While some of the early philosophers must have been as hard to understand then as now, others dazzle with their common sense approach - and not always as defeatist as Homeric thought, which centered on Fate (
Socrates however, challenged the view above - the completeness of a mechanical explanation of natural events, such as length and quality of life. Among his other many remarkable achievements, Socrates introduced the category of Value as primary in both Nature and Man. Value theory is important even today, not as an axiological exercise (contrasting “fact” with existence”), rather more as the spurring of investigating the relationship between obligation and value. Fundamental then, to understanding ethics.
Ethics. Now there is a word for the ages. Socrates introduced teleological ethics where actions are wholly dependent on the actual (or probable) result, directly or indirectly of the maximum good. A corollary of the Golden rule, if you will, do unto others as you would want to have done unto you. From a utilitarian perspective, also a view where the personal approach dictates the common good with the least amount of interference. If we all behave ethically, there is then, in most cases, no need for recourse to values, laws and outside arbitration.
But - hah! Human nature! Be a philosopher all you want, you will never get beyond that which makes one individual Genghis Khan, another Florence Nightingale, yet another Stalin or Hitler, a fifth Mother Teresa. Too many individual variables, too many different situations argues the individualist.
Which leads us to situational ethics - ethics of the type demonstrated not because of a constant belief and value system, but an approach to others predicated by what seems to be most advantageous in the case at hand. Promises in the boardroom, reneging at the accountants office. A treatise could and should be dedicated to this malaise that is dominating western individual, business, and social life.
In the interest of brevity, one recent case demands attention, asking for more than a philosophical journey through ethics, values, common sense and situational advantage.
For the last number of years it seems that the slow news period of August is a boon, in Estonia at least, for Nazi-hunters. (As a minor aside - slow news periods, vacations and heat lull society into a general torpor - that is perhaps why the shock of September 1, before North America had yet kicked into full, fall and associated business gear was as powerful as it was). Estonia is no different than the rest of the world - we vacation, take a break from taking care of business. It is common, for instance to have reunions, travel, meet friends and relatives for whom other wise time might be hard to find. Thus, in Estonia old soldiers meet - and if they fought on the wrong side clamour results. Thus, with the advantages of good weather memorials are opened for those that lost their lives in WWII. All bringing media attention. And then there is bogusly generated media attention.
Three years ago the eminent daily “Postimees” ran an ad prominently marked by a Canadian Flag, paid for by the Canadian taxpayer, asking for information about anyone who served in a specific German military unit in WW II. This year, Efraim Zuroff, director of the Jeruslaem Office of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, is at it again.
But now, Zuroff’s intent to place ads in Estonian newspapers offering a $10,000 (US) reward for reliable information that would lead to the trial and conviction of Estonian Nazi war criminals is almost undoubtedly contrary to the country’s advertising law, which bans ads inciting discrimination, among others on the basis of religious and political circumsatnce. Which this is. Kaur Hanson, an advertising law specialist, told “Eesti Päevaleht” that this is merely the attempt of a successful “propagandist” to hide behind a cause while at the same time fomenting resentment - indeed doing more towards generating “ sympathy for Arabs and antipathy toward Jews” (EP, July 30).
Canada does not give Ernst Zundel the right to advertise his views, Estonia certainly would not either. It would be wrong for any media to accept such inflammatory advertising, no matter how well paid. A question of situational ethics for the publishers and readers of newspapers? Perhaps. However, it is more a return to something that is far greater than a battle of words.
Logos (word) + mache (battle) = logomachy, a contention in which words are involved without their references. One in which allegedly opposed views are actually not on the same level of discourse. With Zuroff and his plans, a new logomachy is being established. This week’s philosophy lessons ends with the Sanskrit word
