Duty Revisited with Edits

Marcus Tullius Cicero was a self-made lawyer who had a lifelong interest in philosophy. He held the highest offices in the Roman Republic, was allied against Gaius Julius Caesar, and was the man who wrote those letters which were rediscovered by Petrarch and helped begin The Renaissance. For this statesman, we must keep in mind his affection for the Stoics, those self-denying moralists like Seneca who cared more for a body yielding to reason and being governable rather than pursuing pleasure. This was also a common Roman attitude during his time. Thus, we find in his On Obligations a senior statesman at the end of his days, with all the experience that came with it over two thousand years ago, in 44 B.C.

So, for Cicero, all actions must be both honorable and useful. The honorable (honestum) is the result of being consistent with the four cardinal virtues. These themselves are the result of rational thought, and Cicero gives them the names of Wisdom, Justice, Beneficence, and Magnanimity. They are equivalent with the Platonic Virtues as well, those being Fortitude, Temperance, Prudence, and Justice. Wisdom is prudence and respect for what is true. Justice mainly consists of fighting only in self-defense, while also seeing to it that public property is used for public use, and private for private. It’s worth noting here that he quite literally means property, since distribution of lands was a common issue for the Romans. Beneficence is responsible giving of one’s wealth, without impoverishing oneself or destroying one’s patrimony. Finally, Magnanimity is that quality of being beyond the mere physical needs of the body, which then allows for courage and public service.

Taking all this together, Cicero then explains that there is a method for determining the precedence of an action when the above virtues come into conflict. As a statesman, he recognized that there are always competing decisions, and so when in conflict, the welfare of the state takes precedence over others. He then ranks duties (officia), and says the first is to the gods, the second to the state, the third to parents, with others following after that. The status of children is unknown, but friends would have to be high on that list, particularly because both Cicero and Seneca make so much of that kind of relationship. As example, if a given action would benefit the state, but be impious, then it should not be done. From there, Cicero gives a particularly Roman definition of what is useful.

Aligning himself with the Stoics, Cicero thinks that the pursuit of pleasure is more akin to being an animal than a human being, since humans possess reason, create communities, and have the capacity for friendship. Indeed, the stresses of public office are such that anyone wanting pleasure from office would have to be a madman. Or a reality T.V. star. In defining “useful” for Cicero (utile), he refers to two types: animate and inanimate. The animate consists of animals and their husbandry, the inanimate those roads and aqueducts which have lasted for two thousand years. So, far from pleasure, utile as a word denotes a thing that ameliorates life, like cultivating more grazing land or bringing about better access to water. It is worth noting that Cicero does give a little space to the comparison between useful things, but its application requires a Roman outlook. He uses a story of Cato the Elder as an example. In it, Cato is asked what the most useful kind of domestic property is, to which is responded “good grazing land.” He is then asked further questions about the same, but each response just refers to a lesser kind of grazing land. He is then asked what he thought of money lending, which Cato then compared to murder. He’s pretty damn right.

I said this was a particularly Roman answer; the problem was that it took me some time to realize it. This is because we have to remember that the Romans define themselves as farmers before anything else, and so the cultivation of the land will always be better than any amount of money. Cato and Cicero are also members of the senatorial class, which means that they are self-owned, and have private fortunes. That is, they have their private incomes to get their living, and so are supposed to guide the state in the best manner because they would theoretically be beyond reproach. Think of this attitude, then apply it to a slumlord like Crassus, that third leg of the First Triumvirate we never talk about, because such is the fate of businessmen. Therefore, water and food will always be more useful than money to them.

I will now move onto what Cicero thought to be his original contribution to the conflict between the honorable and the useful, and that is what to do when the honorable is in seeming conflict with the apparently useful. To begin, he was perceptive enough to recognize that what is seen and what is true can be different, and so care and judgment are needed when contemplating a given action. While the useful varies, the honorable will be consistent, so when weighing an apparently-useful deed, one must ask if it violates a virtue from the list above. If it does, then it is shameful and must not be done. As a result, Cicero then states that the honorable and the useful are the same, in a kind of harmony, because with his ethics there is no honorable action that is not useful, and no useful action that is not also honorable.

I have given here what I think is an essential accounting of Cicero’s ethics across the three books in the On Obligations. It might be better, however, to formulate the above in a more prohibitive or negative sense than in a positive.

To that end, do not be false to trusts or Truth, pursue war aggressively, steal, give away excessively of your wealth, be a coward, or give in to the pursuit of pleasure. These are dishonorable because doing so violates the common humanity everyone shares, and harms the unity of the state. When these things come into conflict, it is the safety of the state that takes precedence. To that end, pursue things which are useful for the community, for they are also good for the individual. Next, the apparently useful must be weighed against the honorable, and if found contradictory, must not be done.

Having formulated Cicero in these ways, I want to make a point about longevity. His On Obligations was written in 44 B.C., after the assassination of Caesar. It eventually became the second-most-printed book of the Gutenberg press. That is, second only to the Bible. Henry VIII had a personal copy, though esteem is different from emulation. While Cicero’s works were used for both the entrance exams and college classes, how often On Obligations was assigned is a matter for further questioning up through the 18th century. Still, the fact that he has lasted so long is a testament to his ideas, especially because he had to apply them daily while being a public figure, all while risking his own life. He did eventually become a casualty of the chaos after Caesar’s death, the story being that Mark Antony had his hands chopped off and nailed to the door to the Senate because of Cicero’s Philippics against him.

Edit:

In considering how we might apply some of Cicero’s ideas today, let’s look at a few domains in the United States where they might be useful.

