , انطلق وهرب ..

ويرى دستوفسكى ان عدم اعتقاد المرء فى الحياة بعد الموت يقود الى اللامبالاه الاخلاقية . فالقول بان كل شىء سيموت فكل شىء مباح . وما دام كل شىء مباح , فانه يستطيع ان يفعل ما يحلو له , فيستطيع ان يقتل نفسه او يقتل غيره .

ويربط دستوفسكى بين الحرية والانتحار فيرى ان الحرية هى صفة خاصة بالانسان , وهى ما يجعل الانسان يشعر بانسانيته .

فى ضوء ذلك اعتقد دستوفسكى  انه اذا لم يتوازن احساس الانسان بحريته مع اعتقاده بخلود النفس , فانه قد يرتكب اشياء مجنونة , لكى يثبت لنفسه انه حر . مثال ذلك " كريلوف " فى رواية " مذكرات فى العالم السفلى " انتحر لكى يثبت انه حر ويستطيع ان يتصرف وفق ارادته الخاصة . فيقول كريلوف بطل دستوفسكى فى هذه الرواية : اذا كان الله موجود فانه سيحول دون انتحاره , ولن يستطيع كريلوف ان ينهى وجوده بذاته . ولكن اذا نجح فى قتل نفسه , فانه يستطيع ان يفعل ضد ارادة الله , ويكون هو نفسه اله . ولما لم يكن هناك احد من قبل قد انتحر بهذا الدافع فيكون لكريلوف اذا السبق فى الانتحار , لكى يثبت لنفسه انه لا يعمل وفق الارادة الالهية , وانما يعمل وفق ارادته هو الخاصة .

فى رواية "الاخوة كارامازوف "يقدم دستوفسكى " ميردكوف " كانموذج للشخص الذى يعتقد فى انه لا يوجد شىء بعد الموت . يرى دستوفسكى فى توصيفه لحال بطله هذا ان عدم الاعتقاد بالحياة بعد الموت  من الممكن ان يقود الشخص نحو حالة من اللامبالاة واللامسؤولية , ويفرغ الحياة من محتواها القيمى , ويصير العبث هو المصير المترقب لكل شىء , ما دام كل شىء مصيره الى زوال , يكون الصفر الكبير هو النتيجة النهائية والمؤكدة لكل شىء .

ان الشخص الذى يؤسس موقفه الحياتى على مثل هذه المعتقدات لن يجد امامه سوى الانتحار كمحاولة اخيرة لممارسة حريته , ويتجاوز فيها , وبها حدود العبث الوجودى : اذا كان الله غير موجود فكل شىء مباح , واذا كان كل شىء مباح , فان الانتحار مباح .

من هنا انتهى دستوفسكى الى الاعتقاد بان الايمان بعالم اخر بعد الموت , وان هناك استمرارية وجودية للوجود الانسانى على نحو ما بعد الموت , هو ما يكسب الحياة قيمتها وقيمها , ويجعل لها دلالة ومعنى .

فموقف دستوفسكى هنا هو موقف يكشف عن عقلانية وجودية واضحة , فهو لا يكشف على لسان ابطاله عن عبثية الوجود بقدر ما يكشف عن ضعف يقين المرء فى هذا الوجود , وهو بالتاكيد نمط من الضعف يتوارى خلفه اخفاق المرء فى ادراك الحكمة الدفينة من وراء وجوده , وعدم قدرته استيعاب فكرة ان هناك عالم ما وراء عالمنا الارضى .. وان الحياة هنا ليست هى الخطة النهائية للوجود الانسانى ..  !! 

  

مفهوم الموت عند سقراط

مفهوم الموت عند سقراط

يقوم مفهوم الموت عند سقراط على اعتقاده فى استقلال النفس عن البدن , وان مصيرها مختلف عن مصيره . وهذا الاعتقاد يسير بصوره متوازية مع اعتقاده بتمايز النفس عن البدن :فالنفس هى المبدأ العاقل , والارفع مقاما , والبدن اداتها .

