Reinventing the Greek Polis (Chapters 1–3)

Nick Shipley
Aug 24, 2017 · 45 min read

Introduction:

The issues of today’s mindset and governmental framework: Given that the framework has become more complicated at the same time that political philosophers have been marginalized in order to not solve complicated issues.

The Importance of Philosophy

“For there is a risk in raising it [a question], perhaps there is no greater risk.

-Nietzsche

Both Locke and More reduced and marginalized philosophy to something of a profession to solve the little quirks in everyday life which are not too profound; leading to the conclusion that philosophy is useless, as at its core it is to think profoundly in order to solve or better understand issues. This very notion makes philosophy useless as it restricts its scope: it essentially turns a philosopher into a doctor for society, prescribing medications, when a philosopher used to be the scientist making the medicine for the problem, while also identifying it: A philosopher used to find the problem, and attempt to solve it with rational, reflective thought.

However, in today’s liberal world, thanks to Locke, he is now a mere tool of the market, enhancing the individuals interest by solving “every day” issues instead of attacking the underlying issues which cause them. This “control” over the philosopher is a safeguard for liberalism, as without it, the political philosopher would attempt to solve the bigger issue that is liberalism; the anti-political, self interested, community corrupting ideology that it is.

This goes for any age, though liberalism is the issue needing solved today; philosophy is useful in that it is always attacking the status quo, offering a small window of knowledge showing what could possibly be better in alluding to what is currently wrong. With it being restricted to every day issues, its value is destroyed and it becomes utterly useless.

This essay will shed light on the issues that self-interest poses, as well as other issues in today’s political universe, of which are furthered by tyrannical self-interest.

The Difference of Our Current World

With the rise of the Empire came problems with politics; the polis became convoluted to a point beyond recognition. This is due to the shear size of Rome compared to Greece. To combat this, institutions were created in order to maintain the polis in some artificial manner. This saving grace of politics is still in work today, as nothing else has been put forth, as though the world still acts like Rome: This is not the case. In today’s world, a few things stand out that are highly influential in human affairs, and that cannot, inherently, be a polis.

International organizations, interdependency of states, and the shear complexity of governance should recommend a call for something new to save politics.

The Primitive Polis is Dead

Participation by the commoners is still advised, and will be expanded upon later. Quote taken out of context, yet take it as heroic action; speaking in the common polis.

So that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on any body.

1 Thessalonians 4:12; NIV Bible

I propose this needs to be radical: the primitive ways of politics, of the polis, is dead, and can not and will not work again, that is until the time before the fourth world war.

We have progressed to an age when the plebs are at the disadvantage of this shear complexity of the interdependency and inner workings of the international system, they have no hope to comprehend it, therefore a polis, in a traditional sense, is absolutely useless.

I propose that the only way to successfully maneuver in this complex world is to restrict the polis to scholars who can comprehend it. As an illustration I will use international relations, something the Romans had to deal with way less than us today. International relations are some of the most complex complexities which the plebs are hopeless to today, so it makes an excellent example, and what I propose is The Council of Foreign Relations. This is a rough conceptualization of the idea of a restricted polis.
(Read below of The Council of Foreign Relations.)

These highly specialized compartments are a rethinking of the Roman institution. Action still takes place within them. The change is that the ones acting are ones with hope to comprehend such a complex world, one far more complex than Caesar saw.

The Council of Foreign Relations

Why is it that we entrust a few different compartments of government — all of which have to “agree” to a certain extent within boundaries, and of which are not educated in all of the issues — to make all governmental related decisions. Instead of non-specialized, loosely agreeing compartments, I see no reason as to why highly specialized compartments would not do better in making decisions.

Take for example foreign policy. As of now in the United States, the job of proposing and making foreign policy is the role of one person, the President. This obviously leads to failure, as one person is influenced heavily by his ideologies, socialization, and other factors; all of which will lead to a foreign policy that is not pertinent; one that does not address the real issue, or one that addresses it incorrectly, possibly leading to issues or weakened international relations.

Instead, imagine that foreign policy is made within a small Council, of which the members are highly educated in foreign policy and are elected purely on merit. This Council should be completely autonomous in its decisions. This would be a better system because the Council would be more apt to foresee what the consequences of implementing a policy might be, understand why it is the countries they are dealing with are acting as they are, and know better exactly what should be addressed and with what expertise, these three among many other reasons shows why this system would be more prudent than our current system.

As an example, take George Bushes foreign policy decisions, starting with the generalization of “the axis of evil.” Because the decisions were made by one, intensely patriotic person, who saw these three countries inherently against the United States, deadly wars pursued with great losses. Had 9/11 occurred with a Council of Foreign Relations in place, different outlooks would have been looked for, and war would have been more of a last resort if it were to occur at all: this, however, is an assumption, as a theoretically body it is hard to know exactly how it might act. But even so, because the Council is made up of scholars specialized in the field, ideologies and preconceived notions about countries are less likely to influence decisions. As history shows, ideologies can be disastrous in achieving an apropos policy.

Abstract Concept

This “highly specialized” polis would be many different councils, all working towards the res publica. The only ones who can comprehend what is happening governance-wise today are scholars. It seems as though not even the ones in charge fully understand it, if they did they would be making different policies than they are; the ones in charge seem to be less influenced by education, which might help foresight of what will happen with the implication of certain policies, and more influenced by ideologies.

The councils would combat this issue, as scholars in the field of the policies being made would be influenced most by what works best, and not what aligns best to their socializing factors. Because of the educational nature of the councils, plebs emphatically cannot be involved, as education is the foundation; not just education, but a high understanding in one area, a specialization, a scholastic comprehension of what needs to be done. And while scholars may be influenced by ideologies, it would be a more “pure” sense of ideologies, ones founded in educational differences opposed to socialization differences. Example being a realist vs. a constructivist vs. a liberal in terms of the council of foreign relations.

