The hierarchical ethic: A falsifiable ethic
Much of the following material comes from my entries between 10 and 20 March:
Jan Garrett at Western Kentucky University speaks of an ethic that she calls "hierarchy ethics"1. I also refer to "The Great Chain of Being" by Peter Suber of Earlham College, Indiana2.
This hierarchy ethics reflects the dominant forms of Western thought prior to the Enlightenment period. "The West" refers to Europe, West Asia, and North Africa and "the Enlightenment period" refers to the 1600s through 1700s.
The ethical theory began at least with Socrates and Plato. It reached its pinnacle of development in the Christian theological ethics of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.
This ethics presupposes a metaphysics known as the Great Chain of Being. This metaphysics can be found in the writings of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz3. The top of the chain represents perfection in the highest degree, which most believers in the chain call God. The bottom of the chain represents the least possible perfection, which is nothingness (as opposed to evil), and every point on the chain above the very bottom has some degree of perfection. Absolutely everything in the world was related in some way to this hierarchy. There was a general hierarchy of things in the universe from material elements to animals to humans to angels to God. There was a general hierarchy of all human beings in relation to each other, from children to adult women to adult men. There was a hierarchy of social classes, from unskilled workers, to subordinate craftsmen, to master craftsmen, to civic officials, to the king. This system was reflected in the hierarchies inherent in medieval feudalism, from serfs to the landed gentry, to the nobility, to royalty, to divinity.
In a hierarchical ethics, the higher is naturally or metaphysically better than the lower being. The lower levels serve the higher levels, and the higher levels command or give shape to the lower levels. Also, the purpose of the part is to serve the purpose of the whole: the parts of the body serve the whole living body; the parts of the species serve the species as a whole; the parts of a social unit serve the social unit as a whole. The higher members or powers of a whole are also parts of the whole. Therefore, the higher members as well as the lower members of a society or social unit have obligations to serve the whole. Thus the higher-ranked members of a society or social unit have a special obligation to develop the good character and intelligence needed to serve the whole properly. And so the lower members normally--at least in theory--benefit from the special activities of the higher. It follows from this that exploitation of the lower ranks by the higher is contrary to the spirit of the ethics, but of course, practice does not always match perfectly with theory. Some kings, for example, were no doubt good and some evil, with some upper ranks exploitative and others benevolent. But it is important to note that even under the hierarchy ethics, no one in principle had to submit to an authority who exploited them, which would become important in the case of African slaves in later centuries.
The fixed position of each human being in the hierarchy would be determined from birth. Hence, we would expect that whatever position in the hierarchy at which someone was born, that was where they would remain for their whole lives. Lower positions in the hierarchy were subservient to higher positions. Hence, we would also expect that slaves would meekly submit to their masters, because they were suited to be slaves from the kinds of beings that they were born as.
If human beings started out high in a hierarchy and ended up at a lower position, this would contradict the theory. If people started low in the hierarchy and ended up in a higher position, this would contradict the theory. Both sets of circumstances would suggest that one was not really made of superior or inferior stuff. One would be advancing or declining based on one's individual merits of performance instead. In the case of slaves, if slaves rebelled against their masters, this would also contradict the hierarchical ethic. If slaves were likely to revolt, this would indicate that they were not really suited to slavery after all. This in turn would suggest that they were not naturally on any lower rung of a hierarchy.
The hierarchical ethic was refuted by the emergence of capitalism. Capitalism enabled people to change their positions in the hierarchy with much greater freedom than anyone could have dreamed of in feudalism. This completely destroyed the notion that some classes of human were inherently superior to other classes. Likewise, the revolt of African slaves against their masters suggested that they were not really suited to slavery after all. It also created the distinct impression that slavery was cruel and inhuman after all.
Hence, the hierarchical ethic has been conclusively refuted. It would not occur to anyone today to want to return to the ethics of either slavery or social stratification, and in fact the very existence of capitalism makes the old ways impractical. People must be free to change their positions according to the laws of supply and demand. Efficient capitalist social functioning demands no less.
1See her web page "Hierarchy Ethics versus Enlightenment Ethics" for further details.
2See his web page "The Great Chain of Being" for further details.
3References for these thinkers are as follows:
Descartes, René. Philosophical Essays. Trans. Laurence Lafleur, Bobbs-Merrill, 1964.
Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics, Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, and Selected Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley and Seymour Feldman, Hackett, 1992.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays. Trans. Daniel Garber and Roger Ariew, Hackett, 1991.