من هنا اعتقد سقراط ان رعاية النفس والاهتمام بها , انما ياتى فى المقام الاعلى عند الانسان كأساس تقوم عليه الحياة الخيرة على الارض . وربما لان النفس لها كل هذه الاهمية , اعتقد سقراط انها لا تزول بعد الموت .

انطلاقا من هذه الاهمية , اعتقد سقراط ان الموت ليس عدما للحياة , بل هو تعديل يطرأ على الحياة . انه استمرار للحياة فى حالة اخرى .

لهذا اعتقد سقراط ان الموت ليس نهاية الحياة , بل هو بالاحرى ابتداءآ لها , ولكن فى مستوى آخر . 

من هنا لا يمثل الموت عند سقراط ماساة حقيقية . او كما يقول الفيلسوف الوجودى كيركجارد :"ان الموت عند سقراط لم يكن امرا مأساويآ فى جوهره , ذلك لان الموت عنده لم يكن شيئآ حقيقيآ ".

ويرتبط اعتقاد سقراط بان الموت ليس نهاية الحياة باعتقاده فى خلود النفس .وهذه نتيجة منطقية ; فما دامت النفس هى اكثر سموا من البدن , وهى وحدها من يملك السمو والتفوق , فمن البديهى ان يعتقد سقراط فى خلودها .

 وقد هدف سقراط من وراء هذه الفكرة الى ابراز التفوق المطلق والمباشر للاخلاق من ناحية , وخفض اهمية صلة القرابة والالتزامات الدنيوية الى حدها الادنى من ناحية اخرى  . 

فعندما تقف النفس - كما يرس سقراط - امام القاضى فانها تقف وحدها مجردة من كل مظاهر العظمة التى كانت تحيط بها إبان حياتها على الارض , ولا يشفع لها حينئذ سوى اخلاقها اثناء حياتها الارضية . لهذا كانت افضل طريقة للحياة عند سقراط " تقوم فى ممارسة العدل والفضيلة .

أصل الموت فى فلسفة القديس أوغسطينوس

أصل الموت فى فلسفة القديس أوغسطينوس

يرى القديس أوغسطينوس ان اصل الموت , وانتقاله الى البشرية انما يرتبط بسقوط الانسان الاول او بالأحرى "سقوط الناس الأولين" , أى أدم وحواء .

يبدأ القديس أوغسطينوس تحليله لأصل الموت بالتأكيد على ان الموت " بالذات , ليس سنة طبيعية , لأن الله لم يخلق أى موت للأنسان إنما عقاب الخطيئة الشرعى , هو الانتقام من الخطئية التى يلاحقها الله ".

فى ضوء ذلك اتجه القديس اوغسطينوس الى تحليل الخطيئة الاولى , وكيف ادت الى سقوط الانسان الاول , ومكابدته الموت .

يرى القديس اوغسطينوس ان الله قد خلق الانسان فى البداية موجودا عاقلا , له ارادة حرة , ويملك القدرة على الاختيار بين الخير والشر . ثم اسكن الله ادم وحواء الفردوس , واوصاهم بأخذ غذائهم من ثمار جميع الاشجار , ما عدا واحدة محرمة عليهم , "لا  لان طبيعتها عاطلة  , بل تمجيدا للخير الصافى من خلال طاعتهم , التى تعتبر الفضيلة الاولى فى نظام الخضوع لله الخالق " .

بيد ان الانسان " لانه مزود بارادة حرة وقادر بالتالى على التمرد والعصيان فانه قد تمرد وعصى " , فأكل من الشجرة التى اوصاه الله بعدم الاقتراب منها :

" آنذاك تغيرت طبيعة أبوينا الأولين وتشوهت فمنعهما العدل الالهى من شجرة الحياة وجعلهما يموتان موتا جسديا نحمله حتما منذ ولادتنا ".

