Sir Thomas More; a man of admirable principles, or foolishly idealistic?

[Old_Scratch]

What do you think of Sir Thomas More concerning his refusal to swear to the act of succession (1533)? Was his refusal to compromise his own beliefs under any circumstances, even unto death, something to be admired? Or was he hardheaded and unrealistically idealistic in his unwavering attitude as it dragged him from lord chancellor of England to the chopping block? Is it acceptable to die rather than compromise what you believe is right, even if it doesn't hurt anyone?

The situation could apply to anyone with any belief, so I don't intend for this to become an anti/pro religion thread.

[gambit]

Admirable, but foolish. Theres a fine line between sticking to your beliefs and when you have to suck it up and compromise. Im not entirely sure who this guy is but I'm guessing he'd be able to serve his beliefs alot more being Lord Chancellor as opposed to being dead.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Admirable, but foolish. Theres a fine line between sticking to your beliefs and when you have to suck it up and compromise.

What nonsense. Sometimes you have to take a stand - compromise is not always the best alternative.

Im not entirely sure who this guy is ...

but I'm guessing he'd be able to serve his beliefs alot more being Lord Chancellor as opposed to being dead.

No he couldn't. To do so would have been totally betraying his beliefs which is why he resigned as Chancellor and, when cornered, refused to compromise his beliefs.

He was a remarkable, wise and brave man and one of the greatest intellects of his age.

[gambit]

What nonsense. Sometimes you have to take a stand - compromise is not always the best alternative.

Thats exactly what I meant.

Dont patronize me, just stating the truth so it makes more sense when I make mistakes like I guess I did down here..

No he couldn't. To do so would have been totally betraying his beliefs which is why he resigned as Chancellor and, when cornered, refused to compromise his beliefs.

I wasnt sure exactly how the situation went, I thought it was something like they forced him to resign because of his belief, not he chose too.

I cant think of a proper metaphor, other than a scene from Scrubs where someone is talking to Dr. Cox (a doctor whos know to never compromise and always fight his superiors when he knows they're wrong, in case you dont know) and this person tells him "You would be able to get so far and actually make a difference around here if you'd just stop fighting and play the game a little" Taking a stand is very important and you must always stick to your beliefs, but if your "sacrifice" will only hurt you and your beliefs more than your compromise would, then it's just selfish. Thats all I'm saying.

[Bovril]

Whether you think Moore was a martyr or a heretical witch or whatever is probably going to be dictated by your prior understanding of the reformation in England. I don't particularly respect him, just as I don't particularly respect anyone who would have just of happily hung his opponents as they would have him (I asume, of course). At this point in time, as pretty much always, movements for freedom of speech came for the most oppressed part of the population. Here we can see the those dipossesed by the enclosures forming such religious groups as the Ranters and their predecessors. I respect them, not nobles who wanted to hold on to the dominance of their own power cliques.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Whether you think Moore was a martyr or a heretical witch or whatever is probably going to be dictated by your prior understanding of the reformation in England. I don't particularly respect him, just as I don't particularly respect anyone who would have just of happily hung his opponents as they would have him (I asume, of course).

You "suppose" based on what? More didn't hang any Protestants when he was in a position to do so.

At this point in time, as pretty much always, movements for freedom of speech came for the most oppressed part of the population. Here we can see the those dipossesed by the enclosures forming such religious groups as the Ranters and their predecessors.

You're off by about a century and a half.

I respect them, not nobles who wanted to hold on to the dominance of their own power cliques.

A "nobleman"? WTF? More was a lawyer and the son of a lawyer. He was a commoner.

[basics]

" He was a remarkable, wise and brave man and one of the greatest intellects of his age."
and
" You "suppose" based on what? More didn't hang any Protestants when he was in a position to do so."

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Oh how the bias always appears. He was a remarkable man..... And had he lived to serve bloody Mary how many Protestants do you suppose his Popish hands would have been on during her reign? Get real man, he wasn't a martyr, he was being obedient to Rome and for that he paid the price.

