Humanities 3 IV. Skepticism and Self-Knowledge
Lecture 14 Gods, Kings and Tyrants
Outline Montaigne s Morality Shakespeare 101 James I and the Divine Right of Kings
Nature versus Convention Nature (phusis) = the way things must or should be; the natural order of things, or the order dictated by God. [But recall the Euthyphro problem: are things right/wrong because God wills them, or does God will them because they are right/wrong?] Convention (nomos) = what a society does, as a matter of custom or law, but what others might do differently without doing anything fundamentally wrong (styles of dress, food, music).
Crucial Questions What to say about morality (virtue/vice, right/wrong)? Is this merely conventional, or does it have a claim to be a set of standards that transcend societal conventions? Are there transcultural norms? Where do different practices fall along the nature/convention divide? Diet? Marriage? Sex? Gender roles? Religion?
What to say about religion? Erastianism: the clash among beliefs might lead one to conclude that religion is merely conventional: a set of practices that has no authority outside its recognition by the state (e.g. England in the 16th c.) Toleration as a moral value: Or, one might think that religion (freedom of belief) is so important to individuals that it ought to be recognized as a basic right, and that provisions ought to be made for protecting a diversity of religious beliefs and practices.
Toleration as a Moral Value In Western liberal societies, the second view (Montaigne s) wins out over the first. But note that this means subordinating religious belief/practices to the prior authority of morality, which cannot be identified with the position of any one religion.
Montaigne s Of Cannibals On the one hand, Montaigne points out that many claims Europeans make for superiority reflect merely conventional differences (clothes, marriage, diet) On the other hand, Montaigne depicts the people of the New World as being virtuous according to European standards. They exhibit courage, honor, love of their wives. (85-7) Cannibalism may be a barbarous act, but it is no worse than what Europeans do: it is more barbarous to torture a man than to eat him after he is dead.
Conclusions Not an argument for moral relativism, or the conventional character of all morality, but for the moral equality of the native peoples of the New World. There is something admirable about them, because they are in a natural state (82-3) On the whole, their society compares favorably with European society (86-7, 91-2) Virtue can exist even when the conventional signs of it are different (e.g. multiple wives)
Montaigne s Virtue: On Cruelty How to define virtue? Is it innate or acquired? Is posession of it a matter of luck? Can it possibly be true that to be good in practice we must needs be so from some inborn, allpervading property hidden within us, without law, without reason and without examples? (176) Among the vices, both by nature and judgment I have a cruel hatred of cruelty, as the ultimate vice of them all. I have a most tender compassion for the afflictions of others and would readily weep from fellow-feeling. (177-8, 179)
Are We Innately Cruel? I live in a season when unbelievable examples of this vice of cruelty flourish because of the license of our civil wars; you can find nothing in ancient history more extreme than what we witness every day. But that has by no means broken me in. (181) I fear that Nature herself has attached to Man something which goads him on towards inhumanity. (182)
Our Relation to Animals Our inhumanity should not be ascribed to what we have in common with animals: Watching animals playing together and cuddling each other is nobody s sport... (182) Theology herself ordains that we should show some favour towards them... (182)
Some exaggerate the closeness of animals to the gods, ranking them above humans (183-4) Montaigne rejects this, but he accepts arguments that confirm his own innate sympathy: when... I come across arguments which assay to demonstrate the close resemblance we bear to animals, and how much they share in our greatest privileges and how convincingly they can be compared to us, I am led to abase our presumption considerably and am ready to lay aside that imaginary kingship over other creatures which is attributed to us (184)
But that imaginary kingship is based on scripture And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. (Genesis 1:26)
Montaigne s Universal Morality There is a kind of respect and a duty in man as a genus which link us not merely to the beasts, which have life and feelings, but even to trees and plants. We owe justice to men: and to other creatures who are able to receive them we owe gentleness and kindness. Between them and us there is some sort of intercourse and a degree of mutual obligation. I am not afraid to admit that my nature is so childishly affectionate that I cannot easily refuse an untimely gambol to my dog whenever it begs one. (185)
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) Born in Stratford-upon- Avon, son of John Shakespeare, a glove maker, and Mary Arden--both from old Catholic families Attended local grammar school (Ben Jonson: small Latin and less Greek ) At 18 marries Anne Hathaway, 26, who was already three months pregnant
Between 1585 and 1613, Shakespeare wrote some 40 plays (as well as 154 sonnets and several other major poems) 1583 Birth of daughter Susanna 1585 Birth of twins Hamnet and Judith By 1592 Shakespeare is in London where he works as actor and playwright 1596 Death of Hamnet 1597 Buys secondlargest house in Stratford c. 1611 Retires to Stratford
Shakespeare and Montaigne While religion (Catholicism) lies in the background of their works, their themes are mainly secular Both are preoccupied with the diversity of human life and the patterns underlying this diversity They focus on issues of character and identity individuals who struggle with the question of their own identity, i.e., who they are individuals who fail in their endeavors because of a flaw of character
Elizabeth I (reigned 1558-1603)
England under James I Son of Mary, Queen of Scots (daughter of Mary of Guise, widow of Francis I of France) and her second husband Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. Descendent of Mary Tudor, the sister of Henry VIII. Ruled Scotland as James VI from 1563-1603, when he ascended to the throne of Great Britain, succeeding Elizabeth I. James parent were Roman Catholics; he was raised as a Protestant. With his wife, Anne of Denmark, he fathered three surviving children, including Charles who succeeded him in 1625 and was executed in 1649.
The Divine Right of Kings Prior to ascending to the English throne, James wrote two works in which he laid out his view of the absolute authority of monarchs. He presented the view in his speech to Parliament of March 1609. The issue is whether the king s policies and requests for funds are subject to the approval of parliament or whether parliament assembles only to hear and assent to the king s intentions.
Kings as Gods Kings are not only God s Lieutenants on earth, but are in effect gods themselves: Kings are justly called Gods, for they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine power on earth. Kings have, under the law of nature, paternal authority (Patriam potestem), which is the power of life and death over their children. As the head of the natural body (the nation), the king has the power of directing all the members of the body to that use which the judgment of the head thinks best. (p. 106)