Copyright is owned by the Author of the thesis. Permission is given for a copy to be downloaded by an individual for the purpose of research and private study only. The thesis may not be reproduced elsewhere without the permission of the Author. THE DIALECTIC OF MIGHT AND RIGHT A thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS IN POLITICS at Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand MARCEL JON ZENTVELD-WALE 2010-2011 Abstract The question of ‘might versus right’, as to whether might makes right or is subject to it, is one of the overarching questions of Western moral and political thought from the ancient Greeks to today. This is an exploration of that question, the debate between the proponents of might (‘Realists’), the proponents of right (‘Idealists’), and the opponents of both (‘Relativists’). It is particularly concerned with the sources of this debate, in the founding figures of these schools of thought and the foundational thought of the tradition as a whole. This debate forms a dialectic that spans much of the history of Western ancient and modern moral and political philosophy, crossing over to a number of related fields. This study is therefore concerned with both the traditional spheres of moral and political philosophy (the theory of nature and the theory of law) and certain related fields (theology, mythology and metaphysics). It provides an overview of this dialectic, its sources, and the relationship between its theoretical and practical aspects. t h e D I A L E C T I C o f M I G H T a n d R I G H T Power and Justice in Realism, Idealism and Relativism M a r c e l J o n Z e n t v e l d - W a l e Contents Acknowledgements p. iii § 0 Introduction: A Model of Might and Right 1 0.1 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 3 0.2 Traditional and Alternative 4 0.3 Ethics and Politics 8 0.3.1 Traditional and Alternative 11 0.4 Realism, Idealism and Relativism 13 0.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 17 0.4.2 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 21 0.5 A Model of Might and Right 22 I Part One: Power and Justice in Nature and Law 24 1 Chapter One: The Nature of Might and Right 26 1.1 Nature and Nurture 26 1.2 Naturalism versus Conventionalism 27 1.3 Nature, Might and Right 30 1.3.1 “Intellect versus Instinct” 30 1.3.2 “Competition versus Cooperation” 31 1.3.3 Security versus Sustenance 31 1.4 Realism, Idealism and Relativism on Nature 32 1.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 42 1.4.3 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 44 1.5 The Nature of Might and Right 44 2 Chapter Two: The Laws of Might and Right 46 2.1 Natural and Positive Law 46 2.2 Legal Naturalism versus Positivism 47 2.3 Law, Might and Right 49 2.3.1 State versus Society 50 2.3.2 Edict versus Custom 51 2.4 Realism, Idealism and Relativism on Law 51 2.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 59 2.4.3 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 63 2.5 The Laws of Might and Right 63 i II Part Two: Power and Justice in Religion, Myth and Reality 66 3 Chapter Three: The Theology of Might and Right 68 3.1 Theory and Theology 68 3.2 Theism versus Atheism 71 3.3 God, Might and Right 73 3.3.1 Orthodoxy versus Revision 75 3.3.2 Particular versus General Will 77 3.3.3 Political versus Liberation Theology 78 3.4 Realist, Idealist and Relativist Theology 80 3.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 83 3.4.3 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 85 3.5 The Theology of Might and Right 86 4 Chapter Four: The Mythology of Might and Right 87 4.1 “Myth and Antimyth” 87 4.2 Traditional and Alternative Approaches to Myth 90 4.3 Myth, Might and Right 92 4.3.1 Ascent versus Descent 93 4.3.2 Old versus New 93 4.3.3 Ideological versus Utopian Myth 95 4.4 Realist, Idealist and Relativist Mythology 96 4.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 100 4.4.3 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 101 4.5 The Mythology of Might and Right 102 5 Chapter Five: The Metaphysics of Might and Right 104 5.1 Theory and Reality 104 5.2 Being versus Becoming 105 5.3 Metaphysics, Might and Right 108 5.3.1 “The Real and the Ideal” 109 5.3.2 Empiricism versus Rationalism 110 5.4 Realism, Idealism and Relativism on Metaphysics 111 5.4.1 Conservatism and Radicalism 116 5.4.3 Triad, Dyad and Dialectic 118 5.5 The Metaphysics of Might and Right 119 Ω Conclusion: The Dialectic of Might and Right 120 Bibliography 124 ii Acknowledgements I would like to take this opportunity to thank my supervisor, Dr Beth Greener, for her support and assistance with this project. I would also like to thank