Prosthetic Conscience

Strict fathers, nurturing parents, and Epicurus

So I’ve been reading George Lakoff’s recent book Don’t Think of an Elephant, which is apparently a summary of Moral Politics. The main idea he tries to get across in this is that conservative and liberal discourse are dominated by two different ‘frames’, both of which are based on metaphors of the nation as family. The conservatives use a ‘strict father’ metaphor, while the liberals use a ‘nurturing parent’¹ metaphor. I’d like to talk about some of my favourite philosophical and political topics in light of these two models, and today I’m going to talk about Epicureanism.

How does the strict father model do in terms of Epicurus? As you might expect, the answer is “not very well.” Epicurus would agree with conservatives that the world is a dangerous place, and perhaps that it always will be. However, according to Epicurus, it is possible for anyone to have perfect security if they have true knowledge, and if they have prudence. Epicureans reject competition, because what is good is easy to get. There will always be winners and losers among those who play the game, but it is possible to step outside of the game and live unseen. In direct opposition to the strict father, for Epicureans there is no absolute right and wrong – justice is the arrangement of things to mutual advantage between people, and what is mutually advantageous can change with the times. The pursuit of pleasure is not immoral in itself; if pursued rationally and with prudence, it is the beginning of morality. Obedience to authority has no value in and of itself, and is at best a poor substitute for wisdom and prudence. Punishment is worthless, because it does not teach one prudence, but only to avoid punishment. One of the biggest differences is how the strict father model and Epicureanism view wealth. The strict father model views wealth as equivalent to well-being, and the goal of self-interest. Epicureanism, on the other hand, views happiness (or freedom from suffering, which in Epicureanism is the same thing) as the goal of self-interest. The pursuit of wealth beyond what is needed to secure freedom from physical want is incompatible with prudent self-interest, because the desire for wealth can never be fulfilled, and is therefore an unending source of suffering. Wealth also makes you the target of envy and of competitors, and so violates the advice to live unseen. The strict father model emphasises punishing the bad and rewarding the good. However, according to Epicurus, prudence, wisdom, and virtue naturally lead to happiness, and their opposites to unhappiness. There is no need for us to intervene in this process.

The nurturing mother model does a little better, but it is not an exact fit by any means. The central metaphor is somewhat apt, as Epicurean ethics focuses on the development of knowledge, judgement, and prudence, and these are things that must be both taught and practised. The cannot be mandated or imposed by external force, but one can be nurtured in the process of acquiring them. And in Epicureanism, as with the nurturing mother, it is a moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person. Fairness, honesty, friendship, and freedom are all Epicurean values as much as they are nurturant values. Where they differ is mostly in relationship to the value of protection. In the nurturant mother model, the child is to be protected. From what? From just about everything. However, it is not clear that Epicureans would make protection an important virtue. To acquire wisdom, it is necessary to see that imprudent actions result in undesirable consequences. It’s true that you can observe others’ mistakes, but to really learn from them you may need to experience them yourself. Epicureanism can show you the path, but you still have to walk it.

So, that’s my summary of Lakoff’s political family metaphors and Epicurus. Stay tuned for me to discuss them in relation to anarchism.

1. Lakoff says the ‘nurturing parent’ is gender neutral. I think this is a crock. Nurturing in our society is highly gendered, and feminine. But Lakoff can’t say this because it would play into the hands of culture warriors on the right who say that liberals are for the Mommy State. But this is exactly the point – “Mommy State” is only a put-down because femininity is devalued in our society. As bad as a “Mommy State” is, the idea of a “Daddy State” is infinitely more terrifying.

[ Posted: 14:06] | [ Category: /philosophy] | Permalink | Comments: 0 ]