New Castle News
NEW CASTLE —
Editor, The News:
Pre-Socratic justice was helping one’s friends and harming one’s enemies.
A “friend” shared a common interest, but since all such interests are temporary, so were friendships. Note that such — is reality — absent an objective moral order; relationships — including relations of “love” are reduced to practicality.
“I need you for ‘X’ and thus, we are ‘friends,’ or thus, I ‘love’ you.” At the end of the day, that is egoism, and nothing more.
Justice for Socrates/Plato was a soul (nexus of impetuses) ordered in reason, i.e., impetuses limited in accordance with an (intuited, informal) natural law.
Aristotle treats “friendship,” distinguishing the practical, convenient relation from the moral relation, which is predicated upon a natural law — which Aristotle formalizes in Nicomachean ethics.
Aristotle — in formalizing the natural law — was attempting to establish a code of conduct that allowed for a moral common ground; he saw that preferable to “might-makes-right.”
Similarly — regarding Kant’s categorical imperative — he was not attempting to pillory sentimentalists (reason subject to passion) of any variety; he was attempting to establish an a priori universal moral code (since if Kant’s epistemology is true, the natural law is absurd) that would promote amelioration of the human condition.
If I am driving to town, a road, a vehicle and town — amongst many other things — are presupposed. Analogously, the U.S. Constitution presupposes many things e.g., a rational (moral) order, moral agents; ultimately Christendom. Christendom, is not Christianity, rather it is an accompanying rational (philosophical) worldview incorporating Aristotle’s thought; that, to which, Martin Luther ultimately objected.
With the Supreme Court majority decision regarding the Defense of Marriage Act, the court inanely invalidated itself as it an advocate pre-Socratic justice.