Jan Garrett at Western Kentucky University speaks of an ethic that she calls "hierarchy ethics"1. I also refer to "The Great Chain of Being" by Peter Suber of Earlham College, Indiana2.
This hierarchy ethics reflects the dominant forms of Western thought prior to the Enlightenment period. "The West" refers to Europe, West Asia, and North Africa and "the Enlightenment period" refers to the 1600s through 1700s.
The ethical theory began at least with Socrates and Plato. It reached its pinnacle of development in the Christian theological ethics of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.
This ethics presupposes a metaphysics known as the Great Chain of Being. This metaphysics can be found in the writings of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz3. The top of the chain represents perfection in the highest degree, which most believers in the chain call God. The bottom of the chain represents the least possible perfection, which is nothingness (as opposed to evil), and every point on the chain above the very bottom has some degree of perfection. Absolutely everything in the world was related in some way to this hierarchy. There was a general hierarchy of things in the universe from material elements to animals to humans to angels to God. There was a general hierarchy of all human beings in relation to each other, from children to adult women to adult men. There was a hierarchy of social classes, from unskilled workers, to subordinate craftsmen, to master craftsmen, to civic officials, to the king. This system was reflected in the hierarchies inherent in medieval feudalism, from serfs to the landed gentry, to the nobility, to royalty, to divinity.
In a hierarchical ethics, the higher is naturally or metaphysically better than the lower being. The lower levels serve the higher levels, and the higher levels command or give shape to the lower levels. Also, the purpose of the part is to serve the purpose of the whole: the parts of the body serve the whole living body; the parts of the species serve the species as a whole; the parts of a social unit serve the social unit as a whole. The higher members or powers of a whole are also parts of the whole. Therefore, the higher members as well as the lower members of a society or social unit have obligations to serve the whole. Thus the higher-ranked members of a society or social unit have a special obligation to develop the good character and intelligence needed to serve the whole properly. And so the lower members normally--at least in theory--benefit from the special activities of the higher. It follows from this that exploitation of the lower ranks by the higher is contrary to the spirit of the ethics, but of course, practice does not always match perfectly with theory. Some kings, for example, were no doubt good and some evil, with some upper ranks exploitative and others benevolent. But it is important to note that even under the hierarchy ethics, no one in principle had to submit to an authority who exploited them, which would become important in the case of African slaves in later centuries.
The fixed position of each human being in the hierarchy would be determined from birth. Hence, we would expect that whatever position in the hierarchy at which someone was born, that was where they would remain for their whole lives. Lower positions in the hierarchy were subservient to higher positions. Hence, we would also expect that slaves would meekly submit to their masters, because they were suited to be slaves from the kinds of beings that they were born as.
If human beings started out high in a hierarchy and ended up at a lower position, this would contradict the theory. If people started low in the hierarchy and ended up in a higher position, this would contradict the theory. Both sets of circumstances would suggest that one was not really made of superior or inferior stuff. One would be advancing or declining based on one's individual merits of performance instead. In the case of slaves, if slaves rebelled against their masters, this would also contradict the hierarchical ethic. If slaves were likely to revolt, this would indicate that they were not really suited to slavery after all. This in turn would suggest that they were not naturally on any lower rung of a hierarchy.
The hierarchical ethic was refuted by the emergence of capitalism. Capitalism enabled people to change their positions in the hierarchy with much greater freedom than anyone could have dreamed of in feudalism. This completely destroyed the notion that some classes of human were inherently superior to other classes. Likewise, the revolt of African slaves against their masters suggested that they were not really suited to slavery after all. It also created the distinct impression that slavery was cruel and inhuman after all.
Hence, the hierarchical ethic has been conclusively refuted. It would not occur to anyone today to want to return to the ethics of either slavery or social stratification, and in fact the very existence of capitalism makes the old ways impractical. People must be free to change their positions according to the laws of supply and demand. Efficient capitalist social functioning demands no less.
Notes
1See her web page "Hierarchy Ethics versus Enlightenment Ethics" for further details.
2See his web page "The Great Chain of Being" for further details.
3References for these thinkers are as follows:
Descartes, René. Philosophical Essays. Trans. Laurence Lafleur, Bobbs-Merrill, 1964.
Spinoza, Baruch. Ethics, Treatise on the Emendation of the Intellect, and Selected Letters. Trans. Samuel Shirley and Seymour Feldman, Hackett, 1992.
Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Discourse on Metaphysics and Other Essays. Trans. Daniel Garber and Roger Ariew, Hackett, 1991.
Comments