First off-wow, it's been a while. Stupid turkey-based holidays.
Second--Socrates. Am I as tired of talking about this guy as you guys are hearing about him? I just got finished (and by “just finished,” I of course mean “within plenty of time for class”) reading the section in The Politics regarding laws, regimes, and men (I acknowledge that, yes, that could describe all of The Politics). Anyway, there was a particular line (or series of lines) that I found very interesting: namely, the section that stated that a man who had nothing to contribute to a city was like a god among men, and he shouldn’t bother to follow the laws of the city, and furthermore, it would be unjust for people to attempt to apply laws to him, since it would be unjust to ask him to lower himself to the level of those less excellent than him.
First off, as divisive as I know Ayn Rand is, isn’t this a pretty Objectivist principle? That there are people who are just better than everyone else, and they don’t have to obey the same petty morality that binds us all? I mean, that’s basically the entire plot of Atlas Shrugged.
Also, isn’t there a pretty strong current of this in Nietzsche, with the idea of the Overman? As the ape is to the human, so is the human to the Overman (or so spoke Zarathustra). Is it too much of a stretch to say that that relationship is like that of a god to a man?
Finally, is this the right thing to do? Should these people be allowed to do whatever they please? Is it unjust to control those greater than us, or is it the safe, prudent thing to do? By limiting them with our laws, do we limit what achievements are possible, or do we ensure that we might, one day, join them?
I always thought of law as a mean for protection rather than limitation. No I have to wonder are they the same thing. We always resist change whether it is beneficial to us or whether it will bring our demise; I think we resist simply because we fear the latter most. I think it’s important to control the impact “those greater than us” can have on society; I honestly believe their influence can destroy the very basic of our already imperfect society. Will we ever be civilized enough to accept the change while it is at hand? Or will we continuously limit the impact to value it later? I don’t think I can really answer your question as to the unjust laws that limit those greater than us. Laws are important that I know to what extent they should be applied well I really don’t know.
ReplyDeleteWell I have never read Ayn Rand and it has been awhile since I have read Nietzsche (before Mercer) so I do not have answers to your first two sets of questions. Although I do have strong opinions about the final set.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT the right thing for some people to be under a different set of laws. First there is the problem of how do you determine who qualifies to be above the law. Every narcissistic person out there is going to think they qualify as a godlike being. Then, if you managed to find a way to weed out those that were simply delusional about their godlike status, there is the problem of just what are laws for. I think that laws are meant, in the US (in theory), to be about protecting those that cannot protect themselves. We have speeding laws to protect pedestrians, laws about accommodations to protect the disabled, laws about equality to protect the weak and those that are few in number, laws about what people can sell to protect customers and the list continues from there.
Yes this does limit what achievements are possible, but this is not necessarily a bad thing. Laws are to prevent us from doing things like what the researchers did in Germany. That research lead to new knowledge about how humans function but it came at such a high price that many objected to using the findings even though the harm had already been done.
You could argue that the godlike among us would not perform actions like those of the Germans but I do not wish to count on the good will of man. People, I think, are not inherently good. If you give us enough freedom and power only bad things happen.
There is that undercurrent in Nietzsche but it's based on a perspectivism where the stronger, more creative type legislates based on his own dictation of law that is beyond good and evil.
ReplyDeleteMy hunch is that Nietzsche would say Randian objectivism is too narrow and overly engaged with confronting status-quo moral categories.