amy g. Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 When he states that right and advantage can not conflict, how is he using the term advantage? It doesn't mean material advantage, does it. I'm not quite understanding this statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Could you link to the document you're reading? It will be easier to comment if we can see the context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Violet Crown Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 Is this from De officiis? If so I think you're seeing him discuss honestas (moral rectitude) and utilitas (expediency or the gaining of advantage). But it's hard to tell without the context. Give us more? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amy g. Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 It is from "On Duties III: A Practical Code of Behavior," This idea is discussed throughout, including the following passages: "I must refute a charge against Panaetius. He never made the improper assertion that advantage could in certain circumstances conflict with right. What he said was that apparent advantage could do so. But he frequently asserted that nothing can be advantageous unless it is right, and nothing right unless it is advantageous; and he comments that no greater plague has ever visited mankind than the attitude of mind which has regarded the two things as seperate." "It is axiomatic that where there is wrong there can be no true advantage." "So advantage cannot possibly coexist with wrong." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiguirre Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 What Cicero is saying is that you might think something is advantageous, but if it's not really, it will come back to haunt you later. For a very basic example, think about some chocolate cake. It seems advantageous to eat it, but if you continue to do that everyday, your health will suffer. It's not truly advantageous because good health outweighs the momentary pleasures of the chocolate cake. What is truly advantageous to us is what will secure our well being in the long term, not the transient pleasures we might indulge in because they seem like a good idea in this moment. Does that help a bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amy g. Posted February 13, 2015 Author Share Posted February 13, 2015 Thank you so much. That really helped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted February 13, 2015 Share Posted February 13, 2015 It is from "On Duties III: A Practical Code of Behavior," This idea is discussed throughout, including the following passages: "I must refute a charge against Panaetius. He never made the improper assertion that advantage could in certain circumstances conflict with right. What he said was that apparent advantage could do so. But he frequently asserted that nothing can be advantageous unless it is right, and nothing right unless it is advantageous; and he comments that no greater plague has ever visited mankind than the attitude of mind which has regarded the two things as seperate." "It is axiomatic that where there is wrong there can be no true advantage." "So advantage cannot possibly coexist with wrong." This is kind of an odd translation -- where is it from? I find the Loebs have translations that are more literal, if a bit clunky to read. Loeb translates this section as In the first place, I must undertake the defence of Panaetius on this point; for he has said, not that truly expedient could under certain circumstances clash with the morally right (for he could not have said that conscientiously), but only that what seemed expedient could do so. For he often bears witness to the fact that nothing is really expedient that is not at the same time morally right, and nothing morally right that is not at the same time expedient; and he says that no greater curse has ever assailed human life than the doctrine of those who have separated these two conceptions. And so he introduced an apparent, not a real, conflict between them, not to the end that we should under certain circumstances give the expedient preference over the moral, but that, in case they ever should get in each other’s way, we might decide between them without uncertainty. I think what he is getting at is "do the ends justify the means". So, if, hypothetically speaking, you think that murder is morally wrong, and if, again, hypothetically speaking, your beloved republic has been overthrown by an imperial dictator, is it expedient to assassinate the dictator, even if morally wrong? Cicero and the stoics are saying this is a false dichotomy, and if the assassination is a greater good, it too is a moral act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.