What is the Best Society?

.
The best society is found where the people choose to serve God over all else. St. Matthew records the Savior’s words, “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” It is true that one cannot choose both. There is no golden mean in these two extremes; an individual must decide either to serve God or serve mammon. This Heavenly society could best be described in a Greek word, to kalon, which means, the beautiful. Thinking and acting beautifully in his or her service to God, would be the mode of life. Do we suppose that this will be a dull, monotonous and mechanical society? Absolutely not, situations will present themselves just as they do in today’s society, but we will respond to them in the way we were created to do as children of a royal and divine heritage.

Upon what principle should this society be based? Aristotle believed that virtue was the means to our ultimate happiness. Everything we do, he concluded, must depend on moral virtue to make its aim right. Moral virtue gives man the most stable and durable condition in which to confront all of life’s deterrents. David of the Old Testament inquires, “who shall stand in [the Lord’s] holy place? He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity, nor sworn deceitfully.” Numerous times the Lord condemns hypocrisy because it pretends to be virtuous. Hypocrisy is not being true to who we are and what we were created to be. This writer agrees that whether it is a pure heart or being true to self, virtue is the principle to base the best society owing to the fact that virtue encompasses all good qualities.

What would be the purpose for this society? Principally speaking, most all human beings wish to be happy no matter their race, culture or class. Even our Founding Fathers included happiness and the pursuit thereof, as one of the most important and attainable goals in the Declaration of Independence; they recognized happiness as one of the inalienable rights.

In addition to happiness, the purpose of this society would also be to prepare the people for the Lord’s second coming. Paul’s epistle to the Philippians teach the ancient saints to have one heart and one mind and to love and serve one another. In preparation of Christ’s second coming, the modern reader remembers Paul’s words, “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Preparation for His reign on earth and the happiness of His people are the purpose for this society.

What would be the purpose of government in such a society? Cicero said, “there is no human being of any race who, if he finds a guide, cannot attain to virtue.” In most worldly governments that I have studied, there has been not only a guide, but also institutions set up to constrain the people to be virtuous. This coercion has not created a virtuous society, but one of corruption and vice. The government of the best society would not be an oppressive government as is the norm; in fact, there would not be a government, as we know it. The governing power would be within each person as Plato described in his Republic. He explained basically that our head and our heart would rule our gut and that we could achieve full happiness in this life as we applied virtue and justice to our individual character. Cicero writes of the natural propensity for love and service to others, “For these virtues originate in our natural inclination to love our fellow-men, and this is the foundation of Justice.” As a result of each person’s integrity to his or her true being and virtuous character there is no need for a government of man.

We have just discussed that the people govern self, however, in truth there is a higher government; one that is not coercive, but is based on character. It has to do with the intense individual desire to be virtuous. That drive to obey is because of the love each has for God, their loving Heavenly Father and for his laws. Talking of this heavenly city, Augustine writes, “The laws of the most high Creator and Governor are strictly observed, for it is by Him the peace of the universe is administered.” Additionally, the people yearn to obey God’s laws because of promised heavenly blessings. “Blessings are upon the head of the just,” taught wise King Solomon.

What would God’s government look like? Unlike the worldly governments, God’s government would naturally and without coercion provide for the poor and needy. By virtue that each person was created with certain gifts, talents and abilities to act, there would be some who would lift a sad heart, some who would feed the hungry, some who would cloth the poor, etc. until all the needs of each individual were accounted for. God knows our needs and desires and although he uses His children to fulfill the needs and desires, still He grants them. Worldly riches and wealth would not be the goal of this government. The goal, in accordance with Aristotle, would be to do individually what we were created to do and do it beautifully, and in that way provide for all. Christ differentiates between worldly and heavenly matter, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Christ also teaches that we do not need to take thought for our life i.e. what to eat or what to wear or where we shall live. He knows our needs, presumably because we sincerely pray; and since He knows and that we desire it, He freely gives.

What would be the governmental powers? Isaiah prophesied of this heavenly society with Christ as the King, “And the government shall be upon His shoulder,” wrote Isaiah. The Resurrected Christ will reign in Glory as the King and Judge of the best society. Virtue will be His throne, truth will be His gospel and Love will be His governing power.