Doesn't your learning teach you anything about how Britain rose to be a great nation having got rid of men like him? Doesn't the Catholic in you allow for such things? And can you not see that in these days, as Catholicism rises as well as the introduction to Britain of other religions, how it is falling into the corrupt and violent society it is?

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

" He was a remarkable, wise and brave man and one of the greatest intellects of his age."
and
" You "suppose" based on what? More didn't hang any Protestants when he was in a position to do so."

ThiudareiksGunthigg,

Oh how the bias always appears. He was a remarkable man..... And had he lived to serve bloody Mary how many Protestants do you suppose his Popish hands would have been on during her reign? Get real man, he wasn't a martyr, he was being obedient to Rome and for that he paid the price.

Biases are indeed things that skew people's views of history. Ignorance does so as well. In 1531 the German Protestant scholar, Simon Grynaeus - a pupil of Melanchton - came to England to study the Greek philosopher Proclus. On the recommendation of the (Catholic) humanist Erasmus, he contacted Thomas More and was invited to stay in More's house for the duration of his time in England. He was so delighted by his time in More's household that he later dedicated his book to More's son John, with whom he became friends. Addressing his dedication to John he described More, who had by then been executed by Henry VIII:

Your glorious father, who by virtue of his distinguished talents, was then the first man in the kingdom, procured me, an unknown individual, access to public and private institutions and found a place for me at his table. But more than this; he observed with all good nature that my religious opinions deviated in not a few points from his. Yet his solicitude remained the same and he arranged to meet all my expenses out of his own pocket.

He helped a known Protestant scholar in the shared pursuit of humanist scholarship, gave him a place to live, paid for his expenses and, all the time, merely "observed with good nature" that they differed in religious opinions? And you think this man would have turned from the tolerant and reasonable humanist he was into some kind of bloody "Popish" oppressor?

The same Thomas More depicted his perfect society in Utopia as a model of the kind of religious tolerance that More regarded as ideal:

At the first constitution of their government, Utopus having understood that before his coming among them the old inhabitants had been engaged in great quarrels concerning religion, by which they were so divided among themselves, that he found it an easy thing to conquer them, since, instead of uniting their forces against him, every different party in religion fought by themselves; after he had subdued them, he made a law that every man might be of what religion he pleased, and might endeavour to draw others to it by the force of argument, and by amicable and modest ways, but without bitterness against those of other opinions; and such as did otherwise were to be condemned to banishment or slavery.

“This law was made by Utopus, not only for preserving the public peace which he saw suffered much by daily contentions and irreconcilable heats, but because he thought the interest of religion itself required it. He judged it not fit to determine anything rashly, and seemed to doubt whether those different forms of religion might not all come from God, who might inspire men in a different manner, and be pleased with this variety; he therefore thought it indecent and foolish for any man to threaten and terrify another to make him believe what did not appear to him to be true. And supposing that only one religion was really true, and the rest false, he imagined that the native force of truth would at last break forth and shine bright, if supported only by the strength of argument, and attended to with a gentle and unprejudiced mind; while, on the other hand, if such debates were carried on with violence and tumults, as the most wicked are always the most obstinate, so the best and most holy religion might be choked with superstition, as corn is with briars and thorns; he therefore left men wholly to their liberty, that they might be free to believe as they should see cause."
(Thomas More, Utopia, Bk II, 'Of the Religions of the Utopians')

This wise, reasonable and tolerant attitude sounds like the approach of an oppressor to you? I think your biases and your ignorance of the man combine to make you supremely unqualified to comment.

Doesn't your learning teach you anything about how Britain rose to be a great nation having got rid of men like him?

I'd say the kind of man who had the approach to religion illustrated in those passages was precisely what England needed at that time. Unfortunately wise and reasonable men like More were sidelined and executed and fanatics - on both sides - plunged England into centuries of religious conflict and turmoil. Conflict and turmoil that drained and weakened the kingdom and which resulted, quite literally, in the deaths of millions. Not exactly utopia.

Doesn't the Catholic in you allow for such things?