The “State of Nature”

Political theories are seemingly usually based on the “state of nature” of humans; or in short human nature. The theories then aim to fix human nature, or control it with some construct. From Plato — which I will propose — to 20th century writers, human nature is a central point. For Plato many would say that no state of nature was present as he never explicitly stated it, however, I will argue that Platonic state of nature is one that is harmonious: which is why philosopher kings work, as they are in place to keep harmony in balance. I draw this because, for Plato and the Greeks, politics resided within the natural sphere, and because — as Aristotle stated — humans were political creatures. If politics reside in and are based off of nature, and if humans are political creatures, then we can conclude that Platonic state of nature is one that is harmonious: as to the Greeks nature was inherently so. This lead to the idea that philosopher kings should rule, as they are, in a sense, “nature’s prophets”, as their goal is to maintain the harmony through contemplating what is best to achieve this. If this were the state of nature that Plato would agree with, it is simply a reflection of the time he was born into.

Fast forwarding to the 16th century, the theorist Thomas Hobbes described a conflictual state of nature; one where humans could not get along, as he witnessed the British civil war, and with this witnessed brothers killing brothers: if not even statesmen can get along, then no humans can, at least without government. This gives rise to the Leviathan, a contractual society which aims to combat mutual destruction given that human nature is inherently in conflict.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, theory has moved in an ideological direction, however the distinction of human nature is still important; especially in liberalism. In liberalism, it is noted that humans are self-advancing creatures that have themselves in mind. I agree with this statement, however I do not stand by the idea that this is a good thing, and that society should be built around the idea of individuals achieving greatness at the expense of others given they are the most acquisitive — as long as a few liberties are not violated. This is a despicable way to think about human nature: We were given rationality in order to combat our animalistic nature through political means, not to exploit our nature for selfish means.

The point I am driving at here is that in designing a solution to something as broad as “politics” it is first important — in my opinion — to describe or evaluate human nature; because as Aristotle correctly notes, humans are creatures which have the capacity to interact; and this is what makes us distinction human, as it is rational to be political. This section serves as a good prelude into the next.

Special Interest and Human Nature

It is observable throughout history that, arguably, the majority of humans act egoistically. While egoism is flawed as a general theory that accounts for all human actions, it is not flawed in the idea that self-interest is a motivating factor in human decisions. This nature is what has given rise to special interest groups, of which have led to the perversion of the constitutional system of government.

With this human nature, the constitutional system will require periodic “rebooting” to get the interests of individuals or corporations out of politics; this will lead to an age of prosperity, but as time goes on, egoism will inevitably rear its ugly head once again in the form of special interest groups, or something similar to them.

To explain this allegorically, think of a computer. A computer that gets bogged down by viruses and has to be wiped clean, set back to its original settings, is inferior to a system, if one were to be created, that requires no reboot and could continue on a path unhindered.

Highly specialized councils may not be what can constrict human nature from invading politics, but I propose that it may at the very least be a better alternative. If, for example, the scholars in the council were elected by their universities, the scholars would have uninterested approaches to making policy. This is, of course, if their University was not pressuring them to make favorable policy, but in this case I do not see much that the council could do in favor of them; this being compared to a corporation who loans a politician copious amounts of money in order to run a successful campaign, this politician will clearly be indebted to the corporation, leading to bad policies that favor it.

Animal Versus Human Nature

Aristotle noted how everything in the universe seemingly had a purpose, therefore, thinking that humans did not have one seems paradoxical: When examining what makes humans distinct in this universe, Aristotle and countless others note that it is rationality — this is what I will call animal nature: because, in a perfectly harmonious world of pure nature, human’s role is to construct nature in a way he sees rational; one example being tools which are created from nature in order to better survive.

This is evident in a world where one human exists perfectly with nature, however, once many different rationalities start coinciding in a small area — pluralism — human nature is created out of animal nature, and is a perversion of it. As another rational entity resides within nature, therefore it is then in animal nature to construct this entity in how the constructor sees fit: however, the one in this construction will do the same. Each rational human will try to get ahead of another in any way possible; leading to, if they succeed, a society in which they see fit; in their interest.

This may show how the human nature of Us can naturally lead to tyranny — the tyrant being the most cunning. Because of this dilemma, legitimate governments are the solutions to combat this — as they arise out of a conglomeration of rational beings, not just the victor of a competition — which naturally arises out of pluralism.

This is why a polis was successful and why it is the most primitive: as the only “obstacles” within politics were people, nothing else making the world complex today was even of concern, or was even conceivable. The polis itself allowed for legitimate government, the zoon politikon being what creates it; as the polis was an interaction between the citizens of a city, the common-rationality.

This is not how issues are solved today. As now in place of the polis we have social contracts, which is not between rational beings of the whole city, but between few. THIS does allow for tyranny to take place, as the common-rationality has disappeared, allowing the most cunning to be the most powerful — Social contracts replacing the polis is why we can better see today than in any other time period in history what human nature is: self-interest — as there is no longer a polis structure to keep it under wraps.

After Thoughts and Quotes: Introduction:

The Importance of Philosophy:

Philosophy, according to Locke’s directive, ought to promote the “advantages and conveniences of human life”; its concern ought to be with the everday world and its ambitions satisfied by the modest improvements possible there. The increase of wealth and conveniences provided “a large field for knowledge; proper for the use and advantage of man in this world…Why should we bemoan our want of knowledge in particular apartments of the universe, when our portion here only lies in the little spot of earth where we and all our concernments are shut up?”

Sheldon Wolin on Locke.

…when I said philosophy had no place among kings… For by bringing in other stuff that nothing appertaineth to the present matter, you must needs mar and pervert the play that is in hand, though the stuff that you bring be much better…play that as well as you can and make the best of it, and do not, therefore, disturb and bring out of order the whole matter because that another, which is merrier and better, cometh to your remembrance.

Thomas More’s Utopia addressing when and how philosophy should be used.

The Difference in our Current World:

I will attribute the rise of complexity to the time after WWII that the UN became popular, this gave rise to the love affair of international organizations. This, combined with the rise of apathy of the Reagan era of politics, which was explored in later section[s], shows why we need a change.

The Primitive Polis is Dead:

In this I propose that the polis is dead, however I say the traditional polis, this needs to be emphasized, as later on I propose a new dual polis system. The polis can never be killed, and this needs to be emphasized, as I am just trying to kill the traditional sense of a polis.