ويرى القديس اوغسطينوس ان خطيئة العصيان تلك ما كان ليقع الانسان فيها " لو لو يبدأ يرتضى ذاته . وفى الواقع , لقد اعطى آذنآ صاغية للكلمة التالية : " سوف تصيران كآلهة " , ذاك ما كانا وصلا اليه لو انهما بقيا متحدين ومطيعين لمبدأهما السامى والحقيقى , بدلا من ان يجعلا نفسيهما , بكبريائهما , مبدأ وجودهما , لان الآلهة المخلوقين ليسوا كذلك بقوتهم الخاصة , بل بصفتهم مشاركين الالهة الحق . من يتوق اليه ان يكون اكثر مما هو له . والانسان الذى يحب ان يكتفى بذاته يفقد حقه من كان يجد فيه ضالته".

وخطأ الانسان هنا لا يكمن فى ارادته شر فى ذاته , بل لانه فى سبيل البحث عن الخير اشاح بوجهه عن الله اعنى عن الافضل , وهو على الرغم من ان الله صنعه فقد فضل نفسه على الله , فجلب بفعلته الموت الى الوجود الانسانى :

" لاننا بحكم .. الخطيئة .. ترانا ضعفاء محكوم علينا بالموت ".

وفى ضوء تحليل القديس اوغسطينوس للخطيئة نستطيع ان نخلص الى النتيجة التالية :

ان الموت لم يدخل الوجود الانسانى بواسطة ارادة الرب , ولكن جوهر مذهب الخطيئة الاولى , هو ان الزوجين الاولين قد عصيا الله بحريتهما , وانهما قد عوقبا بالموت .

الموت اذا كان مصدره قرار حر , وعلى الرغم من ان الرب قد فرضه الا انه جزاء مناسبا تماما للآثم . اما طبيعة هذا الاثم فهى واضحة فى قصة الخطيئة الاولى . فقد كان هذا الاثم هو الرغبة فى" ان يكون شبه الرب " .وهنا ينظر الى الموت على انه ثمرة تجاهل الانسان لحدود وجوده الانسانى كمخلوق يعتمد فى وجوده الاساسى على الله لا على ذاته , فكان الموت , هو العقاب المستحق على محاولة تخطى هذه الحدود , ورفض التبعية لله :

" من اجل ذلك .. دخلت الخطية الى العالم , وبالخطية دخل الموت , وهكذا اجتاز الموت الى جميع الناس .."

Apathy An introduction to the stoic theory of emotions

Apathy

An introduction to the stoic theory of emotions

Apathy is derived from (Greek a, not + patheia, affection, passion, emotion). Apathy is a state of indifference to pleasure or pain in which one gains peace of mind or tranquillity by being emotionally unaffected by the external sensible world. In apathy, the control of emotion by reason is justified on the grounds that emotion is irrational, and it therefore stands in contrast to ordinary indifference or insensitivity. For Stoicism, apathy is the highest virtue, with the Stoic sage characterized as being emotionally detached and acting purely out of reason. 

The Stoics argued that the good for man is not health, wealth or anything that identifies happiness with worldly success. Virtue is beneficial and consists in a wholesome state of mind whereas vice is harmful and involves an unwholesome state of mind. 

Everything that doesn’t involve the pursuit of virtue and the avoidance of vice is indifferent or unnecessary to our happiness. Thus, wealth or health, for example, can be used well or badly. Virtue gives us all that we need for happiness. 

Happiness and unhappiness don’t depend on our genes, upbringing, or other chance occurrences of life. Our reasoning powers give us all we need to live well. Giving way to our emotions is an unhealthy state of mind. 

The virtuous person doesn’t give way to fear, desire, grief, despair or other emotions because they are always in complete possession of their faculties. In being virtuous we are impregnable to the vicissitudes of fortune.