Give me a break. As a non-believer I can study this period dispassionately and objectively and I admire the tolerant, reasonable and unfanatical humanists on both sides. Unfortunately the voices of reason and wisdom of men like More were silenced (via the axe, in More's case) by the fanatics on both sides, and a tidal wave of intolerance and blood ensued as a result. Interesting that you seem to think the bloodthirsty fanatics who killed More and silenced his tolerance and wisdom are the heroes here. That speaks volumes.

And can you not see that in these days, as Catholicism rises as well as the introduction to Britain of other religions, how it is falling into the corrupt and violent society it is?

More was an outspoken critic of both that corruption and the idea of forcing belief through violence. Excuse me, but as a humanist myself, I'll continue to admire his tolerance and wisdom even if "my religious opinions (deviate) in not a few points from his".

If More had lived and voices of reason like his had been heeded Europe may have been spared centuries of bloodshed and misery and a very different resolution of the religious differences of that period may have emerged. But we didn't get to see that, because your fundamentalist fanatic friends used an executioner's axe to shut him up.

That you think this was a good thing says a great deal about you.

[Old_Scratch]

The one thing that I can understand about Thomas More was his unwillingness to swear to the act of succession. Everyone else did, it wouldn't have hurt anyone and nobody would have thought less of him if he did as well. So I can't really decide if holding fast to his principles, even if it meant death, was admirable or not. It certainly took a lot of courage, and conviction, but at the same time it wouldn't have been the end of the world if he just gave in. He knew the king would have his way no matter what, why not just tell him what he wanted to hear? He certainly would have still been remembered for his writing even if he swore to the act. I think that maybe his unmoving principles were perhaps a little unrealistic, even by todays standards. At the same time though, I have to admire that.

[Bovril]

You "suppose" based on what? More didn't hang any Protestants when he was in a position to do so.

When you use quotation marks, be sure that you are actually quoting
Now of course Moore did not hang any 'protestants'. Before the reformation in England there was hardly a divergent movement within the established clergy seeking to split itself off from the mainstream national church, so why would he have needed to? There were no real 'protestants' to hang. Those who did discent were dealt with by much more mundane authorities. He certainly made no cause with people who were convicted for writing English versions of the Bible or for heretical speech. Luckily he was not hypocrite enough to claim he was in favour of freedom of conscience. That was an invention of rulers trying to reconcile people more than of religious theorists trying to push their own agendas.
My assumption that Moore would have just have happily hung his oponents is based on the fact that he never objected to the punishment of discenters when his lot were in charge, and never spoke out substantially in favour of freedom of religion, only in favour of his own religious tendencies. It is, of course, a judgement call, but his lack of the principles sometimes attributed to him is demonstrable, I think.

You're off by about a century and a half.

I'm giving rough examples of the massively underdocumented instances of normal people defying the hierachical authority of early modern national churches within or without the Catholic system. Of course I'm not going to come up with something that perfectly fits, the documentation usually simply isn't there, except in small cases of individual defiance which only hints at something more. Besides, the predecessors of the ranters existed during the reformation period as is documented by historian Frances Yates. So I was spot on historically, and the eclosures began in this period as well.

A "nobleman"? WTF? More was a lawyer and the son of a lawyer. He was a commoner.

I should have said 'elite'. I apologise. I was making a general point about having little respect of the powerful wishing to perpetuate their power, no matter the terms they dress it up in. The the terminology is, I think you will agree, a secondary issue on that score.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

When you use quotation marks, be sure that you are actually quoting

Then replace "suppose" with "assume". Your assumption is still baseless, given what we know about More's tolerance.

Now of course Moore did not hang any 'protestants'. Before the reformation in England there was hardly a divergent movement within the established clergy seeking to split itself off from the mainstream national church, so why would he have needed to? There were no real 'protestants' to hang. Those who did discent were dealt with by much more mundane authorities. He certainly made no cause with people who were convicted for writing English versions of the Bible or for heretical speech. Luckily he was not hypocrite enough to claim he was in favour of freedom of conscience. That was an invention of rulers trying to reconcile people more than of religious theorists trying to push their own agendas.
My assumption that Moore would have just have happily hung his oponents is based on the fact that he never objected to the punishment of discenters when his lot were in charge, and never spoke out substantially in favour of freedom of religion, only in favour of his own religious tendencies. It is, of course, a judgement call, but his lack of the principles sometimes attributed to him is demonstrable, I think.