Council of Foreign Relations:

This is different from group think in the fact that there are many different groups, which may be similar, however the people in these groups are solely involved in their council: This removes the problem of having interests of other groups influencing decisions. Also different from group think, there is not one person in charge. The subtle differences that can be noted between councils and groupthink show that the Council can prevent deadlock situations moreso than what we have in place today.

Abstract:

The ideas of Council dilute power in two ways, both of which help avoid tyranny. The first dilution of power is that there are many different councils; because of this, each council does not maintain very much power by itself, as it is a complex system working together. The second way that councils dilute power is that there are many individuals within each council, this makes it so power is spread out within each council, and each councils power is spread out throughout many councils. Both of these help combat a tyrannical structure from forming, as making one would be very difficult within this construct; this is at the construct-level, there are also different measures to combat tyranny within the realm-level too.

· Construct-level being that which is the idea of the government structure.

· Realm-level being that which is of the polises, and how issues are agreed upon to be acted upon.

The “State of Nature”:

Aristotle on politics and their interconnectedness to humans:

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

Hobbes on the state of nature:

During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that conditions called war; and such a war, as if of every man, against every man.

Special Interest and Human Nature:

As defined above, human nature is one that is egoistic; that is, the individual is the motivating factor for all decisions; in other words, it is self-interest that drives the individual.

An example to illustrate this can be shown in the animal kingdom, as humans are animals after all, and this overarching animal nature can never be gotten rid of. The example I will use is of the Lioness, one who just had a litter of three cubs. This Lioness find herself in a time of great drought, not the best time to have a litter of cubs. As Richard Dawkins says, carrying on genes is very important, obviously, however if the ones who have the genes cannot sustain themselves, then it is in the best interest to have the carrier of genes that can sustain themselves survive. So, in this allegory, the Lioness has to choose between the food they find between herself and her cubs. So, she kills all three. Did she do so because it is in the Lion’s nature to be violent towards other lions? Absolutely not, it is simply in her self-interest to kill her cubs.

Bringing this back to humans, Hobbes would suggest that humans — which we have to remember are animals — are intrinsically violent towards one another; however if this were the case, in the allegory of the lions, the Lioness would have killed the cubs simply because it was in her nature to do so. But obviously she did not, as a species can not survive if this is the case, it will drive itself extinct.

Chapter 2:

Morality:

Morality is important as it allows people to live harmoniously with each other, given that the morals are grounded in a common culture — therefore have a clear distinction. This will be important later in law. There also seems to be universal morality — which arises out of the “culture” of humanity itself, and societal morality — which is specific to specific cultures; given the cultures history and what it is, and has faced, in the past.

The Importance of Morality as a Human Activity

Without morals the world would politically, as well as otherwise, be anarchic. Morals create a foundation to act in accordance with the res publica; this makes morals inherently important for politics. Whether it be Kant who is defining morals or Mill, the human activity of being moral always results in the betterment of the self, and the public. It can be drawn from this, that the commonwealth requires morality, and morality’s role within the commonwealth is to benefit, and not harm, it.

This is important for government, because government is directly a human activity; without humans there would be no politics, without politics there would be no humans. Because of this, if morals were to be stripped from the foundation of politics, cast away being seen as unimportant, then politics would be led down a path of destruction — along with humans. If at the smallest level of human interaction, say person to person, it is seen as completely permissible to not act morally — morally being defined here as contributing to the commonwealth — just because it is not concerning the state as a whole, then this leads to issues. This issue is that, humans being free to act immorally on the smallest level, which is not in accordance with the common good, will also inevitably be free to act as such even in the highest levels of human activity.

Whether leading a nation, or conducting a transaction between you and one other person, you are still a human. And as a human you have a moral duty, a duty to contribute to the common good, as the common good concerns you, your family, and the populace.

Aristotle says that moral virtues have to be practiced in order to be perfected. One can not rise to power without first being the opposite; because of this, morals are important at all levels, if someone were to rise to power without strengthening their moral virtues, then the government would intrinsically be immoral. Which in turn harms the commonwealth as laws would be made and enforced with the commonwealth not being of main concern.

Moral Obligations of Society

With it being said that morals are important to society in that it allows for a moral government — which will then make correct laws — it needs to be defined more thoroughly what exactly constitutes morals; or more specifically, what is moral obligation (as it has been defined that that which is moral is that which benefits the commonwealth). In a utilitarian perspective, this comes to light very vividly in [names] trolley thought experiment. A train is barreling down the train tracks towards an individual — of who you may or may not know — and there is a switch allowing the train to change course, but in the other track you have mistakenly parked your very expensive car. The question then, is, what do you do? The answer most stable-minded people would give would be that you change the course of the train in order to save the individual.

So, are you then morally obliged to do this? Many would say yes, which leads whoever claims this into a trap; as one who says this is then morally obliged to give the money they are saving up for vacation to starving children, as these cases are not dissimilar. When this is brought to the attention of the questioned individual, they might agree, or they may come up with a clever answer of saying that you are only obliged when they are within your vicinity. And this answer alludes to the distinction that I will make between being morally obliged, and morally compelled; with this distinction made, it should be said that in the case of the trolley example, people are morally compelled to save the individual: This may be because of psychological factors or other processes within the brain, perhaps instinctual in nature in order to save another biological entity that has similar genes to you: preservation of your own kind.

If there is a distinction between moral compulsion and moral obligation, then what is it, and how does this help society? I will claim that the only thing that humans are morally obliged to do is that concerning other individuals: Do onto them as if they are you. This cliché has been around for centuries, which should hint that it carries some truth to it. This is important as it allows for a harmonious society in which those who reside act altruistically. This, of course, is very hard to achieve given the egoistic nature of humans, however for this very reason it is good that these should be the guidelines for a moral life. So, with the one obligatory action of morality laid out –of which encompasses many actions in a day to day life — it is now important to explain moral compulsion.

