{"id":8287,"date":"2013-12-12T14:41:20","date_gmt":"2013-12-12T14:41:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/12\/12\/machiavelli-arendt-and-virtues-private-and-public\/"},"modified":"2013-12-12T14:41:20","modified_gmt":"2013-12-12T14:41:20","slug":"machiavelli-arendt-and-virtues-private-and-public","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2013\/12\/12\/machiavelli-arendt-and-virtues-private-and-public\/","title":{"rendered":"Machiavelli, Arendt, and Virtues Private and Public"},"content":{"rendered":"

An important but troubling thought is conveyed in a recent NYT op-ed (emphasis added):<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Machiavelli teaches that in a world where so many are not good, you must learn to be able to not be good. The virtues taught in our secular and religious schools are incompatible with the virtues one must practice to safeguard those same institutions.<\/strong> The power of the lion and the cleverness of the fox: These are the qualities a leader must harness to preserve the republic.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The problem as I see it is that (i) the pacific virtues the practice of which makes life worth living within families, between friends, and in such institutions of civil society as churches and fraternal organizations  are essentially private and cannot be extended outward as if we are all brothers and sisters belonging to a global community.  Talk of  global community is blather.  The institutions of civil society can survive and flourish only if protected by warriors and statesmen whose virtues are of the manly and martial, not of the womanish and pacific,  sort. And yet (ii) if no  extension of the pacific virtues is possible then humanity would seem to be doomed  in an age of terrorism and WMDs.  Besides, it is unsatisfactory that there be two moralities, one private, the other public.
<\/span><\/p>\n

Consider the Christian virtues preached by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount<\/a>.  They include humility, meekness, love of righteousness, mercy, purity of heart, love of peace and of reconciliation.  Everyone who must live uncloistered in the world understands that these pacific and essentially womanish virtues have but limited application there.  (I am not using 'womanish' as a derogatory qualifier.) You may love peace, but unless you are prepared to make war upon your enemies and show them no mercy, you may not be long for this world.  Turning the other cheek makes sense within a loving family, but no sense in the wider world.  (Would the Pope turn the other cheek if the Vatican came under attack by Muslim terrorists or would he call upon the armed might of the Italian state?)  This is perfectly obvious in the case of states: they are in the state (condition) of nature with respect to each other. Each state secures by blood and iron a civilized space within which art and music and science and scholarship can flourish and wherein, ideally, blood does not flow; but these states and their civilizations battle each other in the state (condition) of nature red in tooth and claw.
<\/span><\/p>\n

The Allies would not have been long for this world had they not been merciless in their treatment of the Axis Powers. 
<\/span><\/p>\n

This is also true of individuals once they move beyond their families and friends and genuine communities and sally forth into the wider world.  <\/span><\/p>\n

The problem is well understood by Hannah Arendt ("Truth and Politics" in Between Past and Future<\/em>, Penguin 1968, p. 245):<\/span><\/p>\n

     The disastrous consequences for any community that began in all<\/span>
     earnest to follow ethical precepts derived from man in the singular<\/span>
     — be they Socratic or Platonic or Christian — have been<\/span>
     frequently pointed out. Long before Machiavelli recommended<\/span>
     protecting the political realm against the undiluted principles of<\/span>
     the Christian faith (those who refuse to resist evil permit the<\/span>
     wicked "to do as much evil as they please"), Aristotle warned<\/span>
     against giving philosophers any say in political matters. (Men who<\/span>
     for professional reasons must be so unconcerned with "what is good<\/span>
     for themselves" cannot very well be trusted with what is good for<\/span>
     others, and least of all with the "common good," the down-to-earth<\/span>
     interests of the community.) [Arendt cites the Nicomachean Ethics<\/em>,<\/span>
     Book VI, and in particular 1140b9 and 1141b4.] <\/span><\/p>\n

There is a tension  between man qua philosopher\/Christian and man qua citizen.  As a philosopher raised in Christianity, I am concerned with my soul, with its integrity, purity, salvation. I take very seriously indeed the Socratic "Better to suffer wrong than to do it" and the Christian  "Resist not the evildoer." But as a citizen I must be concerned not only with my own well-being but also with the public welfare. This is true a fortiori<\/em> of public officials and people in a position to  influence public opinion, people like Catholic bishops many of whom are woefully ignorant of the simple points Arendt makes in the passage quoted. So, as Arendt points out, the Socratic and Christian admonitions are not applicable in the public sphere.<\/span><\/p>\n

What is applicable to me in the singular, as this existing individual concerned with the welfare of his immortal soul over that of his  perishable body, is not applicable to me as citizen. As a citizen, I   cannot "welcome the stranger" who violates the laws of my country, a stranger who may be a terrorist or a drug smuggler or a human trafficker or a carrier of a deadly disease or a person who has no respect for the traditions of the country he invades; I cannot aid and abet his law breaking. I must be concerned with public order.  This order is among  the very conditions that make the philosophical and Christian life possible in the first place. If I were to aid and abet the stranger's law breaking, I would not be "rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's" as the New Testament enjoins us to do.<\/span><\/p>\n

Indeed, the Caesar verse provides a scriptural basis for Church-State separation and indirectly exposes the fallacy of the Catholic bishops  and others who confuse private and public morality.
<\/span><\/p>\n

NYT op-ed<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

\nRelated articles<\/legend>\n
\n
\"\"<\/a>The Theological Virtues and the Scientistic Virtues<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Hannah Arendt<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Reading Recommendation – The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt: The Last Interview: And Other Conversations by Hannah Arendt<\/a><\/div>\n
\"\"<\/a>Op-Ed Contributors: Why Machiavelli Matters<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/fieldset>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An important but troubling thought is conveyed in a recent NYT op-ed (emphasis added): Machiavelli teaches that in a world where so many are not good, you must learn to be able to not be good. The virtues taught in our secular and religious schools are incompatible with the virtues one must practice to safeguard … Continue reading “Machiavelli, Arendt, and Virtues Private and Public”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[39,48,17],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8287","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-human-predicament","category-social-and-political-philosophy","category-virtues-and-vices"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8287","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8287"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8287\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8287"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8287"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8287"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}