A Summary of Montesquieu's, The Spirit of Laws

.
What is the proper role of government? Aristotle would say that the end of politics is happiness and the means to that end would be virtue. He believes the state exists for the sake of the individual. Machiavelli would say that the stability of the State and the Power of the Prince is the ultimate end and that we should preserve the state at every cost; the end justifies the means. Finally Montesquieu would say that the State should be a reflection of the people. In his great work, Spirit of the Laws, he describes his purpose for writing, “I do not pretend to treat of laws, but of their spirit; and as this spirit consists in the various relations which the laws may bear to different objects, it is not so much my business to follow the natural order of laws as that of these relations and objects.”

The constitution of the country, explains Montesquieu, is a reflection of what the people are. If people want to have a democracy then laws will be passed to make all property equal. If the people want government to take care of their needs then a pure democracy or socialism would be established. A perfect government is one where the nature of the people are congruent to the nature of a government and the nature of a government is in congruence with the nature of the people. Is it any wonder why the people of certain countries in Europe are content with their socialist regime where the medical, educational and other sumptuary needs are controlled? They are a people that truly want a socialized government. “The government most comfortable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established.”

The Spirit of Laws is comprehensive of the many and diverse kinds of people and therefore, the many types of government that should exist for the diverse peoples. He describes that the physical laws are constant, patterned, ordered, and predictable. However, opposite are the laws that govern the intelligent. Human beings are unpredictable and subject to error. Mediocrity exists because excellence abounds; evil is present because good exists; ignorance throngs our society because intelligence reigns. Writes Montesquieu, “Particular intelligent beings are of a finite nature, and consequently liable to error…their nature requires them to be free agents. Hence they do not steadily conform to their primitive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe.” Thus the intelligent world is not as easily governed as the physical. He proposes that each country study their people and conform the government to balance with the people.

To simplify an otherwise very complicated system, Montesquieu suggests that there be three governments and that all others can be classified into one of the three, which are: Monarchical, Republic and Despotic. Illustrating in detail, he discovers the national principle of a people and their government and explains how the national principle can only work well with the national character of the State. To clarify, Montesquieu says that virtue is only needed in a republic form of government, including a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. “[Political] virtue, in a republic, is the love of one’s country, that is the love of equality…it is the spring with sets the republican government in motion, as honour is the spring with gives motion to monarchy.”

The early founders were heavily influenced by Montesquieu’s separation of powers. The elements of human nature was vivid in their minds and it was in their best interest to form a very limited government. The Constitutional Convention successfully implemented three separate powers of the executive, the legislative including the senate and the house, and the judicial branches of government. The making of the law would be the sole responsibility of the legislative branch; the application of the law, the judicial; and the enforcement of the law would come from the executive branch. Each, along with the people, would form a check and a balance for the purpose of keeping the government at bay and limiting the natural encroachment of powers.

The laws of education would be different in each species of government, explains Montesquieu, “in monarchies they will have honour for their object; in republics, virtue; in despotic government, fear.” What would it take to educate a noble? You would teach them that they are better than the others and it would play naturally into the vice of the human. In a republic, students must be educated to keep up the love of country, their curriculum would be one of virtue and equality.

Montesquieu warned those of a republican government of the dangers of equality. Equality should be feared if it encroaches on the necessary liberties of the people. He wrote that too little or too much equality squelches liberty. Moreover he writes that, “The misfortune of a republic is when intrigues are at an end; which happens when the people are gained by bribery and corruption; in this case they grow indifferent to public affairs, and avarice becomes their predominant passion.”

What made Montesquieu great? Montesquieu looked to history to find the examples of principles and character and their practical applications. He used logic and historicism. His detail to the elements of society, national character and principles made all the difference for the unparalleled founding of the United States.

A Response to Machiavelli's, The Prince

.
Machiavelli seemed to reject the whole philosophical and theological tradition of generations past. Biblical history showed that obedience to God provided security and Divine protection wherever His children lived. Greek philosophy taught that justice was compliance with natural order. Creating and maintaining individual happiness was the purpose of the Platonic and Aristotelian State and virtue was the means to that end. In contrast to godly obedience, happiness and virtue, Machiavelli pushed aside the old belief in the gods and turned the face of the world in the direction of humanism. He felt that the state's fundamental purpose was power in the state itself.

His letter to the reigning Medici family inclined to favor arbitrary power. With the zeitgeist moving in the general direction toward a new humanistic approach, Machiavelli's The Prince, became an important political step towards the Renaissance. Machiavelli wanted to understand politics in a rational way—what is, is what is. The truth is, wrote Machiavelli, that men want power and they do not get it from the gods, angels and demons. Using speed and strength the Prince had magnificent power to conquer and maintain the State. Power should be an end in and of itself, according to Machiavelli. And yet, time has demonstrated the catastrophic implications of such a leader through modern rulers such as Mao, Mussolini, Hitler and many others. Arbitrary power, when used on a human being creates either resentment or it transforms them into a temporal being who lacks desire for individual growth and progression, thus remaining in their childish state—precisely what a Machiavellian prince desires.