Didn't you read my reply to basics, above? The evidence of More's approach to dissent is clear - people should not be coerced into believing what is against their conscience and divergent opinions should be tolerated. More had no problem with dissenters who did things like breaking into churches to scatter and trample the sacrament on the floor being punished, but he felt they should be punished for their crimes against property and the beliefs of others, not for merely disagreeing with the idea of a blessed sacrament. His polite and tolerant treatment of people like Simon Grynaeus shows that he had no problem with dissenters who didn't use violence and crime to express their views.

I should have said 'elite'. I apologise. I was making a general point about having little respect of the powerful wishing to perpetuate their power, no matter the terms they dress it up in. The the terminology is, I think you will agree, a secondary issue on that score.

So he's not a good man because he didn't agree with ... ummm ... you. And because he had Sixteenth Century attitudes to social distinctions and not Twenty-first Century ones? That makes no sense.

[Celsius]

I believe he was a man who ACTUALLY took a stand for his morals and did not give in. Im my opinion, One of the Greatest Men of all Time.

[conon394]

Is it acceptable to die rather than compromise what you believe is right, even if it doesn't hurt anyone?

If it doesn't hurt anyone why not it is simple personal choice - after all Demosthenes argued it was worth death to fight/support a loosing cause even if you knew the outcome and it hurt a lot of people - if it was a good cause.

[Denny Crane!]

Thiu either you didn't read the OP or you got sidetracked. Whatever your opinoin of the man in question that doesn't mean you can't question the stupidity of throwing his life away for little reason, as a matter of principle or religious fervour. When you only get one life it is truly almost a form of insanity to throw it away as he did, I am fairly certain you can class it as a form of psychosis. He died over what was essentially sectarian disputes. He died primarily in defence of the popes authority.

Principles don't make change, noble sacrifices rarely do unless they aquire the kind of publicity and social fervour to spur that change on which in that time it couldn't. Even if it could his prinicple was foolish, and even if you ignored that dying for a cause is ultimately foolish to throw your life away to further a cause in which you can't take part in. Self sacrifice is for the most part psychosis.... I'll try and think of a case that isn't and I suspect I'll struggle.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Thiu either you didn't read the OP or you got sidetracked. Whatever your opinoin of the man in question that doesn't mean you can't question the stupidity of throwing his life away for little reason, as a matter of principle or religious fervour. When you only get one life it is truly almost a form of insanity to throw it away as he did, I am fairly certain you can class it as a form of psychosis. He died over what was essentially sectarian disputes. He died primarily in defence of the popes authority.

I don't agree with the principle he felt worth sacrificing his life for, obviously. In fact, it's totally foreign to me. But I fully respect the integrity of a man who, given every opportunity to compromise his principles, refused to do so. I have some principles that I'd like to think I hold strongly enough that I'd be prepared to die rather than be coerced into betraying them. I suspect More would find some of them utterly alien, but I also suspect he'd respect my choice to stand by them, even in the face of death.

Principles don't make change, noble sacrifices rarely do unless they aquire the kind of publicity and social fervour to spur that change on which in that time it couldn't.

More's principles went beyond what might be achieved by publicity or social fervour. Again, there are some things I'd hold fast to (I hope) even if doing so gave me no publicity or had no impact on social fervour.

Even if it could his prinicple was foolish, and even if you ignored that dying for a cause is ultimately foolish to throw your life away to further a cause in which you can't take part in. Self sacrifice is for the most part psychosis.... I'll try and think of a case that isn't and I suspect I'll struggle.

More didn't think so. Neither do I. If someone put a piece of paper in my face and told me to sign it on pain of death and I disagreed with it as vehemently as More did, I like to think I'd have the same courage of my convictions as he did.