Letter to Menoeceus An introduction to the philosophy of Epicurus

Letter to Menoeceus  An introduction to the philosophy of Epicurus   

I. Introduction 

Let no young man delay the study of philosophy, and let no old man become weary of it; for it is never too early nor too late to care for the well-being of the soul. The man who says that the season for this study has not yet come or is already past is like the man who says it is too early or too late for happiness. Therefore, both the young and the old should study philosophy, the former so that as he grows old he may still retain the happiness of youth in his pleasant memories of the past, the latter so that although he is old he may at the same time be young by virtue of his fearlessness of the future. We must therefore study the means of securing happiness, since if we have it we have everything, but if we lack it we do everything in order to gain it. 

II. Basic Teachings 

A. THE GODS 

The gods exist; but it is impious to accept the common beliefs about them. They have no concern with men 

Practice and study without ceasing that which I was always teaching you, being assured that these are the first principles of the good life. After accepting god as the immortal and blessed being depicted by popular opinion, do not ascribe to him anything in addition that is alien to immortality or foreign to blessedness, but rather believe about him whatever can uphold his blessed immortality. The gods do indeed exist, for our perception of them is clear; but they are not such as the picture of the gods that they first receive. It is not the man who destroys the gods of popular belief who is 

impious, but he who describes the gods in the terms accepted by the many. 

For the opinions of the many about the gods are not perceptions but false suppositions. According to these popular suppositions, the gods send great evils to the wicked, great blessings (to the righteous), for they, being always well disposed to their own virtues, approve those who are like themselves, regarding as foreign all that is different. 

B. DEATH 

Philosophy, showing that death is the end of all consciousness, relieves us of all fear of death A life that is happy is better than one that is merely long. Accustom yourself to the belief that death is of no concern to us, since all good and evil lie in sensation and sensation ends with death. Therefore the true belief that death is nothing to us makes a mortal life happy, not by adding to it an infinite time, but by taking away the desire for immortality. 

For there is no reason why the man who is thoroughly assured that there is nothing to fear in death should find anything to fear in life. So, too, he is foolish who says that he fears death, not because it will be painful when it comes, but because the anticipation of it is painful; for that which is no burden when it is present gives pain to no purpose when it is anticipated. 

Death, the most dreaded of evils, is therefore of no concern to us; for while we exist death is not present, and when death is present we no longer exist. It is therefore nothing either to the living or to the dead since it is not present to the living. And the dead no longer are. 

But men in general sometimes flee death as the greatest of evils, sometimes (long for it) as a relief from (the evils) of life. (The wise man neither renounces life) nor fears its end; for living does not offend him, nor does he suppose that not to live is in any way an evil. As he does not choose the food that is most in quantity but that which is most pleasant, so he does not seek the enjoyment of the longest life but of the happiest. 

He who advises the young man to live well, the old man to die well, is foolish, not only because life is desirable, but also because the art of living well and the art of dying well are one. Yet much worse is he who says that it is well not to have been born, but once born, be swift to pass through Hades' gates. If a man says this and really believes it, why does he not depart from life? 

Certainly the means are at hand for doing so if this really be his firm conviction. If he says it in mockery, he is regarded as a fool among those who do not accept his teaching. 

Remember that the future is neither ours nor wholly not ours, so that we may neither count on it as sure to come nor abandon hope of it as certain not to be. 

III. The Moral Theory 

A. PLEASURE AS THE MOTIVE 

The necessary desires are for health of body and peace of mind; if these are satisfied, that is enough for the happy life. 

You must consider that of the desires some are natural, some are vain, and of those that are natural, some are necessary, others only natural. Of the necessary desires, some are necessary for happiness, some for the ease of the body, some for life itself. The man who has a perfect knowledge of this will know how to make his every choice or rejection tend toward gaining health of body and peace (of mind), since this is the final end of the blessed life. For to gain this end, namely freedom from pain and fear, we do everything. When once this condition is reached, all the storm of the soul is stilled, since the creature need make no move in search of anything that is not lacking, nor seek after anything else to make complete the welfare of the soul and the body. For we only feel the lack of pleasure when from its absence we suffer pain; (but when we do not suffer pain,) we no longer in need of pleasure. For this reason we say that pleasure is the beginning and the end of the blessed life. We recognize pleasure as the first and natural good; starting from pleasure we accept or reject; and we return to this as we judge every good thing, trusting this feeling of pleasure as our guide. 

