Hierarchical ethics and moral progress
I have just discovered a wonderful page by Jan Garrett at the University of West Kentucky. It is very specifically about hierarchy ethics versus enlightenment ethics. She actually uses the term "hierarchy ethics" to describe the ethics that existed before the enlightenment. She rightly and illuminatingly identifies it in the context of an entire philosophy of hierarchy. She also identifies expressions of that ethics from philosophers of the period, noting that the ethical theory began at least with Socrates and Plato, and reached its pinnacle of development in the Christian theological ethics of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Presumably, of course, Socrates and Plato were articulating an ethos that had existed for much longer before them, however.
In the hierarchical theory of ethics, absolutely everything was related in some way to a 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 can be seen 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 for African slaves, as we have seen.
This conception lasted for thousands of years and seems to have fitted and shaped whole societal structures in that time. But it could not fit the industrial revolution, with its emphasis on growth and change from the bottom up. New philosophies were needed to accommodate the potential of the new system. Before anomalies emerged in the old paradigm, everyone's best interests seemed to be served to play their part in the grand (hierarchical) scheme of things. The rulers were to use their wisdom for the benefit of society, which benefited the serf, who served the lord for his benefit, and so on. But the industrial revolution demanded a flexibility from the workforce that required that lower-class people--occasionally, at least--attain a standard of living that effectively elevated their class. This proved to be a serious anomaly in a system where everyone had a firm place in the hierarchy that revealed their "superiority" or "inferiority". It indicated to the common man that he could do better than simply put up with the station into which he had been born. Given that the Age of Enlightenment was largely a middle-class movement, it seems reasonable to imagine that it had, in part, a meta-theoretical motive of bourgeois ambition. But certainly enlightenment thinkers could argue that their ethics benefited everyone, as Adam Smith argued of capitalism.
The industrial revolution therefore created serious anomalies that could not be explained by the old paradigm. This was the first requirement for moral progress, that the society actually recognise occurrences of immorality or injustice within itself. The paradigm shift from the hierarchical ethic to the Enlightenment ethic was tumultuous. One can see it reflected in the tumults of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Haitian Slave Revolt resulting in the eventual foundation of the independent black island nation of Haiti, and the American Civil War. But the fact that this great shift occurred was the second requirement for moral progress. The third, as evidenced by both history and contemporary beliefs, is that no one wants to return to the days of slavery, indentured servitude or rigid hierarchy, and we have not regressed.
In the hierarchical theory of ethics, absolutely everything was related in some way to a 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 can be seen 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 for African slaves, as we have seen.
This conception lasted for thousands of years and seems to have fitted and shaped whole societal structures in that time. But it could not fit the industrial revolution, with its emphasis on growth and change from the bottom up. New philosophies were needed to accommodate the potential of the new system. Before anomalies emerged in the old paradigm, everyone's best interests seemed to be served to play their part in the grand (hierarchical) scheme of things. The rulers were to use their wisdom for the benefit of society, which benefited the serf, who served the lord for his benefit, and so on. But the industrial revolution demanded a flexibility from the workforce that required that lower-class people--occasionally, at least--attain a standard of living that effectively elevated their class. This proved to be a serious anomaly in a system where everyone had a firm place in the hierarchy that revealed their "superiority" or "inferiority". It indicated to the common man that he could do better than simply put up with the station into which he had been born. Given that the Age of Enlightenment was largely a middle-class movement, it seems reasonable to imagine that it had, in part, a meta-theoretical motive of bourgeois ambition. But certainly enlightenment thinkers could argue that their ethics benefited everyone, as Adam Smith argued of capitalism.
The industrial revolution therefore created serious anomalies that could not be explained by the old paradigm. This was the first requirement for moral progress, that the society actually recognise occurrences of immorality or injustice within itself. The paradigm shift from the hierarchical ethic to the Enlightenment ethic was tumultuous. One can see it reflected in the tumults of the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Haitian Slave Revolt resulting in the eventual foundation of the independent black island nation of Haiti, and the American Civil War. But the fact that this great shift occurred was the second requirement for moral progress. The third, as evidenced by both history and contemporary beliefs, is that no one wants to return to the days of slavery, indentured servitude or rigid hierarchy, and we have not regressed.
Comments