Would you sign something you thought totally unacceptable simply to save your skin? How would you regard yourself afterwards?

[Denny Crane!]

I don't agree with the principle he felt worth sacrificing his life for, obviously. In fact, it's totally foreign to me. But I fully respect the integrity of a man who, given every opportunity to compromise his principles, refused to do so. I have some principles that I'd like to think I hold strongly enough that I'd be prepared to die rather than be coerced into betraying them. I suspect More would find some of them utterly alien, but I also suspect he'd respect my choice to stand by them, even in the face of death.

It is as I said a form of psychosis. Abstract loyalties to principles are all very well and good, but that is all they are. They form a guide, something akin to an aesthetic metaphysical model to an instinctually led life and those social meta models combined with preferable behaviour form how we act. But losing our lives over them, yes psychotic there can be no rational explanation for that since ultimately what we care about can only be rationalised withon our own personal time frame at least from an atheistic point of view.

More's principles went beyond what might be achieved by publicity or social fervour. Again, there are some things I'd hold fast to (I hope) even if doing so gave me no publicity or had no impact on social fervour.

Well ok, social indoctrination does have a lot to answer for. When your dead your dead, and nothing else matters to you beyond that. The world and its affairs is irrelevant beyond that point.

More didn't think so. Neither do I. If someone put a piece of paper in my face and told me to sign it on pain of death and I disagreed with it as vehemently as More did, I like to think I'd have the same courage of my convictions as he did.

Would you sign something you thought totally unacceptable simply to save your skin? How would you regard yourself afterwards?

It doesn't matter I'd be alive. I'd have achieved nothing by having died yet if I'd signed it and moved on I'd have the rest of whatever life span I had to achieve change. Perspectives on the self are a matter of frames, events in a life are a matter of representations. Yours are...depressing somewhat?

Beyond the logical and psychological connotations of one willing to give up ones life, there is also the matter of the short sightedness of it and the sheer despair of just giving up god forbid you should have to have your will subjugated temporarily by something stronger to live on and fight another day, this is me speaking from my emotional side, losing your life is cowardice.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

It is as I said a form of psychosis. Abstract loyalties to principles are all very well and good, but that is all they are.

Really? So imagine that piece of paper in your face could result in the torture of other people. In the abstract, not actual torture of actual people. But potentially, it could do so.

Would you still sign to save your skin? I hope I wouldn't.

Abstractions often have actual, if only potential, consequences. Some abstractions are worth standing up for.

[Denny Crane!]

Really? So imagine that piece of paper in your face could result in the torture of other people. In the abstract, not actual torture of actual people. But potentially, it could do so.

Would you still sign to save your skin? I hope I wouldn't.

Abstractions often have actual, if only potential, consequences. Some abstractions are worth standing up for.

That isn't abstract, that is something with real physical consequences, on the other hand its the future of a church.

[MaximiIian]

The man stuck by his principles and died for them rather than compromise his personal integrity. That is both honourable and admirable in and of itself. But, coupled with More's own personal humanistic respect for others, even if their beliefs differed from his own, his integrity becomes even more admirable. Especially in the context of the time in which he lived.

[conon394]

It is as I said a form of psychosis. Abstract loyalties to principles are all very well and good, but that is all they are. They form a guide, something akin to an aesthetic metaphysical model to an instinctually led life and those social meta models combined with preferable behaviour form how we act. But losing our lives over them, yes psychotic there can be no rational explanation for that since ultimately what we care about can only be rationalised withon our own personal time frame at least from an atheistic point of view.

Seems like a rather sophistic and wordy way of justify a fairly self serving amorality.

Well ok, social indoctrination does have a lot to answer for. When your dead your dead, and nothing else matters to you beyond that. The world and its affairs is irrelevant beyond that point.

Again not quite - so if I say in say this is how I live (insert abstract ideal here) its what I advocate, what I install in my children, etc. Now I just roll up the tent as soon as my life is at risk how can I expect anyone to take my stance or values seriously?