B. PLEASURES AND PAINS 

Pleasure is the greatest good; but some pleasures bring pain, and in choosing, we must consider this. 

For the very reason that pleasure is the chief and the natural good, we do not choose every pleasure, but there are times when we pass by pleasures if they are outweighed by the hardships that follow; and many pains we think better than pleasures when a greater pleasure will come to us once we have undergone the long-continued pains. Every pleasure is a good since it has a nature akin to ours; nevertheless, not every pleasure is to be chosen. Just so, every pain is an evil, yet not every pain is of a nature to be avoided on all occasions. By measuring and by looking at advantages and disadvantages, it is proper to decide all these things; for under certain circumstances we treat the good as evil, and again, the evil as good. 

C. SELF-SUFFICIENCY 

The truly wise man is the one who can be happy with a little. 

We regard self-sufficiency as a great good, not so that we may enjoy only a few things, but so that, if we do not have many, we may be satisfied with the few, being firmly persuaded that they take the greatest pleasure in luxury who regard it as least needed, and that everything that is natural is easily provided, while vain pleasures are hard to obtain. Indeed, simple sauces bring a pleasure equal to that of lavish banquets if once the pain due to need is removed; and bread and water give the greatest pleasure when one who is in need consumes them. To be accustomed to simple and plain living is conducive to health and makes a man ready for the necessary tasks of life. It also makes us more ready for the enjoyment of luxury if at intervals we chance to meet with it, and it renders us fearless against fortune. 

D. TRUE PLEASURE 

The truest happiness does not come from enjoyment of physical pleasures but from a simple life, free from anxiety, with the normal physical needs satisfied. 

When we say that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasure of the profligate or that which depends on physical enjoyment — as some think who do not understand our teachings, disagree with them, or give them an evil interpretation — but by pleasure we mean the state wherein the body is free from pain and the mind from anxiety. Neither continual drinking and 

dancing, nor sexual love, nor the enjoyment of fish and whatever else the luxurious table offers brings about the pleasant life; rather, it is produced by the reason which is sober, which examines the motive for every choice and rejection, and which drives away all those opinions through which the greatest tumult lays hold of the mind. 

E. PRUDENCE 

Prudence or practical wisdom should be our guide. 

Of all this the beginning and the chief good is prudence. For this reason prudence is more precious than philosophy itself. All the other virtues spring from it. It teaches that it is not possible to live pleasantly without at the same time living prudently, nobly, and justly, (nor to live prudently, nobly, and justly) without living pleasantly; for the virtues have grown up in close union with the pleasant life, and the pleasant life cannot be separated from the virtues.

VIRTUES AND GOOD LIFE: An introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle.

VIRTUES AND GOOD LIFE:  An introduction to the philosophy of Aristotle

Aristotle was born in 384bce in Stagira in northern Greece. His father was a physician for King Philip of Macedonia. Around age seventeen, he went to study at Plato’s Academy in Athens. Aristotle travelled for several years and then for two or three years was the tutor to Alexander, Philip’s young son who later became known as Alexander the Great. In 335bce, Aristotle returned to Athens and organized his own school, called the Lyceum. There he taught and wrote almost until his death thirteen years later, in322bce. 

Aristotle is known not only for his moral theory but also for writings in logic, biology, physics, metaphysics, art, and politics. The basic notions of his moral theory can be found in his Nicomachean Ethics, named for his son Nicomachus. 

Aristotle was one of the earliest writers to ground morality in nature, and specifically in human nature. His theory of ethics and morality also stressed the notion of virtue. For Aristotle, virtue was an excellence of some sort. Our word virtue originally came from the Latin vir and referred to strength or manliness. In Aristotle’s Greek, the term for virtue was a word that can be translated as “excellence.” 

