The State's Promotion of Weakling Ethics

can we truly afford to not be Strong?

In the past, Strength was Good, and weakness Evil. To be scrawny, meek, humble, shifting, sheepish and placating was suspect.

This contrasts harshly with the “modern” view wherein all Strength is mere evil potentiality. The modern and postmodern would have the Strong atrophy and degenerate as proof of their “morality,” taking any resistance to this as proof of said potential.

But why, in the ancient view, are weak men viewed as bad? Simply put, the weaker a man is, the more likely he is to capitulate, betray, lie or double-cross. His disposition and behavior at the precipice of danger is existentially threatening to all. Nor is this merely consequentialist. A lack of courage and strength would have indicated an ontological issue in which the coward is barred from achieving his or her Telos (this causes nihilism).

Today, it appears that personal Strength is no longer needed, because we live in the age of big care-taker States. It is imagined that because of the State: danger, risk, threats and the like are kept at bay and minimized. Even when this idyllic delusion is punctuated by frequent mechanized wars—worship of the State continues.

Since personal Strength is liable to resist the State and to despise the weak as a rule, the Strong are regarded as “bad,” and all of this ties into the new sense of “community.”

Ancient classical conceptions of community required individual strength in all members. Current conceptions of community necessitate being a slave. In the one, safety is the result of cooperation between competents. In the other, it is the result of submission. They submit under the assumption that they will be protected, but more often, they are used up and sacrificed. It is not a fulfilled bargain.

The notion that a “good person” is one who is “incapable of harm” is very ancient and Christian. The word “virtue” as we currently know it, alludes to something like a do-nothing moral state in which the possibility of “sin” is minimized. However, this is conveyed prettily via: Faith in God, selfless love, abstention from sex and repentance.

Secular humanism has posited the same goal as Christianity (a painless utopia), but at a different locale (earth), and via different means (reason and progressivism). This mirroring caused Secular Humanism to carry on a similar notion of “virtue.” Over time, the State came to play a sort of God-role . . . theoretically and now literally. All hope of Utopia hinges on creating the ideal State, or on ascending one’s “party” to the State apparatus—over and over, or permanently. That is the point at which the State becomes God, and many people (unconsciously) want this.

But back to the topic, what is truly Good?

If we take the Greek word Aretē, for example, Goodness has to do with Excellence. Greek Excellence and Virtue was strongly correlated to the ideal of “fulfilling one’s potential.” We have to stress that this was not a relativist idea, since it was closely related to the Greek word Telos (which meant “final cause” or “ultimate end”).

A human being would achieve their purpose by cultivating Aretē . . . Excellence. An excellent human being was a highly effective one; they combined good conduct with skill and high rationality. The purpose of the State was to create the conditions that enabled as much human Flourishing as possible. And, when enough humans Flourished, the State too achieved its Telos!

But now the situation is backwards. Instead of flourishing, we are compacted. We are trained into very predictable patterns of thought and behavior and there are both Christian and secular assumptions that help the State in conditioning us. Rather than the State enabling our eudaemonia, we serve as fodder for it—because the State regards itself as an end in itself.

But at a personal and more common level . . . given the rise of varying authoritarianisms, nationalisms, technocracies and a new type of potential fascism—and given the corroding quality of many liberal democracies . . . can we truly afford to not be Strong? Do we truly believe that the State, or that the correct arrangement of “representatives” will save us?

Lastly, we must utterly retrieve the notions of Strength and Virtue from Nietzsche. The ideal of a wanton Will to Power is totally modern spillage, resulting from Christianity’s spiritual limit and the emergence of 19th century national states. In Classical Ethics, all conduct is restrained by the Golden Mean; by an accurate moderation that seeks to promote or preserve eudaemonia (human flourishing). Might does not make right, Might is used in the service of Right. The most important thing in the Classical World may very well be the universality of human potential and dignity, a sort of Spirit—that cannot be acquired nor lost.