Exotic Journeys: A Tourist's Guide to Philosophy
brought to you by Ron Yezzi
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy
Minnesota State University, Mankato
© Copyright 1986, 1994, 2015, 2020 by Ron Yezzi
Return to Philosophical Issues Page
(Author's Note: The account below, with slight modifications, is taken from Ron Yezzi, Philosophical Problems: The Good Life (Mankato: G. Bruno & Co., 1994), pp. 1-4.)
Topics
Mounting the Soapbox
The Good Life
The Good Life:
Introduction
As human beings, we must cope with the everyday problems of living, whether we are simply getting our next meal or are adjusting to the latest consequences of a change in the national economy. Sooner or later though, at various periods during our lives, most of us face “the grand questions” about the meaning and direction of life as well. Although we often fail to find fully satisfactory answers, we discover upon reflection that these questions and the need for answers to them persist. Indeed we find that whether or not we struggle consciously and carefully with the questions, we cannot live without answering them in some way. Here we take up the grand question: What is the good life?
Mounting the Soapbox, or Thinking About Ethics Seriously
Persons who enjoy intellectual puzzles and challenges will find plenty of problems here to occupy them; persons who believe that education is a basic tool in grasping the meaning of life will find ample opportunities to expand and deepen their thought; persons inquisitive about the intellectual roots of civilization will find much to learn. All these people have fine reasons for thinking about ethics seriously. Still, teachers of ethics are often astounded to find persons willing to pass up the opportunity to examine some of the best products of human thought over the past two and one-half millennia. Teachers of ethics however are usually willing to face the "real world." They probably even grant the possibility that “rock stars” know much more about the meaning of life than philosophers. They also hope though that people inclined toward such a belief will want to “hedge their bets” and will grant the worth of considering the work of noted philosophers. Teachers of ethics also are aware that it takes a certain amount of arrogance to presume that all persons are equally interested in philosophical questions and that they all are equally ready to take on such questions.
The real difficulties for beginners, in thinking about ethics seriously, arise when they realize how many well-thought out, but opposed, answers exist for every ethical question and when they wonder what they can do practically to change circumstances for the better. Faced with a multitude of answers and continuous disagreement among the “experts,” we can question the worth of studying ethics seriously. After all, if the experts in philosophy cannot agree, what assurance do we have that we can recognize the truth through a passing tourist's acquaintance with the study of ethics? And even if we come up with satisfactory answers, what practical difference can this make? Suppose, for example, we decide that morality requires nuclear disarmament. Having made our moral decision, can we really hope to bring about nuclear disarmament in the real world? Or, suppose we decide that torture is immoral. Can we really stop the torture that occurs in so many places in the world?
These are real difficulties without easy or demonstrably conclusive solutions. Nevertheless there are reasonable responses.
If philosophy, and ethics in particular, needed to produce clear and final answers acceptable to everyone in order to survive, the process would have become extinct long ago. What sustains philosophy is the absolute necessity for human beings to deal with certain questions and/or the conviction that reflective thought can provide some relatively satisfactory answers. We cannot function as human beings without facing some fundamental questions. For example, no matter what our doubts about knowing finally and conclusively what the good life is, we still need to direct our lives according to some conception of what is best. If we reserve judgment intellectually, life still goes on as if we did make a judgment. Thus, although we may reserve judgment about the proper role of affluence in the good life, we pursue a greater or lesser degree of affluence in practice. The philosopher William James referred to such situations where reserved judgment becomes meaningless in practice as a “forced option.”
Accordingly, we cannot simply turn away from ethics, claiming that “the subject is a waste of time because there is no truth to be known”—since the problem of deciding what to do about ethical questions in our own lives remains with us. In so far as ethical questions are unavoidable, teachers of ethics usually take the position that persons benefit from an examination of some of the world's most brilliant thought about these questions. Persons can, of course, take the heroically difficult and highly risky course of working out ethical solutions solely through their own private efforts. Too often however, those who reject ethics because “it is a waste of time” end up acting out of expediency or according to the prevailing winds in society generally or in some smaller social group. In either of the latter cases, acting out of expediency or according to prevailing winds, persons forfeit the opportunity to use their capacities to the fullest in directing their own lives.
