Philosophy: Moral vs Social Problems - Case Study Example

Philosophy: Moral and Social problems Ever since the origin of human race, people have been in search of the meaning of happiness and good life, because the concept of happiness has cavernous meaning in their lives. The various types of studies and analyses on the topic have given rise to differing views on the question based on the cultural and philosophical background of the people. In the Classical Greek culture, the question concerning happiness and good life was given great significance and this question is the basis of the Classical Moral Philosophy which sought to give a definition to the concept of happiness and to find the various ways in which people could achieve it. There is broad agreement among the classical thinkers on the good life and they maintain that a good life requires essential aspects of moral life such as the attainment of the virtues, the excellences of intellect and moral character, etc. As the form of government changed from city-state to empire, scholars started searching for new meaning for the concept of happiness and different types of philosophical conclusions came up. Two of the most popular philosophical explanations of how one can achieve happiness were suggested by Epicureans and Stoics. The Oscar-winning film Gladiator offers one of the compelling explanations of the difference between the Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective on the conception of happiness. This paper makes a reflective exploration of the conversation between Marcus Aurelius and Maximus in the film Gladiator in order to use the basic concepts of the two moral philosophies to the problem that Marcus Aurelius (the Stoic) poses to Maximus (the Epicurean), i.e. how to reform the moral condition of the Roman Empire. As a foreword to the analysis of the film Gladiator on the basis of Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective, it is essential to discuss the general conception of happiness developed by each philosophy. Fundamentally, both these philosophies come up with differing views on how to achieve happiness and how to reform the moral condition of the Roman Empire. Whereas the Epicureans argue that it is important to create alternative forms of community in order to achieve happiness, the Stoics maintain that there should be reforms of the public-political order. According to Epicureanism, the vital duty of human beings is to seek happiness which consists in wisdom. Derived from the Cyrenaics, Epicureanism maintains that the nature as well as human soul integrates complex configurations of atoms in the void and it defines pain and anxiety as states of agitation of soul-atoms. There are two types of agitation, i.e. peripheral agitations or the physical pain and the central agitations or the mental suffering. Epicureanism purports that happiness is pleasure, i.e. absence of pain and agitation. As Sharples suggests, “for Epicurus, the goal of life is pleasure, and the happy life is that with most pleasure and least pain… For Epicurus, the limit of pleasure is the removal pain – both physical pain and mental anxiety. Once pain has been removed, anything further can only be a ‘variation’ (poikilmos) – a ‘seasoning’, as it were – of pleasure; it cannot increase it, and it cannot be dispensed with…” ( Sharples, 84-5) According to Epicureanism, the best way to enjoy security and happiness in life is to pull out from public life and to create alternative forms of community to dwell with a group of like-minded people. Therefore, Epicureanism comes up with an important enlightenment of the conception of happiness and the various means of achieving happiness in human life. Another fundamental philosophical perspective concerning the general conception of happiness and how to achieve happiness in life is Stoicism which regards passions as diseases which should be extirpated. Whereas divine mind takes the form of fate in the outer nature, it exists in the form of freedom in human nature. The apathy to (acceptance of) fate in the outer nature as well as the proper use of freedom in the inner nature is the fundamental component of tranquility in life. In order to appropriately use freedom, one should be guided by the virtues and the most essential virtue in human life is wisdom. According to Stoicism, nature, including human nature, can be realized as an expression of the divine mind and this philosophical perspective offers immense significance for virtuous life. Stoicism maintains that human beings need to possess a clear, precise and severe ‘logic’ which can help them in attaining wisdom in life, with the support of self-knowledge and self-control. The Stoics believe that wise or virtuous decision and action is at core of happiness and external circumstances do not have any influence on happiness. The Stoics attempt to reform