According to Aristotle, there are two basic types of virtue (or excellence): intellectual virtues and moral virtues. Intellectual virtues are excellences of mind, such as the ability to understand and reason and judge well. Moral virtues, on the other hand, dispose us to act well. These virtues are learned by repetition. For instance, by practicing courage or honesty, we become more courageous and honest. 

Just as repetition in playing a musical instrument makes playing easier, so also repeated acts of honesty make it easier to be honest. The person who has the virtue of honesty finds it easier to be honest than the person who does not have the virtue. It has become habitual or second nature to him or her. The same thing applies to the opposite of virtue, namely, vice. The person who lies and lies again finds that lying is easier and telling the truth more difficult. One can have bad moral habits (vices) as well as good ones (virtues). Just like other bad habits, bad moral habits are difficult to change or break. And like other good habits, good moral habits take practice to develop. 

Virtue as a Mean 

Aristotle’s philosophy outlines a variety of particular virtues including courage, temperance, justice, pride, and magnanimity. However, Aristotle also provides a unifying framework for understanding virtue in general, as a mean between extremes. This idea is occasionally known as the Golden Mean. By saying that virtue is a mean, we are using the word with reference to how it is used in mathematics, where the mean is in the middle, as the average. 

To better understand the idea that virtue is a mean, take the following example. The virtue of courage can be understood as a mean or middle between the two extremes of deficiency and excess. Too little courage is cowardice, and too much is foolhardiness. When facing danger or challenges, we should have neither too much fear—which makes us unable to act—nor too little fear—which makes us take reckless or foolish risks. The virtue of courage is having just the right amount of fear, depending on what is appropriate for us as individuals and for the circumstances we face. 

Nature, Human Nature, and the Human Good 

Aristotle was a close observer of nature. In fact, in his writings he mentions some 500 different kinds of animals. He noticed that seeds of the same sort always grew to the same mature form. He opened developing eggs of various species and noticed that these organisms manifested a pattern in their development even before birth. Tadpoles, he might have said, always follow the same path and become frogs, not turtles. So also with other living things. Acorns always become oak trees, not elms. He concluded that there was an order in nature. It was as if natural beings such as plants and animals had a principle of order within them that directed them toward their goal—their mature final form. This view can be called a teleological view, from the Greek word for goal, telos, because of its emphasis on a goal embedded in natural things. It was from this conclusion that Aristotle developed his notion of the good. 

According to Aristotle, “the good is that at which all things aim.” Good things are things that fulfil some purpose or end or goal. Thus, the good of the shipbuilder is to build ships. The good of the lyre player is to play well. The traits that allow for good shipbuilding or lyre-playing will be somewhat different. But good shipbuilders and good lyre players will share certain virtues such as intelligence and creativity. Aristotle asks whether there is anything that is the good of the human being—not as shipbuilder or lyre player, but simply as human. 

To answer this question, we must first think about what it is to be human. According to Aristotle, natural beings come in kinds or species. From their species flow their essential characteristics and certain key tendencies or capacities. A squirrel, for example, is a kind of animal that is, first of all, a living being. It develops from a young to a mature form. It is a mammal and therefore has other characteristics of mammals. It is bushy-tailed, can run along telephone wires, and gathers and stores nuts for its food. From the characteristics that define a squirrel, we also can know what a good squirrel is. A good specimen of a squirrel is one that is effective, successful, and functions well. It follows the pattern of development and growth it has by nature. A good squirrel does, in fact, have a bushy tail and good balance, and knows how to find and store its food. It would be a bad example of a squirrel if it had no balance, couldn’t find its food, or had no fur and was sickly. It would have been better for the squirrel if its inherent natural tendencies to grow and develop and live as a healthy squirrel had been realized. 

Aristotle thought of human beings as natural beings with a specific human nature. Human beings have certain specific characteristics and abilities that we share as humans. Unlike squirrels and acorns, human beings can choose to act in the service of their good or act against it. But just what is their good? 

Aristotle recognized that a good eye is a healthy eye that sees well. A good horse is a well-functioning horse, one that is healthy and able to run and do what horses do. What about human beings? Is there something comparable for the human being as human? Is there some good for humans as humans? Just as we can tell what the good squirrel is from its own characteristics and abilities as a squirrel, the same should be true for the human being. 