Dr Suzy Killimister for her helpful comments on an early draft. In addition, I would like to acknowledge others who, while not directly involved in this particular project, were nonetheless instrumental to its inception, in aiding in my studies leading up to it: Dr William Fish and Dr Glen Petagrove, who supported my foray into philosophy, and Dr Stuart Lawrence, whose excellent courses in Greek political philosophy and mythology were the starting-point for my studies in classics. I would also like to thank my parents for their support and assistance throughout my time at university. Finally, special thanks go to Renée Manu for her love and patience these last few years. M. Z. W. iii WAGNER Excuse me sir!––the pleasure’s surely vast To contemplate the spirit of the past! To read the thoughts of ancient learned men, And see how wondrous far the world has moved since then! FAUST Ay, far indeed! Up to the very skies! My friend, the past, all that behind us lies, Is as a book, with seven seals made fast; And what you call the spirit of the age Is but the critic’s spirit, in whose page The age itself is darkly glassed. ––Goethe, Faust iv 0 I N T R O D U C T I O N A MODEL OF MIGHT AND RIGHT Now the two masters, theory and practise, you cannot serve. ––Charles Peirce This is a study of might and right, power and justice. It is an overview of certain overarching discourses of might and right in Western moral and political thought; a genealogy of might and right, which identifies dominant trends in thinking about power and justice and explores their origin and evolution from a critical perspective. It examines the relationship between power and justice within the major “ethical-political”1 discourses of the West: the antithesis of power and justice in the traditional discourse, its synthesis in the alternative. This is a study of that dialectic and, more specifically, of its genesis. Its first task is taxonomical: to outline the familial relations between discourses of power and justice. The second is genealogical: to trace their points of “emergence” (entstehung) and lines of “descent” (herkunft).2 The third is critical: to explore the links between theory and ideology. The scope of the study is very broad. It uses the “telescope” (to apply Proust’s metaphor) rather than the “microscope”.3 This is reflected in both the length of the intellectual history surveyed and the range of topic-areas considered. The core sources are drawn from the ancient, medieval, renaissance and modern periods, in a history spanning from before the ‘birth’ of moral and political philosophy in Socrates to its ‘death’ in Nietzsche.4 Because it is a search for the genesis of certain ideas and ways of thinking, these core sources are restricted largely to certain founding figures of the schools of thought in question. In addition, a number of precursors to the 1 The term “ethical-political” is from Bernstein, The New Constellation: The Ethical-Political Horizons of Modernity and Post-Modernity, 1991: 9 2 Foucault, ‘Nietzsche, Genealogy, History’, 2004: 75–7 3 Proust, Remembrance of Things Past, Volume Two [1932: 1118] 4 Rengger, Political Theory, Modernity and Postmodernity: Beyond Enlightenment and Critique, 1995: 138–9 1 core sources, going back to even earlier times, are also surveyed, as are various secondary sources, interpretations of the core and precursor texts, many of which date to present times. The topic-areas considered include not only the traditional fields of moral and political philosophy (nature and law) but also a number of related fields (religion, myth and metaphysics). The role of this introduction is to provide an overview of the basic concepts and categories of these discourses of might and right, and an outline of the dialectic that exists between them, the sources of which are the subject of the chapters that follow. This means beginning at the end, since the definitions and distinctions developed here at the outset are the outcome of a process, which the remainder of the study attempts to record. This is not unusual, according to Ophir: “In a philosophic treatise (perhaps in any scientific treatise), the reader always starts from the place where the writer has concluded.”5 Throughout this introduction, and in the chapters that follow, it will be necessary to quote extensively from both primary and secondary sources. The method is like that attributed by Proust to Schopenhauer, who, he says, “never advances an opinion without immediately supporting it with several quotations”.6 Such methods are necessary in cases such as these, where the opinions that are advanced concern the opinions of others.