Pagan ethics: Morality did NOT start with Christianity

[Gandalf]

Be kind to your enemies... be generous to he that has wronged you
Mesopotamian inscription 3rd Millenium BC. Iraq.



This issue might seem absurdly obvious to some, but it remains the case that there is a widespread myth, spread by fundamentalists (and esp. hollywood epics of the 1950/60s!) that true morality and ethics only began with Judeo-Christianity and that before that, people had no sense of morality and ethics and pagan culture was basically one of immorality full-stop. Of course, this is not true. as Anyone familiar with the greek philosophers will know, with Plato going on to become extremely important in the theology and ethics of christianity.

And for those who subscribe to the idea that before christianity 'life was cheap', they might like to read the following article by Cicero, the great Roman Statesman of the mid 1st century BC, an adherrant of the Stoic school of philosophy. It will be clear from the outset, that he *values human life*  and basic human fellowship. In the real world of course, life was often 'cheap' (political events, crime etc) but then life continued to be 'cheap' throughout the following christian period and up to the present day, but just because this is the reality does not mean that it was accepted as an ideal. Pagan ethics was very concerned with finding a way for humans to live together in harmony

Despite what religonists would say, the same basic moral principles are found in all human societies, even if they are not articulated in any kind of advanced theory. That you should be 'kind to your neighbour' and not dump on him was long an accepted maxim amongst all levels of society, as without an innate sense of this virtue, settled civic society is impossible. It goes without saying that not everyone adheres to these ideas all the time, but they are a dominating facet of any settled society, otherwise there could BE no settled society. Of course, the pagan elite, being educated, wished to find sophisticated, articulated ways to express and explore the basic human virtues, and find an ideal way of cultivating them, hense the pagan ethical systems.

Anyway, Here's Cicero's excellent article about the value of human life and the ideal of helping out your neighbour:

------------------------------------------------------------
(Translated from the Latin)
CICERO:
HOW TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISIONS:

Sometimes expediency and right (as we understand the terms) will appear to clash. In order to avoid mistaken decisions when this happens, we must establish some rule to guide us in making such comparisons and to prevent us from deserting our obligations. That rule will be in accordance with the teaching and system of the Stoics; they are my models in this work - for the New Academy (to which I belong) gives us wide latitude to support any theory which has probability on its side. But to return to my rule.

Well, then, to take something away from someone else - that one man should profit by another's loss - is more unnatural than death, or destitution, or pain, or any other physical or external blow. To begin with, it strikes at the roots of human society and fellowship. For if we each of us propose to rob or injure one another for our personal gain, then we are clearly going to demolish what is more completely natural than anything else in the world: the link that unites every human being with every other. Just imagine if each of our limbs had its own consciousness and decided it would do better if it appropriated the nearest limb's strength! Of course the whole body would inevitably collapse and die. In precisely the same way, if every one of us seizes and appropriates other people's property, the human community, the brotherhood of mankind, collapses. It is natural enough for a man to prefer earning a living for himself rather than for someone else - granted; but what nature forbids is that we should increase our means, property and resources by plundering others.

Indeed this idea - that one must not injure anybody else for one's own advantage - is not only natural law, an internationally valid principle; it is also incorporated in the statutes which individual communities have framed for their national purposes. The whole point and intention of those statutes is that one citizen shall live safely with another: anyone who attempts to undermine that association is punished with fines, imprisonment, exile, or death.

The same conclusion follows even more forcibly from the rational principle in nature, the law that governs gods and men alike. Whoever obeys it - and everyone who wants to live according to nature's laws must obey it - will never be guilty of coveting another man's goods or appropriating for himself what he has taken from someone else. For great-heartedness and loftiness of soul, and courtesy, and justice, and generosity, are far more natural than self-indulgence, or wealth, or even life itself. But to despise this latter category of things, to attach no importance to them in comparison with the common good, really does need a great and lofty heart.

In the same way, it is more truly natural to model oneself on Hercules and undergo the most terrible labours and troubles to help and save all the nations of the earth than (however superior you are in looks or strength) to live a secluded, untroubled life with plenty of money and pleasures. Mankind was grateful to Hercules for his services, and popular belief gave him a place among the gods.

So the finest and noblest characters prefer a life of dedication to a life of self-indulgence: and one may go further, and conclude that such men conform with nature (for that is just what they do) and will therefore do no harm to their fellow-men.

In conclusion: a man who wrongs another for his own benefit either imagines, presumably, that he is not doing anything unnatural, or he does not agree that death, destitution, pain, the loss of children, relations, friends, are less deplorable than doing wrong to another person. But if he sees nothing unnatural in wronging a fellow-being, how can you argue with him? - he is taking away from man all that makes him man. If, however, he concedes tbat this ought to be avoided, but regards death, destitution, and pain as even more undesirable, he is mistaken in believing that any damage, either to his person or to his property, is worse than a moral failure.

So everyone ought to have the same purpose: to make the interest of each the same as the interest of all. For if men grab for themselves, it will mean the complete collapse of human society.

And if Nature prescribes (as she does) that every human being must help every other human being, whoever he is, just precisely because they are all human beings, then - by the same authority - all men have identical interests. Having identical interests means that we are all subject to one and the same Law of Nature: and, that being so, the very least that such a law must enjoin is that we may not wrong one another. The hypothesis of that proposition is true; so the conclusion is true also. People are not talking sense if they claim (as they sometimes do) that they do not intend to rob their parents or brothers for their own gain, but that robbing their other compatriots is a different matter. That is the same as denying any common interest with their fellow-countrymen, or any consequent legal or social obligations. And such a denial shatters the whole fabric of national life.

Latin Literature, An Anthology, London, 1989, 34-36.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Doug

PS btw I'm not criticising christian ethics, they are also provide very good guidelines to conducting your life well; I was just wanted to provide an example of an equally valid, in my view, pagan ethical system, that was already alive and well beforehand.

[You]

Woah, I wasn't even aware people had that delusion, thank you for bringing that to my attention as well as this obvious information to that of those with that idea.

Honestly, I think all Christianity did was impose restrictions on things that weren't even immoral, added onto some basic morals, and I think they got rid of some of the good morals to make room for some of their restrictions in the process.

[Gandalf]

The holywood epics are the main source of blame for this myth, esp. the ones set in Rome, which like to portray all pagan Romans as evil, immoral and decadent, in contrast to the pious christians who do no wrong. The implications of these movies is that with the coming of christianity Roman society became 'more moral'... i dont think so. For a start, ok they banned gladitorial games and such like, but a dislike of gladitioral games was not unique to them; many prominent *pagan* writers, like the Stoic philosopher and Senator Seneca (tutor to Nero), had written of their moral opposition to gladitorial games long before christians got round to it.

Yes eventially once the church got in contol they started enforcing christian teachings on people but by this time, christianity had become a part of the Roman state and was being used  as a form of social control so can we really say this was a good thing? Do such and such, act like such and such.. or you will go to hell.. nice!

Actually I was talking to this guy who does a film course and he told me that the reason the hollywood epics of the 1950's and 1960s are full of the christian vs pagan stuff is to do with the Cold War.
At the height of the cold war and during the McCarthy era etc religion became a big part of the rhetoric.. so it was 'Christian' america vs 'athiest' russia.
This was reflected in the epics with the roman empire being used to symbolise athiest russia (pagan - athiest.. to right wing christians there is no difference).

Now i 'get' what all those great (if now corny) roman epics of the 50's and 60's are all about!
but we should be wary about viewing them as proper history!
Doug

[You]

I find that funny because if you took Christianity to the full extent, it is communism. I suppose the official reason for Christians wanting capitalism is to give people the freedom to be giving, rather than being forced to. I think the real reason is just greed though, which is behind everything in the world.

Funny, if they were capitalists I might just have sided with Russia on that one.

[The Present Moment]

This is a case of history being written by the victors.

[dirty_blonde]

morality has been around a lot longer than any religion or philosophy by at least 700,000 years or so, but most likely a few million according to the most recent studies. We're talking prehistoric hominids...way before refined language, writing, and even cave paintings. We're talking like before man knew how to make fire, back before we were homosapien when we were just homoerectus


http://0-wos17.isiknowledge.com.bianca.penlib.du.edu/CIW.cgi