First, let’s look at modern politics and the virtue of Magnanimity. To reiterate, it’s courage plus self-denial. For the first part, the statesman must be willing to have an opinion, which means risking others’ displeasure because of what one thinks, and he must be willing to fight and die for the benefit of the state, which is inherently honorable. As for self-denial, this derives in part because the pleasure-seeker has as many levers to manipulate him as he has pleasures. Does he like money? Pay him off. Does he have a weakness for trannies? Send two. You then own him, and so he is no longer in control of himself, and cannot benefit the public by his office.

This is why we should be concerned that a former President of the United States was paid $400,000.00 to speak for an hour after leaving office. That is to say, a full-year’s presidential salary from the banks who should have been torn asunder after the financial crisis nearly a decade ago. This, which counts as using public office for private benefit afterwards, is disgusting to me, reviling in the extreme. What should be a quiet, contemplative retirement to one’s books with rare forays into public life has been become a business move by which one can simply profit by holding office and benefiting from those whom one bailed out. We also find this in the House and Senate. Next, remember that the sitting president’s family did not divest itself of financial interests before holding such public offices.

Be Adams, Truman, or Carter after office. Emerge from the mass to lead for a short while to the best of your ability, and to it return quietly.

Next, let’s look at Beneficence. This is effectively urging fiscal responsibility and fiscal conservatism, the idea being that you should not destroy what wealth your forebears made in order for you to have the lifestyle you enjoy. Naturally, we’re looking at the senatorial class, membership in which was decided upon by the censor, the office for which Cato the Elder was famous. This was quite literally the man who decided if you were wealthy enough to participate in the heights of Roman politics. Should you spend too much, then you might slip from the class, and so shame your entire family’s history, and also destroy your family’s future because of that. This attitude then transferred to the state’s treasury, the idea being that debt was deplorable. It’s worth noting that both the Romans and early Christians hated money lending, as above, hence why usury and bankers were considered low.

Be only as generous as you can without harming the integrity of what money you have.

Has this changed? Not so much in two thousand years, the difference being today that bankers pursue monetary utility while transferring the risk from themselves to the taxpayers. As for the national budget, consider that the national debt is nearing twenty trillion dollars, and that nothing has been done in the last two administrations to rein it in, pay it off, and not burden future taxpayers with the mistakes of Iraq and bailouts. This will only lead to the young hating the old for their frivolity, which leads to a repudiation of filial piety, upon which political continuity rests to some extent, and which is represented by a statue sculpted by Bernini which serves as the Western example of piety. Cf. Pious Aeneas.

Justice is that virtue which is best represented allegorically with a grim woman with the scales in one hand, the sword in another. In arguing for defensive war, Cicero would then argue that the seeming usefulness of an offensive war is contrary to Justice, which holds that no human being should assault another without the first violating the peace. Next is his argument about keeping private property private, public public. While he does mean only lands, today we might extend this to the public treasury. That is, the public treasury must only be used to benefit the public, never a private individual. How often do we find that some politician did not disclose a conflict of interest, wherein he profited in some fashion from the decision to go with a particular company? Being a Hoosier, the City Hall over in Muncie comes to mind, along with the current push for so-called “school choice,” wherein the only real choice is the charter school’s choice of whom to let in, all the while profiting off of the backs of children. Of children. It also implies objectivity and allowing arguments to stand on their own.

Is it unfair, militarily aggressive, a violation of of the peace or common decency? Then don’t do it.

Finally, Wisdom. Being a proper respect for Truth and its pursuit, in applying this notion, I’ll give a short indictment of the modern college. To begin, anyone who pays a little attention to the modern college will note that it is not only too expensive, but also that the bachelor’s degree is worth little on the market. With rising costs and lessening value, why do we still push for every kid to get that degree? As best as I can tell from studying and speaking with my older professors, the notion of college as being a means to a job began in the sixties. The college used to be a way into the professions, to be a lawyer, statesman, physician, or theologian. They all studied the same curriculum for the most part, which we call the Liberal Arts- those skills acquired by cultivating Greek, Latin, and the famous authors and superior thoughts of their writers. This began to change in the 1890’s or so, ultimately giving us Wilson’s address to the universities in 1910, warning of overspecialization, which stands in direct contradiction to the curriculum in part envisioned by Martianus Capella in the fifth century A.D.

Thus, we have a too expensive, specialist-bent “education” which only gives a narrow skill at the end which will quickly become useless because of the changes in the skills wanted by employers. The best method to combat this would be to re-generalize the college, drastically reduce the cost by getting rid of all the ridiculous frills- top-heavy administrations, sports programs, these absurd dorms which feel like hotels, etc. We might then return to a conversation about what is worth knowing, and can then craft a real curriculum around that, one which requires classes in a certain sequence in order to build that humanistic education envisioned by men like Petrarch, and argued for my Matthew Arnold in Culture and Anarchy. Anything other than this betrays the search for Truth, especially a love of money. See above for that. A love of tenure, conferences, publicity, and eventually the opportunity as an emeritus to write bad textbooks that sell for an absurd price while being required for classes betrays the real motive. I haven’t even addressed how bad their prose is, but I’ll let the reader try to remember his textbooks for his survey courses.

Do not sell your mind, your intellectual labor, nor your soul to the highest bidder. Better to be Socrates than an Ivy-League toady.

In applying Cicero to the above circumstances, we note time and again how easily people can be manipulated, used, and violate the virtues he refers to. The best solution is to take a serious attitude to public affairs, including teaching, which Cicero does define as public service, and make oneself cautious to what appears to be useful. Since he is focused on the community, his ideas are easily transferable to the local level, though at such a level there is the fun of having a face-to-face element of politics, assuming one isn’t in a big city. These being so, I think the above examples are representative, and demonstrate that good ideas have a hard time dying.