the public-political order of the state so as to make virtue and wisdom as the most fundamental aims of public policy. “Their most frequently repeated maxim is ‘abstain and endure’; abstain from all evil, suffer all aggression and so-called misfortune without rebelling or complaining. Another percept widely propagated among them and by them, ‘live according to nature’, remarkably resembles an Epicurean maxim.” (Faguet, 29) Therefore, the Stoics have principles which bear a resemblance to those of the Epicureans, but Stoicism can be realized as the dark side of Epicureanism. Stoicism as well as Epicureanism considers cosmopolitanism as the appropriate context of moral life, but this is most explicitly seen in the philosophy of the Stoics. A reflective analysis of the Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective concerning the importance of pleasure (hedone) and emotional indifference (apatheia) in the happy life, it becomes lucid that there essential commonalities and differences between the both the conceptions. The Oscar-winning film Gladiator offers an engaging case-study to evaluate the basic concepts of the two moral philosophies, especially with regard to the question how to reform the moral condition of the Roman Empire. Gladiator, directed by Ridley Scott, makes nostalgic travel back in time to the legendary moment of transition in the moral condition of the Roman Empire. In the film, Marcus Aurelius, the emperor, and Epictetus, a slave, deals with the major principles of Stoicism and their perspectives meet head-on with the Epicurean ideology concerning happiness and well-being of the state. A close analysis of the film confirms that Marcus Aurelius, who represents the Stoics, poses a serious challenge to Maximus (who is the main Epicurean in the film) regarding the ways to reform the moral condition of the state. Both the Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective were influenced by the Gnostic views concerning the body as evil and spirit as good. Whereas some approaches dealing with body accepted its importance in achieving happiness, “some denied body and ignored it. This was Stoicism, best illustrated in the movie Gladiator. Since the body was evil, it had to be aggressively controlled and denied, particularly regarding emotions… The other reaction allowed by Gnosticism is Epicureanism, the pursuit of pleasure. Since true spirituality comes through proper understanding and the body does not matter, then indulgence is fine.” (Ruddell, 38-9) Therefore, it is obvious that the Stoic and Epicurean conceptions have differing views on the importance of pleasure (hedone) and the use of body. In the conversation between Marcus Aurelius and Maximus in the movie Gladiator the difference between the Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective concerning the reformation of the moral condition of the Roman Empire becomes noticeable. One of the central themes in the movie is Stoicism and the conversation between Maximus Decimus Meridius and the great Stoic philosopher-king Marcus Aurelius Antoninus reveals the clash between two moral philosophies. In this conversation, the Stoic perspective and the Epicurean perspective meet together and there is essential argument based on the moral principles of each philosophy. As Genevieve Lloyd maintains, “From an Epicurean perspective, the Stoic is imprisoned by necessity. From a Stoic perspective, the Epicurean lives in a world empty of purpose; and such freedom as he has can be no true freedom, for it is subject to the vagaries of chance.” (Lloyd, 80) As a result of the between Marcus Aurelius and Maximus, the moral values of each philosophical perspective is revealed and the Stoic philosopher-king is successful in convincing his favorite general regarding the inevitability of the Stoic ideology. At the end of the movie, Maximus defeats the evil tyrant Commodus, and becomes the movie’s inheritor of Marcus Aurelius’ Stoic philosophy. In conclusion, the 2001 Oscar Award Winner for Best Film, Gladiator, is mainly concerned with the theme of differing perspectives of the Stoics and the Epicureans. Significantly, the conversation between Marcus Aurelius and Maximus reveals an essential way in which one can reform the moral condition of the Roman Empire. Both the concepts realize the means of happiness differently and each of these moral perspectives challenge the principles put forward by the other. Works Cited Faguet, Emile. Initiation into Philosophy. Indo-European Publishing. 2010. P 29. Lloyd, Genevieve. Providence lost. New York: Harvard University Press. 2008. P 80. Ruddell, Larry. Business Ethics--Faith That Works: Leading Your Company to Long Term Success. Halcyon Press Ltd. 2004. P 38-9. Sharples, R. W. Stoics, Epicureans and sceptics: an introduction to Hellenistic philosophy. London: Routledge. 1996. P 84-5. Read More