When someone gives to charity, helps a man on the street who needs it, or does anything else altruistically, it is said to be a moral action: but is one really obliged to act in that way? If that person had not done the action, were they immoral? In some blatantly extreme situations — as in the trolley example, one who does not help would most certainly be seen as immoral — but I would say that they are called such because they are or were psychologically inept in the moment in time; that is, they did not feel compelled to do the obviously moral action. Here the distinction was just made between obligation and compulsion, and obligation may lead to compulsion in some situations. Obligation is to treat others as yourself, compulsion is to help people who are clearly in need because some trigger in your brain tells you it is the thing needed.

An example to bring out the answer of one only being obliged to help if the other be within the vicinity can be shown in an example. If you are standing on one side of a wall minding your own business, and someone on the other side of the wall is bleeding to death, are you obliged to help them? It should be said that this is an obvious no, as you would probably have no idea that it were happening; so, in the case of the trolley, are you really obliged even if you are oblivious to the injustice that needs your help? No, the distinction is that once you learn about the injustice, you are compelled to help, and if, after learning, you are not compelled, you may be an immoral person, but this is not because you are failing your obligation; it is because some trigger did not go off inside your head.

How does this at all relate to “A New Polis”? It relates because it has been said that a moral society is a good one, and saying this without defining what moral obligations are makes the claim less of a good one. As it could simply be restated that a society that upholds its moral obligations is a desirable society, and one that is morally compelled is all that much better, however not required to live harmoniously; as if there are guidelines that one be morally obliged to follow, the chances of self-interestedly motivated exploitation are lower. And as such, the commonwealth is strengthened, as if everyone was truly treated as one’s self, then the interest of everyone would be in heart: the common-interest being created simply from that of the self-interest.

Moral Framework of Society

The importance of morality and the obligations of such has been explored. Now it may be of some use to examine why — what I will call moral framework — of society changes, and how this can be good or disastrous given whom the change of such is allotted to: though the change usually belongs to the younger generations, which it rightfully should.

What I mean when I say moral framework is that which is viewed as right or wrong; this can then affect policies. This is different from moral obligation, because moral obligation is just what one is required to do unto others. Moral framework can influence obligations — in a sense — by first defining how the individual should be treated, in a societally universal way, absent from any other individuals. Simply stating the golden rule is not enough, as there are loopholes to get around it; slavery is justifiable by the golden rule if only we view the slaves as sub-human: In this case you do not have to do unto them justly as you would like in return. In history, which is not plagued by tyrants, the moral frameworks of society gets more and more progressive as time goes on. This can be attributed to the younger generations, whom are not bound to irrational views of their grandfathers, however refine and build on their father’s generation’s framework. This leads to a progression in morality — which can be so gradual that it goes unnoticed for centuries; or held down by parental propaganda — which is a good thing, as it then leads to liberating policies, leading to the ultimate good of freedom.

This is a similar view, albeit two different phenomena, to the Greek idea that the political nature is in constant change due to the younger generation, though immensely radical changes never occur: this unabated, natural progression leads society down a path to an ultimately free society.

Thus arises a natural question after reading these last few paragraphs: what is it that would hinder this natural growth or progression? In short, the tyrant, or the tyrannical self-interest encompassing all societal phenomena. As an example, take Hitler. Hitler’s views shaped German society in every way possible, including the moral framework; the disastrous outcome of this fact was the degradation of human rights — specifically towards Jews. This unnatural, abrupt, change led to disastrous result: and though the weak argument could be made that a tyrant changing the moral framework may not always lead to disaster, it is no doubt that the self-interested morals of the tyrant will not be in favor of the common good. Under tyrants there is no moral progression, as the morals resemble his. Without progression of morals, society can never reach its ultimate stage of pure freedom that it is working, unconsciously, towards.

In a dual polis system, as well as others, specifically the American Republic, this is not an issue; as the people decide upon morality, unconsciously and naturally, in an ultimate move to liberate all those whom morality concerns: Human-kind.

The Importance of Culture

“Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.”

-Nietzsche

Culture is important for society as it serves as an independent and communal foundation of values that is distinct to the species of humans. This basis is beneficial as it allows for encompassing and binding morality, however, as with all things that have potential to be good for society — it can be perverted or exploited, leading to disaster: Perversion is an unintended result of post-modern greed, which produces products to be consumed with a lack of concern with consequences; exploitation is an intended result of tyranny, it is when a tyrant morphs culture to fulfill his self-made — therefore self-interested — destiny.

The foundation culture creates is one that describes a specific society’s morals — which have survived as they have helped this specific society survive. This may lead to crude and seemingly immoral values, however as my last section described, these morals will naturally evolve and improve. Nevertheless, the culture that gives rise to morals, whether good or bad initially, is in the end a good, as it allows a society to start its march towards freedom: A society void of any culture could not do so.

Furthermore, culture encompasses the entirety of a society, leaving no woman without its influence. As Nietzsche described it, the valuations of culture were an expression of the needs of community. These needs are undoubtedly in favor of the common good, no matter how much Nietzsche denied such a good existed.

All of this may seem contradictory to my ideas on human nature, as it seems to suggest that human nature, when in a group — bound by culture — is to act in one another’s interest: the herds interest. However I would argue that this is not the case, as human nature exists before culture is present; Cain killed Abel, not out of violence or conflict, but out of interest; the same goes for the story of Romulus and Remus: and both of these stories are before any form of culture existed, of which would have condemned these murders.

Beyond this fact, self-interest can control and change culture in its image, not the opposite — this suggests the true nature of humans; a nature which can dangerously control the masses by simply taking control of its herd instinct: This is a favorite tactic of the tyrant. A widely used example in this century and paper is Hitler, as he seems to be the modern archetype: A tyrant who uses all the tricks in the book to advance his own interest; and culture does not escape his grasp. Hitler, after becoming the Führer, changed German society abruptly, and for the worse; morphing the herd instinct into one of national survival through intensive nationalism, which regarded nothing as too extreme as long as Germany was kept in-tact — which left little room for conventional morality. This abrupt change allowed Hitler to create an “army” of citizens; becoming a shepherd for the flock of Germans, directing them where to go, and where they were herded was in Hitler’s, and not their own, interest: it was out of the herds-interest.

