Cynic ethics differs from modern ethical conceptions first by being a virtue ethics that knows only one goal: eudaimonia. Then it stands out from the other virtue ethics that emerged in antiquity in that it knows only one virtue: parrhesia. Can this path be convincing?
Aren’t the 10 commandments of the Jews or the 4 Platonic cardinal virtues better than just this one of the cynics? Are not even the further regulations in the Bible, that would be more than 600, or also the laws of the states necessary to give us the orientation to lead a good life? That would be more than 4000 laws in the USA or even five times as many in Italy..
But we are getting off on the wrong track: it is not the number of rules that makes the difference, but their quality.
We know of two other ethical concepts that make do with only one virtue and yet differ just as radically from parrhesia, the one virtue of the cynics, as a concept with 100 rules.
One would be the Golden Rule. It is common in almost all religions and cultures of the world: Treat others as you would want to be treated yourself.
The fallacy here lies in the assumption of the equality of all people. But what is an imposition for one person may be a joy for another. The one wants to learn constantly and is pleased about every criticism, the other wants to be left alone and is already offended about every question, why he does something in such a way and not differently. The redirection of the Golden Rule to the statement that one should just act in such a way that one does not harm anyone, Nietzsche answers with the sentence that with it every decent action is forbidden. For a decent action regularly has the expectation of immediate harm for me as a prerequisite; that is precisely what makes it decent.
That leaves Kant’s categorical imperative. Kant, completely enlightened, wants to obey reason alone. Moral action is for him the fading out of all unreasonable motives. For example, it would be unreasonable, illogical, to justify lying in some situations. For if I justify the white lie, I ultimately leave everything to subjective arbitrariness and destroy any basis for the establishment of a morality that is binding for all..
Which finally brings us to cynicism. We are not looking for one basis for the establishment of a morality that is binding for all.
Parrhesia
The virtue of the cynics is, formulated as a rule: Always act according to your natural nature. Or: follow your will to might. The path is therefore self-discovery and self-realization. This in the confidence that only a life makes sense, in which I realize myself, since a God sent me for exactly this reason to fulfill my destiny..
Dangerous objections to this path have existed throughout history against cynics, against mystics, and later against romantics:
How can you know that you were not sent into the world by a devil, that your being is not evil?
And our response, whether from cynics, mystics, or romantics has always been the same:
I am sure that not a devil but a God is my Father. However, if I am wrong, I would rather become another devil than deny my own self.
Socrates was sentenced to death for his one virtue, parrhesia; Christian and Muslim mystics were often cruelly executed. Today, the mob considers us cynics to be poor lunatics and only a few recognize the revolutionary potential. We have only one distinguishing mark: parrhesia. This is a radical alternative to all other resistance movements. We are elusive. Our resistance movement flies under the radar..
