Download Clay Chastain

1
Clay Chastain
Dr. Burton
CLAS 1302
2 October 2007
Conceptions and Analysis of Justice and Ethics in the Odyssey
In the epic poem The Odyssey by Homer, a complex array of topics regarding
ethical practices and the conception of justice arise to the reader. The reader is challenged
to determine if Odysseus’ idea of justice, namely slaying all the suitors for his wife,
Penelope, is a correct and ethical choice to have taken. However, understanding and
analyzing this section of the text can prove difficult because of the many different notions
of justice that prevail throughout both ancient and modern culture. In order to validate all
of these conceptions of justice, a variety of ethical viewpoints are required to completely
grasp the topic and come to a definite setting of closure.
It can be said that understanding whether or not Odysseus acted justly can largely
be linked back to the definition of justice; without any sort of guideline as to what it may
be, anyone’s conception of justice would be acceptable (although relativists, those that
feel that each individual society creates the idea of just and unjust actions, and therefore,
it is no use to find any universal truths in the matter). While there is a broad list of
philosophers who have practiced themselves in the art of defining, or attempting to
define, what justice may be, it can be said that justice can be linked most clearly linked
with Plato’s attempts. Specifically, his Republic is a work which tries to ascertain the
qualities of justice in society as a whole. Overall, in Plato’s attempt to define justice, he is
compelled through many volumes to discuss at length the properties of the soul. In his
2
view, the soul is an entity separate from the body. This entity has the ability to reason
purely with no layers of abstraction and confusion that might be present in the human
self. Because of this, the soul is innately just from the outset. Despite this, Plato argues in
the first two books that the soul can be tainted on some level, but that this comes from
our actions as humans, a combination of soul and body. He insists that as humans we
must achieve a decent life to have to an untainted soul. He goes on to divide the soul into
three distinct parts: the rational, the spirited, and the appetitive. Each of these portions are
in constant struggle with one another in determining the correct action through our sense
of moderation. In Plato’s argument, the highest end is the ability to control each of these
portions of the spirit in unity to make the ideal sense of justice – one that is reasonable
above all else.
While Plato defined much of the groundwork of his ethical concepts in the
creation of an ideal city as a large example of the human self, Aristotle, a philosopher
well versed in Plato’s ethical foundations expanded on the idea of the completion of the
soul through our progress in life. In his most powerful description of justice, Aristotle
clarifies the age-old idiom of repaying what is owed, be it a good or bad deed, with a
refined version of living a good life. In this way, Aristotle sets the stage for the prospect
of eudaimonia, or the goal of living a good life to achieve a good end. He argues that in
this way, the soul is benefited in the conclusion of life. He clarifies that there are two
general types of virtues: character virtues (those that are character traits like honesty or
courage) and intellectual virtues (those that are mental traits like rational decision-
3
making). His overall conclusion in his arguments is that only by living with virtue and in
accordance to any rules that may entail, can one reach eudaimonia.
Despite the fact that both of these ancient philosophers attempt to define a broad
picture of justice, no real conclusion is made about how justice is truly applied in a real
world setting. Because of this, the definition does not allow for a practical application to
test Odysseus’ sense of justice when he butchered the suitors in the conclusion of the
book. Due to this, many modern philosophers have attempted to fill the gaps and
compose newer ways to define an ethical action. Two of the more prominent ethical
philosophers’ works of recent history are Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the
Metaphysics of Morals and John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism; both texts attempt to define
absolutes on ethical behavior, and in turn, the idea of justice.
Chronologically, the first major philosopher, Immanuel Kant, presents an
argument that is based upon solely “a priori” knowledge, or rather knowledge that does
not come from experience. Kant explains that because we are all rational beings, we are
able to separate ourselves from our current human condition and use our own ability to
reason to see a broad picture of what is morally acceptable to others. Similarly, Kant
finds that the only thing which is good without limitation is a good will; that is, it is the
intention of an action that determines the moral validity of any claim, not the effects both
foreseen and actual. Kant connects this idea of morality to the claim that humans should
act out of duty instead of just what is according to duty. The difference between these
two ideas, Kant argues, is that “according to duty” is acting in the right way only because
of the negative consequences associated with not performing a morally correct action
4
whereas “from duty” refers to the concept of doing something solely because it is the
right choice to make in a given situation.