Machiavellian thought transformed the world from theocratic politics to the new cynical approach to power and towards modern political science. Were his writings intentionally to teach kings or were they to open the eyes of an enlightened people to the workings of all levels of tyranny? Rousseau postulates, “Machiavelli was a proper man and a good citizen; but, being attached to the court of the Medici, he could not help veiling his love of liberty in the midst of his country’s oppression. The choice of his detestable hero, Caesar Borgia, clearly enough shows his hidden aim; and the contradiction between the teaching of The Prince and that of the Discourses on Livy and the History of Florence shows that this profound political thinker has so far been studied only by superficial or corrupt readers. The Court of Rome sternly prohibited his book. I can well believe it; for it is that Court it most clearly portrays.” Whether Machiavelli was a realist or satirist, it is evident that the rulers of today strongly favor his opinion. One current example is the power assumed in the Executive branch of the United States over the Health Care issue. Decisions were made behind closed doors and the power went to the minority.

His ideas influenced Marxism in view of the fact that people could be molded and manipulated to think and do what the powers above desired. No longer were people completely responsible for their lives or choices, but were shaped into what the State needed at the time. “Machiavelli seems to agree with Aristotle by saying that one cannot establish the desirable political order if the matter is corrupt, i.e. if the people is corrupt, but what for Aristotle is an impossibility is for Machiavelli only a very great difficulty: the difficulty can be overcome by an outstanding man who uses extraordinary means in order to transform a corrupt matter into a good matter. Matter (human matter) can be transformed from without.” (Strauss, Three Waves of Modernity). The doors have been closing in on human freedom for many centuries, but it does not have to continue. Wise and interested parties can restore the sovereign back to the people. I believe the answer exists in a classically educated and moral people.

A Study on Virtue

.
What is virtue?
According to Aristotle virtue or arête is doing what we were created to do and doing it beautifully. Virtue is found in a well-balanced person with all parts of the soul in harmony with one another. Virtue can be divided into two sorts: that pertaining to thinking and that pertaining to character. Excellence of thinking and excellence of character constitute virtue.

Aristotle taught that virtue can be destroyed by excess or deficiency, and yet can be preserved by the mean between them. Says he, “I am speaking of what holds a position equally apart from either of the extremes, which is one and the same thing for everyone, but the mean in relation to us is what neither goes too far nor falls short, and this is not one thing nor the same thing for everyone.” Think of the sisters in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Lydia and Kitty are deficient in virtue; Mary is excessive; Jane seem to be in the mean of their extremes and Lizzy is on her way to join Jane after some lessons in tolerance toward Darcy.

Should it be a means or an end?
Virtue is not an end, but should be a means to an end with the end being happiness. What is happiness? Is it living well and doing well? The reader of Aristotle’s Nicomachian Ethics arrives at the idea that it is more than this. He shall find that the classical writer intended for man to live beautifully well and to do things beautifully well. Said Aristotle, “Happiness is a being-at-work of the soul.” A student in the Lyceum Gardens in Greece learned that moral virtue was an active state or hexes. As each situation arose, he must decide how he would think and act. Deciding constantly whether he would act in a virtuous manner while in the mental, intellectual, spiritual and physical state created character, according to Aristotle. Thus character was composed of an active or a “being-at-work” condition.

Virtue is not a habit or ethos, according to Aristotle. While habits are a prerequisite to practicing virtue, it is more like a process of repeating habits. But ultimately virtue is a state of active thought and action; it is an effort of concentrating and paying attention and being teachable. “Then this must be our notion of the just man,” taught Aristotle, “that even when he is in poverty or sickness, or any other seeming misfortune, all things will in the end work together for good to him in life and death: for the gods have a care of any one whose desire is to become just and to be like God, as far as man can attain the divine likeness, by the pursuit of virtue.”

Socrates final counsel in his Republic may have set the precedent for Aristotle’s belief, “Wherefore my counsel is that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil.”