This is the apparent danger in culture, it is one of the most malleable, yet powerful, forces of society. This malleability leaves an easy to exploit phenomenon for the tyrant. However, as without the foundation that culture provides, a society can not start its natural march towards freedom, it can not and should not be castaway in the fear of tyranny. This is where a dual polis system excels, as it does not leave room for exploitation in the area of culture, much like it does not leave room in other areas commonly exploited which have been, and will be, explored in this paper.

Another danger that is hidden within culture is the chance that it be perverted accidentally through greed of corporations — or if this be too far fetched a claim, then the mass consuming culture that the West has become consumed in. What Nietzsche would call mass-culture is what I am describing here; however it has advanced to a much more dangerous level than Nietzsche could have ever dreamed of with the emergence of the Internet. The Internet, and corporations that gain wealth by using the Internet, creates a new form of mass-culture; one that can be accessed at the touch of a button, making it easier for people to conform to certain ideals. A paradox present in this issue, however, is that the mass-culture that can arise out of the internet can also give rise to conflicting cultural ideals, leading to discrimination and hate. This paradox aside, the uniformity that comes out of social media and other forms of media in the post-modern Western world is dangerous, as uniformity is almost always anti-political, as the individual is marginalized.

The two dangers defined above inherent in culture were described and feared by Nietzsche as well, albeit it guised in a different fashion. Nietzsche was afraid of two perversions of culture: An ultra-restrictive culture, and a culture which dissolved from a normative regulation of morals into a conformity of mass-culture.

The first fear is similar to my fear of the tyranization of culture, as it seems that cultures that are too restrictive reside within countries that have tyrannical governments to enforce these restrictions: This is blatantly present in China. As Nietzsche laid out, a culture that is too restrictive does not allow for the Few to surface, of whom can help the survival of the species.

The second fear is the uniformity of culture with the rise of mass-culture. This is dangerous as uniformity also holds down the Few, though it be in a different, and less obvious, therefore perhaps more scary, way. Another issue with mass-culture is it seems that morality in this type of culture is less than desirable when compared to traditional culture, this is apparently a danger as the only advantage of culture for society is simply as a foundation of morals: Without morals present in a culture, all that is advantageous about it is the exploitation of individuals by self-interested companies. This is all on top of the issue of mass-culture being anti-political uniformity.

The dual polis system is an attempt to alleviate these fears, as it imposes little restriction while attempting to combat mass-culture — though it does less so to combat the latter. Since it was stated that restrictive cultures seem to thrive in countries that have governments to enforce the restrictions, a restrictive culture would not be present in the dual polis system; this is because in such a system it is the people that have the power over the government, and not vice versa: and if it is the case that restrictive cultures reside within tyrannical governments, then a restrictive culture could not be present in a system which aims at being the opposite.

After Thoughts and Quotes: Morals

The Importance of Morality as a Human Activity:

Kant’s idea of if something was moral or not was if it fell into the guidelines of his categorical imperative –also if it was done from will and not in accordance to it. In the categorical imperative, one has to will that it is possible that everyone acts as you do. In this sense, it is if you can will it be done and still be good towards the common wealth.

There is … only a single categorical imperative and it is this: Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

Mill’s idea of morality is utilitarian with an impartial outlook: do what has the best outcome for all involved. In this sense, again, it is what is best for the common wealth. This is if we broadly use utilitarianism to be so.

The great majority of good actions are intended, not for the benefit of the world, but for that of individuals, of which the good of the world is made up; and the thoughts of the most virtuous man need not on these occasions travel beyond the particular persons concerned, except so far as is necessary to assure himself that in benefiting them he is not violating the rights — that is, the legitimate and authorized expectations — of any one else. The multiplication of happiness is, according to the utilitarian ethics, the object of virtue: the occasions on which any person (except one in a thousand) has it in his power to do this on an extended scale, in other words, to be a public benefactor, are but exceptional; and on these occasions alone is he called on to consider public utility; in every other case, private utility, the interest or happiness of some few persons, is all he has to attend to. (Mill 1992 [1861], pp. 64–66.)

Here, Mill’s utilitarian view is shown as a utility of self-interested individuals which make up society. With my view of the common good as being the self good, any utility that is in accordance with self-interest is also in accordance with the common-interest.

Aristotle’s virtue ethics states that virtues like courage and things of that like have to be practiced and perfected — they can not be taught. This fits loosely into my construct, as I say morals have to be practiced and perfected in a person before they reach office.

The virtues arise in us neither by nature nor against nature, but by nature we acquire them, becoming complete through habit. We take the virtues by first exercising them, just as in the other arts. For when we learn to make we learn by making, e.g., we become builders by building and lyre-players by playing the lyre, and so too we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. (Nicomachean Ethics II.1.1103a)

Chapter 3:

Law:

Law should arise out of morality, and have the same concerns of such: the commonwealth.

“I have the right to do anything” you say — but not everything is beneficial.

-Corinthians 1: 23; NIV Bible

On Criminal Law

A prevalent issue in America today is that of our punishment system; it is unnecessarily developed, has a very high rate of incarceration, of which most are petty criminals, and it is a drain on the commonwealth. We treat are prisoners as animals, though unlike animals we do not consciously take on the responsibility of them, yet still are. This analogy is made because animals, once taken in, have requirements for life, which costs money, yet do not contribute to the good of humans: another disanalogy, however, is that animals are taken in by one or a few people, not the society as a whole. This leads to a deterioration of the commonwealth for two reasons: the prisoners are not contributing, and while not contributing they are taking.

Prisoners are put in jail, when rightfully done, as a form of punishment; if almost anyone was asked the question of what was taken away from a prisoner by the jailer, which acted as the punishment, most would say his Freedom. But, how is Freedom defined in this case? If the person was then asked this question, they would most likely answer something along the lines of the person losing the ability to will as he wishes. This, however, is what I will classify as a secondary Freedom. The primary Freedom is the Freedom to human interaction; the Freedom to conduct politics: Politics is Freedom, and Freedom is politics. To illustrate this, look at the slave, the slave can not conduct politics, the slave is not free; however, the slave is not entirely restricted to do as they will. Think of the prisoner, the prisoner can not conduct politics, the prisoner is not free; again, jail does not entirely restrict what the prisoner can and cannot do. This is the distinction between primary and secondary Freedom.