For human beings to function well, they should perfect their human capacities. If they do this, they will be functioning well as human beings. They will also be happy, for a being is happy to the extent that it is functioning well. Aristotle believed that the ultimate good of humans is happiness, blessedness, or prosperity. 

The Greek word for this sort of happiness is eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is not to be confused with pleasure. Indeed, the virtues are often at odds with pleasure. A coward who is afraid of danger is reluctant to experience pain. And a courageous person may have to forgo pleasure and submit to pain— including the pain of being killed. Aristotle warned that pleasure can distract us from what is good. Thus, Aristotle’s account of eudaimonia aims at a kind of happiness that is deeper and longer lasting than mere pleasure. The term eudaimonia gives us a clue about this. The eu- prefix means “good”; and daimonia is related to the Greek word for “spirit” or “soul.” Thus, Aristotle’s idea is that virtue produces the happiness of having a good soul or spirit, which fulfils essential human functions or purposes. Aristotle is thus interested in the question of what our human functions or purposes might be. 

Human beings have much in common with lower forms of beings. We are living, for example, just as plants are. Thus, we take in material from outside us for nourishment, and we grow from an immature to a mature form. We have senses of sight and hearing and so forth, as do the higher animals. We are social animals as well, who must live in groups together with other human beings. Since human beings have various functions or purposes, there are various types of virtue. The virtues of social life, for example, help us fulfil our function as social beings. The moral or social virtues would include honesty, loyalty, and generosity. But is there anything unique to humans, an essentially human function or purpose? 

Aristotle believed that it is our “rational element” that is peculiar to us. The good for humans, then, should consist in their functioning in a way consistent with and guided by this rational element. Our rational element has two different functions: one is to know, and the other is to guide choice and action. We must develop our ability to know the world and the truth. 

We must also choose wisely. In doing this, we will be functioning well specifically as humans. Thus, in addition to social or moral virtues, there are also intellectual virtues, which help us fulfil our function as intelligent animals. These virtues, according to Aristotle, include practical knowledge, scientific knowledge, and practical wisdom. It is not surprising that Aristotle—who was a philosopher and a student of Plato—thought that the intellectual virtues were more important than the other virtues, since they help us fulfil our uniquely human capacities.

Philosophy, Violence and War

Philosophy, Violence and War 

Most people assume that there is a right to use violence in self-defense. And many also think that we are permitted (some may say required) to use violence in defense of innocent children. The natural law tradition maintains that individuals have a right to life and liberty—and that violence can be employed to defend life and liberty against those who threaten it, including the life and liberty of defenseless and innocent others. A consequentialist argument could also be used here. More happiness will be produced for more people when such threats are eliminated. For a strict consequentialist, if the goal is to eliminate threats, the means employed are irrelevant. If war or other forms of violence work to produce good outcomes, then these can be used as a tool to defend social welfare. 

Now, we will discuss three alternative approaches to the justification of violence. One maintains that violence is always wrong—this is pacifism. Another approach, often called realism, maintains that there are no moral limits on violence in warfare. In the middle between these two extremes is an idea known as just war theory, which holds that violence can be justified when it is employed in limited and focused ways. 

Central to the discussion of the justification of violence and war is the question of what violence is, and what war is. Violence is generally thought of as the use of physical force to cause injury to another. Physical assaults, shooting, and bombing are examples. War is generally defined as sustained and organized political violence. 

1- REALISM 

Realism is the idea that in the “real world” of social and political life, violence is one tool among others to be employed strategically to get things done. Realists tend to be consequentialists, who are primarily focused on outcomes and results—and who are not as concerned with the morality of the means employed to achieve such results. 

From this perspective, war is understood as an existential struggle for supremacy. Perhaps it is possible to achieve a balance of power between equal powers. But if another power is threatening you, the realist would argue that in a life or death struggle it is necessary to do whatever it takes to defend against the threat of annihilation. 

