When attempting to understand the nature of Cicero and his writings on human obligation, one must first grasp Cicero’s meaning of the virtuous life. For only in grasping Cicero’s denotation of individual virtue, may one comprehend the foundation upon which vitreous society rests in Cicero’s own terms. Insofar as this is true, this paper will seek to demonstrate that Cicero, as reflected in the second book of his De Officiis, sought to promote individual virtue as a necessary foundation upon which virtuous society may exist. Before proceeding however, a bit of historical context is necessary.
Cicero begins his narrative by morning the loss of Rome's adherence to proper governance. Citing the history of the Roman Republic and its inability to maintain stable leadership, Cicero believes that Rome has fallen into the hands of those who would rather subvert politics, rather than reform the political system through due process. For Cicero, such a decline in virtuous governance lies at the heart of Rome's decay. And it is under this operating framework Cicero proceeds to make known to his audience that his writings reflect not what the state is, but rather what the state was intended to be in its proper governing sense—namely, a state of integrity that is founded upon virtuous obligation. Thus, in an attempt to unravel such decay within the Roman Empire, Cicero offers a philosophical paradigm by which to turn the tide of Roman history towards virtuous living. Believing philosophy to be the telos of desirability, Cicero centers his argument on those aspects that make up virtuous obligation.
Cicero masterfully conveys the reasoning that what is just is also useful; what is honorable is also just; thus, what is honorable is also useful. Su...
... middle of paper ...
...iduals are motivated by virtuous action, and such action is done in the service of others through trust, a virtuous society may exist. Indeed, such a philosophical paradigm would seem to set the foundation upon which virtuous society may rest.
In the end, Cicero makes three things clear in his case for virtuous living. First, that sound reasoning is the foundation for understanding what virtuous obligation entails. Second, that to conduct oneself in a virtuous manner, when acting on obligation, is to live virtuously. And third, acting in accord with virtue, through trust towards others, is the first step in the creation of a society that acts virtuously. For Cicero, though one may practice only a portion of the above, only through adherence to all aspects related to virtuous living may Roman society return to its ideal form of existence—namely, a virtuous society.
...ation and well being of a country, people, and republic. “‘This was the noblest Roman of them all. All the conspirators save only he did that they did in envy of great Caesar; he, only in a general honest thought and common good to all, made one of them’”(998). Although a seemingly menacing traitor to his country at first, Brutus makes the journey to a sympathetic and noble tragic hero in the end.
The value attributed to the first virtue, wisdom, whose essence lay in “the perception of truth and with ingenuity,” concerns the comprehension of the nature of justice (7). In fact, Cicero asserts, within the public sphere, “unless learning is accompanied by the virtue that consists...
Roman emperor Julian the Apostate and Christian leader Antony both exhibited many qualities of character during their existence. Both of them led very distinctive lives although shared several ethical values. Book 25 of “The Later Roman Empire” and the book “Early Christian Lives” show concrete evidence of this. In the following essay, I will argue how both leaders’ lives were devoted to their religious beliefs and their mutual cardinal virtues.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
In this, we find the first commentary, which in fact mirrors history. Here we see that a society, as occurred with the Roman Empire, can grow only up to a certain point, after which it begins declining and decaying, due in part to the gross levels of comfort that its populace become used to. This reliance upon comfort leads to an eventual loss of civic virtue among the people of the society. Once virtue is lost, the moral framework which holds a society together begins to fail, and after a time, crumbles, leading to a collapse of the society itself.
Virtue ethics is a moral theory that was first developed by Aristotle. It suggests that humans are able to train their characters to acquire and exhibit particular virtues. As the individual has trained themselves to develop these virtues, in any given situation they are able to know the right thing to do. If everybody in society is able to do the same and develop these virtues, then a perfect community has been reached. In this essay, I shall argue that Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unsuccessful moral theory. Firstly, I shall analyse Aristotelian virtue ethics. I shall then consider various objections to Aristotle’s theory and evaluate his position by examining possible responses to these criticisms. I shall then conclude, showing why Aristotelian virtue ethics is an unpractical and thus an unsuccessful moral theory in reality.
Titus Livius Patavinius was a patriot who believed in the "purer morality" of the Roman Empire and Republic that had sustained its existence for so long. He also saw, however, a gradual decline in morality and virtue over time as Roman society became richer and more prone to greed. As a result of this observation, he did not trust that any modern ruler would possess the moral integrity of the great leaders of the past, but perhaps if they read his book they could learn from the good examples and be warned by the bad ones. Machiavelli also agreed that history should be studied and applied to the present, but he believed that when people read Livy, they took “infinitely more pleasure in knowing the variety of incidents that are contained in [Livy’s writings], without ever thinking of imitating them.” In other words, Livy’s account of Rome was more of a glorified fairytale which no one could possibly use as a reference for solving current problems so he decided to write a commentary explaining what he believed to be the real reasons for the rise (and fall) of Rome. Both Livy and Machi...
The assumptions of Cicero can be noticed when one inspects his view of the ideal
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
In the present world we’re often taught key principles in order to live a flourishing life. Young children especially are often reared in school to become successful, and be the best they can be; and be a good person. We pose the question what does it mean to be a good person? According to Jacques Thiroux & Keith Krasemann mentions, when individuals apply these virtuous behaviors into their daily lives it promotes a decent human being (Thiroux & Krasemann, pg 78). This paper will examine the argument how having virtues can promote a balance in today’s society, and how this virtue ethics can also pose a problem.
Consequently, if indeed there are several kinds of constitution, it is clear that there cannot be a single virtue that is the virtue-of a good citizen. But the good man, we say, does express a single virtue: the complete one. Evidently, then, it is possible for someone to be a good citizen without having acquired the virtue expressed by a good man" (1276b). What Aristotle doesn't tell us is who is better off. Is it sufficient to be the good citizen or is it definitely more satisfying to be the good man? The good man is recognizably superior to the good citizen. The good man possesses everything that is good. He does what is just and what is just is beneficial to himself and to those around him. His soul is completely well-ordered and, therefore, cannot allow for his desires to take over and commit evil or injustice of any kind.
For the purposes of this essay human virtue is defined as a trait or ability such that one who has that trait or ability would be considered excellent and thus virtuous by human standards. Additionally it is important to keep