With this laid out, we can ask the question of what a system would look like in which the prisoner is not a detriment to the commonwealth, however is still being punished for his heinous crimes. Before answering this, I will say that only crimes which harm the commonwealth are ones to be punished.

Sir Thomas More in his book Utopia was inspired much by this same question; alluding to the ancient Persians and Romans, which, arguably had it right for their time; prisoners were punished, while still contributing to the commonwealth. However, Utopia was written 500 years ago, and this thought needs modernizing. As stated, the primary Freedom of humans is the Freedom to interact whenever and wherever and whatever they choose. So, the best way of punishing someone is to take away this primary Freedom; this, however, does not require a building to corral all criminals. The way to punish criminals, and still have them contribute to the commonwealth, while not taking away from it, in todays times, is to have them continue their life as they had prior to their crime — assuming it was not one of theft, murder, pillage, or rape — with human interaction being restricted. If, however, the criminal had been doing a crime which harmed the commonwealth as their income, they should have their secondary Freedom’s taken from them as well, and be assigned a job for the commonwealth.

In the former punishment, criminals would undoubtedly learn that the crime they were committing was not worth the punishment of isolation from interaction between others; But, because isolation is a harsh form of punishment, sentences could not be as long as they are now; this is with the exception of recidivists, which clearly need a longer isolation period. This form of punishment allows the criminal to still contribute their forte to society while not being a burden.

With the punishment now laid out, the next question would have to be how it could be pulled off. And with this question, we have to take an example from the ancient Persians; they have to be marked so people know it is in the common interest to not interact with the “marked”. It is in the commoners’ interest to not interact with them, because if they were to, then criminals could run rampant and not be held back by any form of punishment. The Persians cut off parts of the criminal’s ear in order to distinguish them, along with special clothes. However, this is too brutish in our current society; instead I propose a temporary tattoo could be used. This tattoo would just be a date with a symbol indicating that it is a prisoners date; the date would be that which people could again start interacting with the criminal.

This leads to the question of, what if the criminal, prior to being indicted, had a job that required social interaction? And to this question I say there is not much to be done, but find a job for them that requires none. An example being if someone were a fast-food cashier prior to being indicted, then during the time of punishment they would have to do the janitorial work, or the financial work, or any other type of work that does not necessarily require interaction with others.

With this system of punishment, the commonwealth could thrive, even when faced with criminals who intend to harm it.

From this section comes the empirical definition of Freedom: Freedom is first and foremost the ability to participate politically; Secondly, Freedom is the freedom of choice — in matters of religion, marriage, career, etc. Freedom is Politics and Choice.

Freedom, Equality, and Liberty

To make more clear the definition of Freedom being made I will dedicate a small section. Freedom is first and foremost seen as that which is political — mainly concerned with individuals being able to interact within the polis; however, more modern conceptions of what political is as well. These more modern conceptions are things like: freedom of speech, freedom to run for office, civil disobedience, right to court, right to private property, and things of the like that are modernly political. This is the Primary Freedom of humans within a society.

Secondly, what is of importance is that of choice. Humans should be free to choose how they live — for the most part, as long as it does not harm the commonwealth. This entails, naturally, the citizens have the right to certain choices; the right to marriage, the right to worship, the right to work or not and where, the right in deciding where to live, the right of choosing whether to donate or not — and the list goes on and on. These Secondary Freedoms are more abundant than the Primary Freedoms, and are also more ambiguous, as some may be culturally related; however, given that a specific choice is culturally related, does not make it allowable that that government can then enact a law unequally.

Later, a Tertiary Freedom will be defined, one related and confined to economics.

Equality plays and important role in the Freedoms above, in that if these rights do not reside within all people’s, then Freedom is not present; as for these Freedoms to be truly manifest in what is called Liberty, requires that they be held in common. And, if they are not held in common, then the society or government which is inhibiting this equality is not said to be a free society — naturally.

In an abstract sense, equality is Freedom, or maybe more so that Freedom is equality. In that that which is free is that which is equal, given the framework of what should be equal: Politics, Choice, and Economics.

Later the breakdown of equality, therefore the breakdown of Freedom, will be shown in an empirical light — as in today’s time, it appears that, for the most part, the polis, as well as other Primary Freedoms, can be bought or inherited unequally; also, laws are enacted unequally regarding choice, making it less common: These facts show that Freedom is being impeded upon today.

The Council of Justice

Tocqueville realized an important, yet scary, point when examining Democracy in America; this is the idea of the “majority tyrant”: the majority’s interest should be seen as no different from that of an individual’s interest — especially when it comes to justice. Just because the majority has decided upon one thing, does not give it the right to allow the majority’s interest to romp over the minority’s in a the name of, or the façade of, the commonwealth. In America, this poses an issue, as the minority has no one to repeal to: public opinion is that of the majority, the executive is elected by the majority, the judicial branch is elected by the executive, and so on as Tocqueville describes. All of these bodies in which the majority should be able to repeal to are actually just that which advances the majority’s interest.

What can the dual-polis — or more specifically council-system offer that combats this issue of democracy? I propose a Council of Justice, a council which is different from every other as described; as every other council is homogenous in terms of its scope, they are specialized bodies that are restricted to that of their specialization and of the common-concern/interest. The Council of Justice is different, however, as they are not necessarily bound to either of these — I will describe this in depth soon. However, first I think it would be helpful to jot out a quick definition of Justice.

Earlier, I have described how, in an abstract sense, Freedom is equality: Equality in the Freedoms citizens should have: Politics, Choice, Economics. This can become a more empirical observation throughout the paper, in that I show that the wealthy having a better chance at having their voices heard in the public realm is not a characteristic of a free society: as in this sort of system equality is inherently impinged upon. So, if the relation is made between Freedom and equality in this way — in that they are essentially the same in nature — then I contend that Justice is simply that which aims to ensure this equality, the Freedom of the zoon politikon in their quest for their individual distinguishment. That which is Just is that which preserves both — He who is Just is He who does not impede upon either. This can be extrapolated into a real world sense — when someone says that Justice has been done, they are really saying that equality and therefore Freedom has prevailed.