How does virtue relate to government?
Plato taught that a just being would create a just society. Thus virtue was directly linked to freedom and liberty according to the classical school of thought. From Aristotle we know that “The highest good is the end of politics, while it takes the greatest part of its pains to produce citizens of a certain sort, namely, ones that are good and inclined to perform beautiful actions.” The classical writers knew that to maintain a just and noble government the people would need to be trained in virtue. They believed that moral virtue is learned just as a child learns his native language. It is not imposed upon him, but is taught and lived. In Physics, Aristotle said that virtues no more alter what we are than putting on its roof alters a house. In Politics, he wrote of the importance of education in the maintaining of the constitution, “For, inasmuch as every family is a part of a state, and these relationships are the parts of a family, and the virtue of the part must have regard to the virtue of the whole, women and children must be trained by education with an eye to the constitution, if the virtues of either of them are supposed to make any difference in the virtues of the state. And they must make a difference; for the children grow up to be citizens, and half the free persons in a state are women.”

What are the most important virtues? Why?
According to the Classical writers, virtue encompasses all good qualities that create a good and well-balanced character. Plato felt that the most important virtues were wisdom, justice, fortitude and temperance. Aristotle agreed with Plato and added five others, prudence, courage, liberality, magnificence, and magnanimity, but he and possibly, Plato, felt that wisdom was the most important virtue. On wisdom, Plato taught in Republic that a whole education would teach a man about virtue as well as vice. That he need not feel the obligation to live a life of corruption to know vice—his virtuous education would inform him and give him wisdom. Said he, “A virtuous nature, educated by time, will acquire a knowledge both of virtue and vice: the virtuous, and not the vicious man has wisdom.”

This writer believes that honesty, faith, hope and charity are the most important virtues. Honesty demands the highest trust from anyone and with that trust one can teach all truths to the edifying of the human mind. Faith lends itself to trust in God and man in order to learn all truths. Hope is the optimism in obtaining truth. Finally, charity is the absence of all pride and the application of all the good found in life.

What is the ultimate virtue? Why?
In the Aristotelian society, the full measure of virtue was to think and act like God; it was the greatest aim. If charity is what they are describing then I will agree with them, for this writer believes that charity is the ultimate virtue. It was the virtue that Christ most emulated and is the subject of the two most important commandments in the law; that of loving God and loving our fellow man. Charity is considered the highest form of love and the pure love of Christ.

How has our concept of virtue changed since the days of Plato and Aristotle?
The general notion of virtue has not changed much, but there has been a deeper value lost over the centuries. It is almost as if the great philosophers believed that each individual was created for a specific purpose or mission and that as they developed the virtues within, they would essentially do what they were created to do in a beautiful manner. Today virtue means conforming to moral conduct and moral excellence. However fine that may be, it is missing the classical element of the who we are and the what we can become and how beautifully we can perform our actions.

National Principle Decides Government Form

.
The best society, according to Montesquieu, is a matter of connecting the right form of government to the national principle of the people. “The government most conformable to nature,” says Montesquieu, “is that which best agrees with the humor and disposition of the people in whose favor it is established.” For instance, if the people esteem their leaders with honor, then this particular society’s best form of government would be a monarchy. If with fear, then the correct form would be despotic. On the other hand, if a people loved their country and perpetuated the value of political virtue, according to Montesquieu, then this society’s best form of government would be a republic. The United States was established upon political virtue, which can best be described as both a love of country and for the rule of law; its government was a democratic republic.

As I look at the people surrounding me in our once democratic republic, I see a change in the governing principle from its former political virtue, as well as private virtue, to that of extreme equality and commercialism. Many leaders and experts agree that our founding constitution is not compatible with our nation’s people any longer. I will have to agree with them. It is true that our national principle of equality and commercialism is pulling us along the path of pure democracy or socialism. Once the Constitution was completed, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what the Founders had given the nation. He replied, “A republic, Madam, if you can keep it.” If Ben Franklin and Montesquieu were here they would certainly suggest that our best government, in relation to our national principle of extreme equality, should be a social democracy; a massive paternal government.

Is this the government that we want, one that will suck every drop of ambition from its people and leave them in a mess of mediocrity? If not, then everything depends on establishing the lost political virtue that America once had. “To inspire it ought to be the principal business of education: but the surest way of instilling it into children is for parents to set them an example,” says Montesquieu. Dinner discussions apropos the Founding Fathers, rule of law and love of country will invite the national principle of political virtue to return to our communities. By fostering a love of God, implementing a classical education and turning toward a true free market economy, we could have the very best of societies once again, that of a republic. It all depends on you.