581. De Officiis 3 translated by Griffin and Atkins.- Summary

581.  De Officiis 3 translated by Griffin and Atkins.  In this book Cicero discusses situations where a course seems beneficial but not honorable.

Cicero says that the Stoics live according to Nature.  By this he means that how they live and act must be in agreement with virtue.  It is ok to choose things as long as they do not conflict with Nature.  By Nature he means the nature of humans.  For Cicero it is very clear that the value of philosophy is directly related to its usefulness in everyday life.

Cicero distinguishes between honorableness found in wise people only and the semblance of honorableness found in many people.  Cicero gives examples of people who were called or referred to as wise but were not wise in the strict sense.  Gaius Laelius is one of them.  He was famous in antiquity for his wisdom but was not counted among the Wise in the Stoic sense of the word.  If we use these people as models, then it is possible to compare what is honorable with what people think is beneficial.  This whole approach allows Cicero to bring philosophy to people in general.  It becomes a little less lofty and intimidating.

When do doubts arise concerning activity in life?  Whenever there is doubt about the action under consideration.

Cicero uses a recent event as an example.  It is agreed that to kill a friend is a terrible crime.  Is it a crime to kill a close friend who is a tyrant?  No.  It is an honorable act to kill a tyrant when the act is beneficial to the Republic.  Cicero looks for a rule of procedure here. If one man increases his own advantage at the expense of another, this is contrary to Nature because this destroys the common life which people have together and the fellowship which exists.  Cicero uses an analogy:  if each limb of the body decided to grow strong by taking over the strength of other limbs of the body, the whole body would die.  Each limb must work in conjunction, unison and harmony with other parts.  So if each person were to take selfishly from others, fellowship and community would be destroyed.

Nature does not have any problems with each person seeking own advantage.  But Nature does not permit people to increase advantage by taking from another.  No person should harm another for sake of one’s own advantage.  The Civil Law makes it clear that bonds between citizens should not be harmed.

He uses another example.  Is poverty more to be avoided than doing an injustice to someone?  Anyone who thinks that doing violence to someone is not contrary to Nature, also thinks that the person to whom acts of violence are directed are not human.  Such a person takes human out of being human.  If he thinks that such acts should be avoided but that poverty is far worse, then this person errors in that a failing of body or luck is more serious than any failure to follow Nature.  Somewhere in here are the seeds for the Nazi concept that destruction of the Jews was acceptable.

Cicero’s rule of procedure is this:  the benefit of each person and the benefit of all should be the same.

Here is Cicero’s reasoning:  if Nature prescribes that one human should consider the interest of another because that person is a human, then according to Nature whatever is beneficial to all is common to all.  Thus we are all constrained by same law of Nature; if this is true then we are certainly forbidden by the law of Nature from acting violently against other people.  It is also false to say that someone not plunder a relative for an advantage but it is ok to do so to a non-family member.  This destroys fellowship of the community.

Illness and poverty for example are not more contrary to Nature than grabbing what belongs to another.  Neglect of common benefit is contrary to Nature.

Forged wills, greed, poison etc. take place because the moment of adding to one’s advantage has the appearance of being beneficial.  But such behavior is dishonorable.  What is dishonorable can not be beneficial; what is not beneficial can not be honorable.

Such people may avoid the penalty of the law, but they can not escape that what they have done is dishonorable.  For Cicero here is where philosophy picks up the slack which a countries civil laws can not treat.

What is beneficial is honorable and what is honorable is beneficial.  A conflict between these two only appears to be the case.  Something may appear beneficial but upon close examination something dishonorable is detected.  This does not mean that benefit should be abandoned but that where dishonorableness exists there is no benefit.

Cicero tells the wonderful story of Gyges.  Gyges found a ring which he learned could make him invisible.  He used it to commit adultery with the king’s wife and kill the king to take over power.  It is an extreme story and Cicero knows this but uses it for this purpose: if you the reader could do something advantageous for self at the expense of another and neither gods nor people would ever know- would you do it?  If you reply that the expedient act, the beneficial act would be to do so, you admit to being iniquitous.  If you say no, then anything dishonorable should be avoided.  It is ok to struggle for one’s own benefit as long as no one is tripped or pushed- Cicero’s metaphor.

Cicero tells the famous story of Damon and Phintias.  One was to die for a crime but asked  to take care of matters at home first.  The other agreed to remain in prison until matters were cleared.  The condemned friend arrived on the appointed day.  The ruler asked to be the third member of such a friendship.

It is inhuman to to deny foreigners enjoyment of the city.  They are not citizens but fellow humans.

A business person bought grain from Egypt during a famine.  The shipment is on the way.  Other shipments are also on the way which will end the famine.  Should he sell the grain at inflated price or sell it cheaper and tell people what is on the way?  Diogenes the Stoic replied: only state what the law requires.  Antipater another Stoic says:  tell all.  One must consider interests of fellow humans and serve common fellowship.

A person offers a house for sale which he knows to be faulty but it does not appear to be so.  Should he tell?  Antipater- failure to reveal flaws is like failing to help someone who is lost.  Diogenes- no one forces the sale- buyer has the option not to buy.

Cicero points out that Twelve Tables anticipates that deceit and deception have no place in dealings.  Cicero shows by this that Law is designed to help Natural Law where people fail to do the right thing.  This also gives some hint of the sophistication of Roman Law.  But Cicero hastens to point out that law does not do a good job of enforcing morality.  The reason is that Law may be poorly enforced or ignored but the Law of Nature which dictates right behavior is immutable.  Such thought helps those who rule by law to keep focused on what is the true goal- enforce the law in terms of what are dictates of Natural Law.  No one should exploit another’s ignorance for personal profit.

If someone gains inheritance via flattery or deception, this is not honorable.  It is not against the law but it is not honorable.  Law is not designed to handle all trickery.

Once Gaius Fimbria, while judge, refused to stand in judgment whether a certain Marcus Lutatius Pinthia was a good man.  His reason- such a decision depends on numerous deeds and fulfillment of duties.  A good man is declared so after a life time of good deeds and proper behavior.

Cicero asks if any matter is valuable or any advantage so desirable that you the reader would abandon the name and splendor of a good man for it?  What would the so-called benefit bring which is worth what it would take away?  Is it beneficial if it  removes the name of a good person?  If it deprived one of keeping one’s word and of practicing justice?

Cicero proceeds to use events from Roman history to discuss these matters.  This is important for bringing philosophy to bear on history.

If A asks B to make a promise, which may someday  bring harm to  A, should B keep the promise?    The rule of procedure is:  the benefit of each person and all should be the same.

It is interesting that the Stoics take these questions as seriously as questions concerning the Civil Law.  Natural Law was not just a phrase bantered about because it sounds good but because to them it is real.

Some thought that fear of the gods compelled a person to do what is right.  The Stoics interestingly believe that God was not vengeful.  God can do no harm to a human.  But justice and abiding by one’s word  are what matter in keeping one’s integrity in tact.  It is an interesting concept.