Furthermore, he supposed that the rule of the gods was most efficacious for establishing justice and, on the basis of that rule on high, he determined the constitution, laws, justice and just acts. It is not a bad idea also to add what distinctions he made about individual cases.

After what belongs to the gods and the divine [they thought it was necessary (see fr. 8)] to pay most attention to parents and laws, not in a counterfeit way but conforming oneself to these things out of conviction. They approved abiding by the customs and laws of their fathers, even if they should be somewhat worse than those of others are.

As a general rule, they thought that it was necessary to suppose that there is no greater evil than anarchy, for it is not natural for human beings to be saved, if there is no one supervising them. Concerning rulers and ruled they thought as follows: they asserted that rulers must not only be knowledgeable but also love humanity, and that the ruled must not only be obedient but also love the rulers.

Concerning generation of children they said the following. As a general rule, <they thought that it was necessary> to guard against what is called “precocious,” for neither in the case of plants nor of animals does the precocious bear good fruit, but they need to be prepared in advance of bearing fruit for some time, in which time their bodies, having gained full strength and having reached maturity, become able to provide both seeds and fruits.

Concerning opinion [they say that] they say the following: it is, on the one hand, foolish to heed every opinion and the opinion of every person, and especially to heed the opinion that arises among the many. For to form opinions and suppositions well belongs to few people. [For it is clear that those with knowledge do this, but these are few. So that it is clear that such an ability would not extend to the many.]

For, with regard to interactions with others there is appropriateness and inappropriateness, and they are distinguished by difference in age, in status, in family relationship and in benefits conferred [, and in any other difference of this sort between people]. For there is a certain form of interaction that seems not to be inappropriate for the young in respect to the young but is inappropriate with respect to an elder.

Since the Pythagorean Precepts have traditionally been regarded as a fabrication by Aristoxenus consisting of elements stolen from Plato and Aristotle, there has been little attempt to try to understand the ethical system they promulgate as a whole. Most scholarly attention has been directed at identifying the supposed borrowings from Plato and Aristotle. Similarly, there has been essentially no discussion of their place in the history of Greek ethics, since they have not been regarded as based on genuine Pythagorean thought.

They said that true love of what is beautiful and fine is found in our pursuits and in the sciences. For to prize and love customs and pursuits that are fine, just as also those kinds of sciences and practices which are fine and seemly, is truly to be lovers of what is beautiful and fine, but that which is called love of the beautiful and fine by the many, such as that which arises with regard to things that are necessary and useful for life, lies, presumably, as the spoils of the true love of what is beautiful and fine.