With this laid out, one can naturally assume the role of the Council of Justice: it is to preserve equality; equality in laws, outlooks, scenarios — anything relevant in society. This naturally can not look as the other councils do, as the other councils it is scholars within certain fields, mostly political and economic, which examine the common-concern and act in a specialized and educated manner in accordance with that which is common; there are, however, no scholars in Justice — that sounds absurd. So, then, who is to be in this council? Philosophers. These philosophers would be rather disconnected from the dual-polis system, yet still consisting within the council-polis. Their role would to be to first examine the laws being pushed through that are supposedly in the common-interest; the scope of their examination should be if it is truly common, and not just in the majority-interest alone: As common should include all not most. I feel this council would best work with philosophers, as they could see into it with the most profound insight required; they could possibly see an inequity that the scholars are missing when pushing through laws — this is an advantage of their disconnect. They could also create frameworks which the political and economic scholar can not — those which are philosophical in scope, yet deal with the idea of Justice.

An example could be marriage laws; an issue today which impedes equality — it needs to be pointed out that equality is mostly inherent within Primary Freedoms, however exists within Secondary Freedoms as well: Equality of marriage is a Secondary Freedom. Philosophers would first create a framework that shows why people have the right to marriage and what makes it so. This is something that the other councils would overlook, and what legislators today DO overlook: as today it is purely an ideological battle. This council would “cleanse” the ideologies clouding legislation. This framework being put into place first would allow for specific laws to be placed within the framework.

With the specific example in mind — A law was passed impeding upon purple people to marry green people? Well, does this law adhere to the framework of the inherent reason as to why people are allowed the right to marriage and what gives them this right? More than likely, a law prohibiting certain people certain rights will not fit into the Council of Justice’s framework. As any framework would most likely consider the rights of people, not groups.

This combats the tyranny of the majority, as even if the majority did not want purple people to mix with green people, it would not matter: as the philosophers would see that it was actually out of the common-interest to constrict the right of marriage, as it is unjust, regardless of if it is in the majority-interest.

This may sound a lot like Plato’s philosopher kings — and this is where I draw the idea from; as philosopher kings were displaced from society, and pondered upon what would lead the society to the ultimate good. However, placing all power within the philosopher kings is a bad idea, in my opinion, which I will get into later, but which is not important as of yet. This idea of the Council of Justice is that philosopher “kings” still have their role, but the role is not to lead society, but to more-or-less perfect society — purging the impurities of ideological self-interest.

The Council of Justice is also similar to America’s supreme court — loosely. In that the Supreme Court checks laws to make sure that they cohere with the constitution, morally and legally. This, however, is confined to the constitution itself, plus the Supreme Court is essentially that which advances majority-interest. As the majority elect the executive, and the executive elects the Supreme Court. I think the issue intrinsic in that fact alone makes it inferior to the Council of Justice; as even the slightest notion that tyrannical self-interest invading the supposed protector of Justice is a scary and dangerous one. And, since the constitution can and is interpreted by the “justices,” with the fact that they are, in a sense, elected by the majority, makes this notion that much scarier.

Morality and Law

Above it has been defined that what is moral is that which is conducive to the commonwealth: what naturally follows from this is that there are universal moral laws which all societies follow — as commonwealths hold certain similarities. This framework is what allows for a simple basis for self-evidential truths about what laws are correct, and which are not: and because there is a universal framework, and because laws should be to uphold the commonwealth, then what follows from this is that laws should be moral — as they both uphold the commonwealth: It may not be the case that morality is required from law, but that for a law to be correct it necessarily has to be moral. So, one may ask if a duty they are doing is moral, and therefore should be allowable by law or punishable by law. And this question is simply framed given the framework above: Is the action that I am performing 1. Contributing to the commonwealth, 2. Taking away from the commonwealth or 3. Neither.

In the case of contribution to the commonwealth, the action is seen as moral, and therefore should be permissible by law. This is the most self-evident of the three above: as there is no reason that anything which benefits everyone involved — society — should not be allowable by law. An example of this would be charity, which contributes to the well-being of society — there is absolutely no reason a rational being could give as to why this should be unlawful: and by these guidelines it is not.

If an action takes from the commonwealth, then the action is immoral, as it harms others, as well as the person harming it — as this person’s interests reside within the commonwealth as well. Because of this, the action should inherently be unlawful and punishable as such. This is self-evident as well, however not as much as the others above, as there are some petty actions which may be harder to discern as being immoral and unlawful, or something that should not be of too much of a concern to create a law. However, given the immoral action is not as petty as swimming in a lake that advises you do not, it should be an unlawful act. A clear example of this is murder: Murder takes away from the commonwealth in that it takes the life of a human; the life that is taken away is valuable to the commonwealth in many different ways. One way that it is valuable is that this life more than likely has a family attached to it, of whom will suffer after the death, which will make them less contributive to the commonwealth, and may become a burden. Another reason as to why it takes away is that the person was more than likely contributing herself to the commonwealth by perfecting their own naturally given talents; taking this away takes a valuable commodity of the commonwealth.

The third, that the action neither takes nor contributes, is not a question of ethics at all, and therefore is not a question of law. As such, it will not be expanded upon.

These three, or more specifically two, forms of actions show that there are laws which are universal, and self evident — as generally, most societies will have commonwealths that are similar in fashion; and truths such as murder and theft takes away from this good will be true for all commonwealths, of all ages, of all cultures. However, this is not to say that culture and society does not play a role in morality, therefore law. It does, however the role may be more arbitrary in scope.

The first way in which culture and society play in this is that commonwealths, while generally similar, may differ in some more arbitrary ways. This will then lead to different laws, as what may harm one societal commonwealth may not even be existent in another society: If the issue is not even in existence, then clearly there will be no immoral or moral actions to be done about it. Because of these — slight — cultural differences, there will be different laws throughout different cultures — however the laws that do differ will be mostly arbitrary, as all societies will have universal laws in place.

Another way in which culture plays a role, one that is more important than above role, is how the universal law is interpreted. As an example, it may be a universal law that murder is wrong, however, how the society goes about actually making that a law is open to that culture’s interpretation: In such way as — is it sometimes okay to kill given circumstances, is it always wrong, etc. However, at its basis, it is a known fact that murder is inherently wrong.