On the opposite side of the moral theory spectrum, John Stuart Mill’s concepts
work on the basis of “a posteriori” knowledge, which is knowledge that comes solely
from experience – a direct opposite of Kant’s line of thinking. Mill believes strongly in
judging an action based upon its effects (commonly referred to as consequentialism).
Through this line of thinking, Mill came upon a major contribution to the field of ethics,
which is often simplified into the idea of utilitarianism, which is the concept of doing the
greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people. Mill also uses an idea called
the greatest happiness principle; this rule ties the idea of doing good things for people to
being equal to bringing happiness to people. Simply put, by doing the greatest amount of
good for the greatest amount of people, you are in turn also creating the greatest amount
of happiness through your good actions.
Now, after discussing the definitions of justice and the practical theories behind
them, it is possible to understand Odysseus’ ethical problem on the topic of justice. While
this selection of definitions and examples is particularly small in scope, it will be able to
outline and expand upon the seemingly ever-mutable nature of justice.
First, from Plato’s explanation of justice, we see that it might be possible to
consider killing for any reason, even seemingly natural vengeance, tainting the soul. In
fact, according to Plato, this could be easily seen as letting the appetitive section of the
soul control the reasonable; by letting himself unleash his passion upon the suitors,
Odysseus has in turned denied his faculty of pure reason. In pure reason, little logic is
behind the slaying of the suitors besides some ties to honor and dignity. The suitors,
5
while committing a grievous act, have assumed that Odysseus is in fact dead – and even
when he does return, he is in the disguise of a beggar. By Plato’s view, this appears to be
a failure on Odysseus part to uphold justice.
By Aristotle’s expanded notion of eudaimonia, Odysseus also seems to fail in this
regard. While he is living a good life in terms of material goods, it appears that he does
not uphold the strict standards of pursuing any sort of virtue besides character virtues; he
completely lacks the intelligent side of virtue where it is concerned with the idea of
vengeance. Instead, Odysseus’ cunning relies upon acts within battle to get the best of a
situation (his encounter with the Cyclops, for example, he tricks it into essentially
condemning itself to isolation from his community). In this way, it does not appear that
he is living in any accordance of virtues. And while living a good life in accordance to
virtue appears to not have an effect on justice directly, it turns out that in almost any
sense of having a virtue to achieve a good life that justice is invariably tied to the subject,
albeit not as clearly as could have been. Justice is a generally regarded as a compilation
of many virtues; as such, justice must be followed in order to reach eudaimonia because
of its reliance on virtues. Therefore, Odysseus does not appear to be acting in a just
manner.
When applying the actual theories to practice, it can be said that Kant’s theory
might make the best sense of all of the arguments. Kant’s idea that everything is based on
the intentions of an action rather than the overall conclusion might lend some base to
Odysseus’ actions. Assumedly, his intentions were to do good for himself and his
community, and in many senses, he accomplished this with their death – they are
certifiably unable to continue their havoc in Odysseus’ kingdom. That said, it is debatable
6
whether Kant would have approved of this particular situation and how his theory was
applied. In the more advanced portions of Kant’s texts, it is clear that the intentions must
be accurately good for them to become legitimately good actions; in much of a sense,
killing could not be perceived as any sort of a good intention when it is merely joined
with the intention of doing good overall.
However, to some extent, Mill’s theories also can be applied to some extent. The
concept of doing the lesser of an evil (or the most good possible) holds up that the most
good that Odysseus could have done was to kill the suitors to ensure they would not harm
Ithica anymore. Logically, the greatest good would amount to trampling the suitors to
bring about the harmony of life and restore order to the kingdom. Yet, it also appears that
the greatest good would to have let the suitors go because killing them serves no
particular purpose, especially when they offered to leave. Then, understanding which
take on the theory is correct becomes a harder topic, one that is open to much debate. It
seems that the greatest good is indeterminate because one cannot accurately predict the
future of either of these events when they are occurring; therefore, we are unable to know
which result produces the greatest possible happiness.
In all, it seems that none of these explanations of justice or their corresponding
theories has been able to definitively conclude the justness of Odysseus’ actions. Even
through the analysis of the different aspects of these four philosopher’s ideas on justice
and ethics, the end product is distinctively unclear. Unfortunately, it appears to end in our
own subjective understandings of this subject to come to any conclusion, as establishing
what is just or unjust is apparently a difficult, if not impossible goal to perceive of.