Granting the unavoidability of ethical questions, we still must face the troublesome absence of unanimous agreement, including continual disagreement even among experts. We should be careful however not to set our expectations too high. To keep matters in perspective, we should remember that there still exists a Flat Earth Society, unconvinced by accumulated scientific evidence. Unanimous agreement on non-trivial matters is usually too high an expectation. When experts disagree, we should take this as an indication of the complexity of the subject matter rather than of the absence of any knowledge to be known. Furthermore, we should recognize differences between the expert and non-expert. An expert and a person making an unconsidered, snap judgment may well arrive at the same conclusion; yet there is a fundamental difference in the way they arrive at the conclusion. Presumably the expert relies upon accumulation of evidence and a willingness to test conclusions in terms of evidence in a way that the other person does not. In their consideration of evidence, experts raise the level of sophistication in dealing with a problem. Even if disagreements remain, they usually possess a clearer understanding of their position and know more about the reasons for holding it. The higher level of sophistication attained usually is a valuable asset. Similarly, we are likely to acquire a valuable asset when we raise the level of our own sophistication in dealing with ethical problems.
If there are experts in ethics, should the beginner dare to challenge the expertise of Plato or Aristotle or John Stuart Mill? In so far as experts disagree, of course, you cannot accept all that they say without running into problems of inconsistency. Moreover, since developing their own ability to think through problems is a fundamental purpose of studying ethics or any subject, persons should not just passively accept whatever experts say. We also should be aware that experts can be incorrect. Although there are times when the best course consists in deferring to experts, we should not take this as an easy excuse for failing to develop our own expertise in directing our lives. Furthermore, we cannot presume that experts always will be readily available to provide us with specific guidance. And even if they always are readily available, we cannot presume that they are sufficiently knowledgeable about our particular talents, motivations, and interests to provide better guidance for directing our lives than we can attain ourselves. Thus students of ethics should deepen their understanding of potential solutions to ethical problems and develop their ability to think through the problems by considering what experts say, without being intimidated by them.
Suppose we assume that we can know the right way to act. Can we really use this knowledge to make circumstances better in practice? Can what one ordinary person does (or perhaps what one lowly student does) really make a difference? In an imperfect world with many competing ethical beliefs, we should not have unrealistically high expectations. Nevertheless we also should not denigrate the importance of what ordinary people do. Life does not consist merely of momentous decisions made by famous and powerful persons. We should not succumb to a “Super Bowl mentality” where it is only “winning the big one that counts.” What ordinary people do affects those around them and, in the aggregate, seriously affects the direction of a society. There are real ethical concerns and a moral tone present in our dealings with family, friends, neighbors, and other members of our community. Corporate executives may announce grand plans for the future; but they do not get very far without the cooperation of ordinary workers. Political leaders may set the society in a new direction; but not much happens unless ordinary citizens cooperate. Generals may give orders; but the success of those orders depends upon what ordinary soldiers do. What ordinary people do in directing their daily lives does make a difference. And most amazing of all, there are even times when seemingly insignificant decisions turn out to have momentous, unforeseen consequences. When Rosa Parks, in Montgomery, Alabama in 1955, simply refused to move to the back of the bus because she was black, she did not foresee that she would trigger a series of events including the Montgomery bus boycott, the rise to national prominence of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and the spread of the civil rights movement throughout the South. In 1972, night watchman Frank Wills was just fulfilling the ordinary duties of his job when he noticed a locked door taped open at the Watergate complex in Washington, D. C. and telephoned the police; he did not foresee that his action was an essential link in a chain of events culminating in the first, forced resignation of a United States President. It would be unreasonable, of course, to expect all ordinary actions to take on the same significance as those taken by Rosa Parks and Frank Wills. But then again, we also never know when some simple right action (or wrong one, for that matter) will have enormous, unforeseen significance. Because what ordinary people do does make a difference to those around them and in the aggregate and because apparently insignificant actions can be an essential link in a momentous chain of events, there is no place for complacency or despair regarding the ordinary actions of everyday life. We all have moral decisions to make. And who among us can be sure that we will never achieve some position of fame and power where the likelihood of our affecting events is even greater? Remember the Boy Scout motto, "Be prepared!"
The Good Life
A conception of the good life provides us with ultimate goals to guide us in what we do. It establishes what has value for us and what our obligations are. In other words, a conception of the good life leads to recognition of what is worthwhile to us and recognition of how we ought to act, respectively.
We will explore six basic positions in reply to the question, “What is the good life?”—namely, Hedonism, Stoicism, Christianity, Zen Buddhism, Rationalism, and Existentialism. For each position, there are also several variations.
(Note: The basic positions are not all mutually exclusive. For example, we cannot expect only Rationalists to make use of reason. Where overlap occurs, we make judgments according to the primary tendencies of a position. Thus, although advocates of intellectual hedonism definitely prefer intellectual pleasures, they need not condemn all sensual enjoyment.)