Subtitled: What would Socrates say about Mike Riley and Chip Kelly?

The problem in determining proper conduct is that, on the surface, "proper" appears to be a matter of personal taste and preference rather than universal truth. Three popular solutions, at least in Western societies, are as follows:

1. We should act in a way that maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. If it means tolerating others or accepting their differences, we can do so for the sole instrumental purpose of personal gain and making sure at the end of the day things have gone better for us than for anybody else. This stance would be that of the cad or rascal.

2. Another solution is to find a community that is willing to tolerate one's eccentricities. For example, finding a community where killing your adversary, trafficking narcotics, and cheating with your best friend's wife are accepted. We see this behavior in cults, communes, mafia, and even certain religions.

3. Yet another paradigm is to believe in a personal, or conveniently vacillating, moral compass that acts on whims of the moment. This is popular with the I/me generation manufactured by Edward Bernays (via Sigmund Freud) in the early 20th century. This ideology seems superficial, but it has validity equal to any other. After all, Bernays tapped into our subconscious, carnal desires and manipulated our biological urges for profit. What we want versus what we need. By definition, the vacillating moral compass is everything and nothing all at once. It has lead to consumerism, where money has replaced God, and left intelligent people blind to the irony of a corporation like Apple Inc shipping 40million "I" Phones.

These are just a few models of conduct. The key point being there are many opinions about what constitutes a proper way to live one's life. A second key point is that many times these ideas conflict because they are based on personal preferences rather than quantitative truth. That is, ethics and morality exist in the domain of feeling and opinion, not objective knowledge. There is no a ²+b ²=c ² when it comes to morality.

I've outlined the framework of the skeptics' argument. And it is valid; skepticism has never been entirely debunked by philosophy.

However, thinkers dating back to the ancient Greeks reasoned that since we can attain certainty (e.g. a ²+b ²=c ²), there is no reason that same certainty can't be brought to bear on how one should live their life. The goal was to understand what kind of life was proper for a human being.

You're probably wondering how this relates to the Beavers. Fret not, I'll get to that in a bit.

Socrates, via Plato, was the first philosopher to give a thorough examination of virtue, or how man should live. This occurred in his dialogue with Protagoras, a sophist, famous for his claim "Man is the measure of all things." Socrates asks Protagoras where he'd suggest a boy (more specifically, Hippocrates), should study if the boy were interested in learning medicine. Protagoras answers the question by naming the best schools in Greece. Socrates then asks if the boy wanted to excel as a sculptor, with whom should he study? Protagoras, naturally, names all the great sculptors in Greece. Socrates then asks a third question: what would the boy want to excel at if he studied with you? Protagoras answers "virtue."

Socrates then asks, "but can virtue be taught?"

The question, seemingly metaphysical, brings forth a rigorous analysis of (a) the nature of virtue and (b) whether it can be learned.

Keep in mind, Sparta at this time did not write down human duties, as they believed a person who learned their duty via reading could not be trusted. Moral actions defied academic exercises. A person is virtuous when their actions show us that they are, and if a person acts virtuous twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, then their actions must be guided by a principle that is universally applicable. Said another way, a virtuous person's behavior is in the thrall of a self-imposed, regulative maxim. And this would be unchanging. Think about this: you wouldn't say person X is virtuous from noon to 3pm, but after that he kills children, eats his neighbor's dog, and pees in the pool.

If virtuous behavior is a guide to life regulated by a maxim, then it is something abstract that cannot be accessible to the senses. Senses can only pick up particulates; universals are inaccessible. Put more clearly, we cannot sense the maxim, we can only sense virtue in the man who abides by it.

If we accept that virtue, as a universal, does exist, the analysis should then shift to that of whether virtue can be taught. The problem here is that humans teach and learn by showing, and with virtue being a universal (i.e. you can't draw it on paper, you can't show someone a picture of it), the question begs what would you show someone in order to teach them virtue? Well, the answer is clear: Socrates argues that while one can't point to virtue, one can point to virtuous acts, people, and behaviors. However, the observer must be "prepared" and/or able to interpret what they're viewing. A baby viewing soldiers sacrificing their lives wouldn't see virtue; they'd see shiny helmets and then take a nap. This is true of most teaching. You can't teach quantitatives such as the Pythagorean Theorem to a baby, nor could you teach it to a being who lacked the mental faculties to interpret what they were presented. Virtue, according to Socrates, works in this same manner. A damaged, unreceptive, underdeveloped, or unprepared mind could neither attain nor recognize virtue.

Socrates goes on to say that virtue and vice are polar opposites, and that vice is the byproduct of ignorance. A person who does something wrong doesn't set out to do something wrong, but he does it because he fails to understand virtue. Virtue, just like the Pythagorean Theorem, is about relationships; the proper relationship between various powers of the soul. In a proper relationship, the rational rules, and the will and passion follow. The contrary relationship is one in which the passions rule, and reason is relegated to finding clever ways to satisfy said passions and sensual desires.

So how does this relate to Oregon State Football? Some of you could probably see where this was going long ago, but if not, I'll tell you now. I've always admired Mike Riley, the man. Maybe not Mike Riley the football coach, or Mike Riley the recruiter, or Mike Riley the motivator. But as a man he has always been admirable. After witnessing the mess in Eugene, I have even more respect and appreciation for him and the program. It is now clear to me that winning at all costs is the easy path, and refraining from that temptation is more difficult. For that reason, Mike Riley, while probably not a saint or perfect man, piques our "virtue sensor" and we say, "he is a good man", where as with Chip Kelly, we have the opposite reaction.

Socrates would argue that Chip Kelly is simply ignorant to virtue, or he is under-developed and at no fault of his own cannot be virtuous. Again, philosophy has come a long way since then and there are many counter-arguments. One has to keep in mind that Socrates believed the lone purpose in life was to prepare the soul for death. Chip Kelly may not believe in these things, but to go down that path is to micro-analyze and miss the big picture. Whether one believes in heaven, hell, souls, or none of it doesn't matter. The big picture is that there is (latent) universality in "virtue", and rational beings know this for all the reasons above, but mainly because they have sensory reactions to virtuous acts.

In light of Oregon's troubles, I have developed a better appreciation for the way our program is run. This doesn't mean I'll stop critiquing when it is due, but I don't think I'll ever take the Machiavellian stance again. And frankly, I feel better this way.