Realists generally deny that moral ideas can be applied in warfare or that moral concerns should inhibit us from doing what is necessary to achieve victory. If we must bomb civilians or use torture to win a war, then that is what we must do. But realists are not simply bloodthirsty. They might agree that there are good pragmatic reasons to limit the use of violence. Violence can provoke a backlash (as enemies fight harder and unite against a dominant power). For realists, the central question is about what works. If terror bombing works, then it should be used, but if it does not work, then it should be avoided. Realists also have to consider the costs and benefits of warfare. War can be expensive. Realists do not advocate war at any cost. Instead, realists want to be strategic about the use of violence. It is not prudent to get involved in battles that cannot be won or that are so costly that they leave us in a weakened state. For realists, the central conclusion is in war, there is no morality at all. 

2-PACIFISM 

Pacifism lies on the opposite end of the spectrum from realism. While extreme realists argue that there are no moral limits in warfare, extreme pacifists argue that war is always wrong. Pacifism is often grounded in a deontological claim that focuses on the morality of killing. Deontological pacifists will maintain that there is an absolute moral rule against killing. Pacifism is also grounded in a more positive commitment to active nonviolence. Some forms of pacifism extend the idea of nonviolence in a very general way that condemns violence done to sentient beings in general, including nonhuman animals. 

Pacifists generally maintain that nonviolent alternatives to violence are preferable and should be actively pursued in a creative and sustained fashion. Prominent pacifists include Gandhi and Martin Luther King. 

Pacifists believe that nonviolent means work better than violence to produce social goods. Violence does more harm than good, they argue, because violence begets violence. 

Most pacifists argue that killing is wrong. But critics of this view argue that if killing is wrong, there may be times when we need to kill to prevent killing from occurring. Consider, for example, whether it is justifiable to kill those who threaten the innocent. Should an exception to the rule against killing be made to prevent such killing? Would it be acceptable to kill in self-defense? Or in defense of those who are being slaughtered by genocidal or racist governments? Pacifists must address the criticism that it seems inconsistent to hold that life is of the highest value and yet not be willing to use force to defend it. One way they might address this objection is to clarify that pacifism is not passive— pacifists do not advocate doing nothing in response to atrocity. Rather, pacifists can be committed to active, creative, and sustained efforts to help people and defend the innocent, so long as such efforts do not involve killing. Pacifists will also argue that the problem of war is that innocent people are accidentally killed even by the “good guys” and that it is very difficult to focus the destructive power of war in a way that does not harm the innocent. 

3-JUST WAR THEORY 

Intermediate between pacifism and realism is the idea that the use of force, including military force, is justified in limited and specific circumstances. The just war theory attempts to clarify when it is justifiable to resort to the use of lethal force. 

According to Obama, philosophers and theologians developed the just war idea over time as they attempted to find moral language to criticize and limit the destructive power of war. “The concept of a ‘just war’ emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence. 

As Obama noted, the just war theory is not new. Indeed, the just war theory has a long history. Its origins can be traced to the writings of Augustine, one of the ancient fathers of the Catholic Church. Augustine wanted to reconcile traditional Christian views about the immorality of violence with the necessity of defending the Roman Empire from invading forces. He asked what one should do if one sees an individual attacking an innocent, defenseless victim. His response was that one should intervene and do whatever is necessary (but only so much as was necessary) to protect the victim, even up to the point of killing the aggressor. Further developments of the theory were provided by Thomas Aquinas, who provides a natural law justification of the violence used in self-defense. Medieval codes of chivalry also have something in common with just war ideas. But the theory gets its most systematic exposition in the work of early modern theologians and jurists such as Francisco de Vitoria, Francisco Suarez, and Hugo Grotius. In more recent times, just war ideas have been instituted in international law, which asserts the right of a nation to defend itself against aggression, while also calling for protections for civilians and prisoners of war. These ideas can be found in international conventions, as well as in the Charter of the United Nations and other treaties signed by world powers.