Just Laws

With all that has been said above, it is not inherently in a law’s nature to be Just, however, by induction and in practice, all laws must be just. This is because laws are only concerned with that which promotes the commonwealth; and, as defined, Justice is that which upholds equality and Freedom. With these two distinctions, laws do not have to be Just when immediately thinking about the question: However, as the main common-concern among citizens is that of equality and Freedom, then no law will be created that harms this conception: as laws are based on morality, which is to uphold the commonwealth; and if Freedom is the most common-concern of all, then any law passed that inhibits such will be seen as not an upholding of the commonwealth, but a tearing down of it.

In this way, Justice and correct laws are very closely related, and correct laws might be dependent on Justice, however Justice itself is not bound to laws. However, given the scope of the universality of laws, the problem of a law both being Just and correct may never arise: As universality naturally entails equality. If it is wrong to murder, it is wrong for every human being to murder. If this is the case, then what is the true role of the Council of Justice? Because correct laws are universal, therefore will never impede equality — naturally — then what is the point of the Council of Justice — Which is to ensure equality among all citizens in terms of laws?

This may seem to make this particular Council arbitrary, however it does not. As it has been stated that different societies will have slightly different conceptions of what a commonwealth is, which may arise out of culture — of which influences conceptions of the commonwealth by first imposing the moral framework of society at its birth. In the cases of these laws, the Council of Justice is extremely necessary, as societal laws, which differ from universal (correct) laws, may impede upon equality, as societal laws are not inherently bound to universality — as universality is bound to the generality of all commonwealths.

An example of this could be as follows: A certain society has an abundance of green-stuff, which requires little to no work to acquire, the land naturally gives it. This green-stuff is also not on anyone’s personal property, however, at the same time, the government has nothing it can do with it — however, if given to citizens, it can advance the national economy as well as personal economies. So, the Council of Economics sees that it would be most advancing to the commonwealth that the most adequate business-men are the ones who should be given this green-stuff, as they are the ones who will be able to make the most out of it, advancing the economics of the commonwealth — and the common-concern of the issue is that the people want the best national economic value that can be had of this green-stuff.

In this thought-experiment, is this law Just? It may be societally “correct”, and it seems that it is not bound to any universal law, as the issue of green-stuff is not one that all commonwealths share. But, just because it is societally correct, does not mean that the law is Just — and in this case, the Council of Justice would see that any law passed by the Council of Economics which allocated this green-stuff only to the best businessmen, even with the commonwealth/concern in mind, is not Just — it is an attack on equality. Therefore, though economically the best decision may be to allocate this green-stuff to the best business-men — which most advances the common-interest of national-wealth — it does not coincide with the utmost concern of equality; and if equality is impeded in the façade of the betterment of the commonwealth in this case, then Pandora’s box will be opened, allowing other laws to be passed which interest’s other than that of Freedom would prevail. Luckily, the Council of Justice would not see that such a law is permissible, and therefore will keep Freedom in-tact by allocating this green-stuff equality — and it needs to be emphasized strongly in this case that no one has worked themselves for this green-stuff, it is given by mother nature herself to a specific region within her world.

This sheds light on the fact that universal laws will naturally be Just; however, societal laws may not be, and therefore require the Council of Justice to see that they are.

Societal Laws

As should be obvious given the framework of this paper, laws are created in such a way: The citizens see fit that there is an issue needing fixed — this can be a culturally seeded issue, an issue that has arisen naturally out of some disaster, an artificially made issue by some foreign government, and so the list could go for a while. After the citizens have done this, it is the role of Council in the area that the issue is of concern. After this has been done by the Council, it is then the role of the Council of Justice to see the law fit in terms of Freedom. Once this has been done, the citizens have to accept the law as legitimate, as it is an expert opinion of their own.

Can come from naturally occurring, yet different, circumstances; but most general arise from the culture engrained within a society, which creates a moral precept: this moral precept will affect what the citizens see as detrimental or beneficial to the commonwealth in more specific ways: However, universally, there are still truths in which every commonwealth would be harmed given the action was done.

After Thoughts and Quotes: Law

On Criminal Law:

A question that naturally arises after reading this section is: what about violent offenders, or offences that are not random — this is said because most murders are random acts of passion, therefore the ones who murdered are not inherently dangerous to society. And to this question the answer is obvious, the state would have to have some form of prison for these people, however it would not cost nearly as much as the incarceration rates would be significantly lower than they are today; as most people within America’s prisoner system are not habitually violent towards society, only a small minority are.

The Council of Justice:

Why is common-interest better than majority-interest? I feel its better simply because the notion of majority-interest forces those that are not in the majority, even though they may have different interests, to conform to the majority. This is anti-political and actually takes away from the common-interest, as then there are less distinct voices speaking out about what should be of common-concern. Furthermore, common-interest does not necessarily entail that one has to conform, because they have the power to attempt to change the common-interest: something that is near impossible in a majority, as a majority seems to be more ideologically driven — moved by passion and not Justice.

Plato on philosopher kings:

“[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship” (The Republic, 6.488d).

This could be restated to: A true “Justice” (analogously to a supreme court justice) of necessity must pay attention to that what makes a law Just if he is really to uphold Freedom.

In this case, “paying attention” is first figuring out what is fundamental within the law; in terms of what is Just, which naturally is in terms of equality and freedom.

In the case of marriage rights, it might look like this, which gives an idea of how the council would work. It could be “found” that the right of marriage is fundamentally a personal-freedom, therefore the construct of marriage should not depend on WHO is marrying WHO, rather, that an INDIVIDUAL is allowed to get married. This is just the surface, and the philosophy behind it could go deeper in order to create more solid laws, but even at the surface level it is apparent that any laws prohibiting certain people’s from marrying it inherently unjust, as it impedes personal freedoms of choice — secondary freedoms.

The great thing about this council is that it can help guarantee Freedom, and, as philosophy can go deeper and deeper, leading to the most fundamentally profound insight, laws can be very just, given they fit within the framework that the Council of Justice has put forth.

)
Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade