A hot topic in ancient philosophy was how best to live your life, what it meant to live a good life. One school of thought that attempted to answer this question was the school of cynicism.

First thing to note is the meaning of cynicism in the ancient world does not mean what it means today. The term derives from the ancient Greek to describe someone as dog-like, one who is free and shameless to do as he pleases. This points to the actual philosophy of Cynicism: The good life is to be lived in accordance with nature and in opposition to convention.

To flesh this out further:
- Rebel against social convention such as money, status, fame and honour - Live free, shamelessly - Ascetic life: reduce material aspects of life to the utmost simplicity and to a minimum. This may include minimal, simple clothing, sleeping on a floor or in caves, and eating a simple, minimal amount of food

Key points

• Virtue is sufficient for happiness and both are within your power
• Social status, where your were born, whether you are poor or rich are irrelevant
• Live in nature as rational animals that we are
• Human nature is at odds with human society, society yields unnatural desires and burdens
• We should be able to do what we want, when we want, where we want

A Shepherd discovers a ring in his field and decides to put it on. When he turns the ring inward, he becomes invisible. Upon realising the power of the ring, he takes advantage by going down to the local market and steals whatever he pleases without consequence. This then escalates to the point where he convinces the king to become a messenger on the king’s behalf, commits adultery with the Queen, attacks the King with the help of the Queen and takes over the kingdom.

Now if a just person were to discover this ring, would they submit to temptation? Or would they continue to act justly even with a supreme power at their disposal?

Key points

• What does a just person look like?
• Is social media like this? Anonymity or disconnect from real life enables behaviours and actions that would otherwise not be acted upon. Or is it a platform to truly express yourself?
• Is being Just the right decision?

What is it that makes the individual Just? And, by extension, what makes a just society? To understand this, we must understand how the individual operates and this lies in the tripartite soul. For Plato, justice extends from the “excellence of the soul”

How does he define the soul? He says it is made of 3 parts:

The Reason: is the part attached to knowledge and truth. This is the part the governs over the other 2 parts and should be the highest power. At best - wisdom

The Spirit: Honour/ambition/drive. It’s best form - Courage

The Appetite: desire (thirst, hunger, sex, pleasure). It’s best form - Temperance

Once we achieve harmony in the soul, adhering to the best possible state of each part, we can then know justice.

Plato applies his outline of the just soul to the just state by defining the parts of the state.

Reason = Knowledgeable rulers, that have wisdom. This encompasses ethics also. The spirit = The guardians (soldiers/police) The appetite = the workers

Key points

• There is a difficulty in pin-pointing an exact definition of spirit and what it actually encompasses
• If disharmony of the state favours spirit - honour and victory, if it favours appetite - wealth and money
• Can we be just if we favour the lesser parts of the soul

Kant attempts to establish a moral philosophy on how humans should live and how our actions are determined. He says that this can be established through reason. Empiricists such as Hume stated that reason cannot tell us what is right or wrong, it can yield no practical solution; we are a slave to our passions and nothing more.

The theory starts with the question “what is morality?” and “where does morality come from?”. Kant answers that it comes from the “good will” which is a person’s capacity to act out their intentions. So our moral theory begins by looking inwardly at ourselves and doing so by applying the faculty of reason. To put it simply, using reason allows us to ask if an action is good for me and good for others, narrowing down what is a good universal moral theory.

So if our moral theory comes from ourselves, then we have a duty to uphold it, there is nothing external that tells us what our morals should look like (so this excludes the idea of God as the law giver or looking outwards to external events such as making judgments based on consequences).

From this, Kant brings forward that this moral theory must be unconditional i.e. it must be good in every circumstance for every person. So how do we conclude what is a good moral value? Cue the categorical imperative which is as follows:

“act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”

Or

“Can my moral principle that I choose to live by, work if everyone else followed it all the time”

For example I believe in the moral principle that everyone should tell the truth. If everyone followed this rule, can any bad come out of this? Are there any contradictions that mean that this principle is no longer good?

There is one other condition to consider when assessing our moral values: that it should not be subjective to the person. You must do away with your personal beliefs, happiness, sympathies, love or hate for others. It must be an objective value.

A group of spelunkers (cave explorers) has just entered an enclosed cave that was extremely hard to traverse into. Contained in this cave is a body of water with a rising tide. The cave explorers now realise they must escape or face certain death. The initial entrance that allowed them to access the cave is now underwater and they must escape through a narrow opening. One man attempts to get through the opening and becomes stuck with no way to free himself. One of the party members has a stick of dynamite that will be able to blast a hole in the opening but will inevitably kill the stuck man. They must either kill him and force and opening or they all drown.

What should the spelunkers do?