How should one live socrates

1 Introduction

Zerbor/iStock/Thinkstock

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

• Discuss why it is important to study ethics.

• Give examples of ethical questions.

• Explain what it means to describe ethical reasoning as dialectical.

• Describe what practical reasoning is and how ethical reasoning is a form of practical reasoning.

• Identify the basic distinctions between utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.1 Socrates’s Question

It is not a trivial question, Socrates said: what we are talking about is how one should live.

—Bernard Williams

1.1 Socrates’s Question In 399 BC, more than 2,400 years ago, a Greek philosopher named Socrates is reported to have said that ethics concerns no less than how one should live. The philosopher Bernard Wil- liams (1985) called this “Socrates’s question.” This might seem to be an odd way of defining ethics for a number of reasons.

First, the question is quite broad: “How one should live” seems to concern the whole of one’s life. Yet many of us think of ethics as limited to a set of standards or rules, such as those we are taught by our parents or in Sunday school. Second, “how one should live” seems to mean “how anyone and everyone ought to live.” How can anyone make claims about how others should live? Moreover, if Socrates and his followers were seeking answers to these types of questions thousands of years ago, why have we not settled on any answers? Does this mean that there are no answers or that the answers to such ques- tions are best left up to individuals to determine on their own?

These are important concerns that we will examine in the pages ahead. But before getting into those details, it is worth considering whether the task of seeking general answers about how one should live is a useful endeavor. After all, we raise our children according to the presumption that certain ways of life are better than others. When politicians create laws, they do so because they think certain ways to live are better than others. Likewise, when we vote on such laws, we do so because we agree that cer- tain ideas about how people should live are worth becoming part of the established code of our com- munity or nation.

When we express outrage over certain situations— for example, when a politician takes bribes, a cor- poration hides illegal activities in order to pad the pockets of its leaders, a terrorist group beheads an innocent aid worker, or a friend lies to us—we pre- sume that something has gone wrong in the choices these people have made regarding how to live their lives. Similarly, when we praise the bystander who risks his or her life to protect others from a gun- man; admire the work of the nun who devotes her

sedmak/iStock/Thinkstock The Ancient Greek philosopher Socrates raised the question of how one should live, which became the central ethical question for all that followed.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.1 Socrates’s Question

life to caring for the poor, outcast, and diseased; honor the soldier who sacrifices his or her life to save a wounded comrade; or express gratitude to the family member who has cared for us unselfishly, we reflect the deep conviction that such actions embody something good and right.

In doing so, we affirm through our attitudes and responses that there are some things good and right and other things that are bad and wrong. This is true whether we are referring to particular actions or choices; general policies, rules, or laws; or values and character. We may acknowledge that there is widespread disagreement over many views concerning how one should live. However, it would be extremely difficult to live our lives without supposing that these questions are worth thinking about and that at least some answers are better than others.

Here is another way to think about it: Through each conscious, deliberate choice we make, we are living out an answer to Socrates’s question. With every decision, each time we say “This would be better than that,” we take a stand on what matters to us, whether we realize we are doing so or not. However, since our choices to do (or not do) certain things also impact other people and the world around us, we cannot avoid tak- ing a stand on what matters in a more gen- eral sense. When we act selfishly, we imply that what matters most are our own needs or interests. When we act generously, we show that the needs and interests of others matter. Most of the time, we are not thinking about our choices from this perspective; we are just making the decisions that seem best to us. But as we will see in more detail later, we have the remarkable capacity to ques- tion our own or others’ assumptions about how one should live.

This questioning, and the pursuit of an- swers, is what “ethics” (or “moral philoso- phy”) is all about.

Why Study Ethics? To sum up, ethics considers how one should live. The question of how one should live plays into our everyday choices; the general beliefs we hold about how people ought to live, think, and act; and the specific judgments that we make on the basis of such beliefs. Examining this broad question and more specific questions at a reflective and systematic level is what we mean by philosophical ethics or moral philosophy.

Going Deeper: Ethics Versus Morality

Can one define ethics or morality, and is there a difference between these terms? In this book, we will not provide a strict definition of either of these ideas, and we will use the terms interchangeably. Some philosophers have, however, drawn distinctions between them, and it can be illuminating to consider them. See Going Deeper: Ethics Versus Morality at the end of the chapter for more.

An Inescapable Question

Whether we realize it or not, our lives are driven by various ideas, values, and assumptions about what matters in life. We cannot escape Socrates’s question. This text gives us a chance to consider it more deeply than we ever have before.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.1 Socrates’s Question

Pursuing answers to such questions can be confusing, tedious, and even distressing (see Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical Life). However, persisting in the task—and taking its challenges seriously—is a way to live out those distinctively human possibilities of thinking, questioning, and inquiring. As such, it can help us live with more integrity, consistency, and candor, and it can be surprisingly enriching.

We are continually confronted with ethical questions, whether we are, like Socrates, itinerant eccentrics wandering in togas around the marketplace of Athens, or stu- dents, parents, spouses, soldiers, mechan- ics, caregivers, billionaires, minimum-wage workers, food eaters, or technology users. Everything we do—from how we spend our money and relate to our friends to how we raise and teach children and the profes- sion we choose—is ethically significant. We are confronted with issues, dilemmas, and debates that range from the very personal to the global, during which we encounter a seemingly endless number of opinions and claims.

Studying ethics can give us the resources to evaluate these opinions and claims. It can help us recognize the kind of argument offered when someone makes an ethical claim. It can also help us discern the values that are being appealed to or the assump- tions made about the nature and signifi- cance of human life. Perhaps most of all, we can learn how to reason about all of these matters and intelligently evaluate the rela- tive merits of different views.

Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical Life

According to Socrates and many others inspired by his example, philosophical ethics—and philosophy in general—is more than just an academic or intellectual exercise. Rather, in its most fundamental sense, it is a way of life open to all people. See Going Deeper: Socrates and the Philosophical Life at the end of the chapter for more.

Ethics FYI

Argument In philosophy, an argument is a set of claims. Some of these claims, called the premises, serve as support for another claim, called the conclusion. This is different than the ordinary meaning of an argument as a verbal quarrel or disagreement, often characterized by raised voices and flaring emotions. One can think of an argument in the philosophical sense as the methodical and well-researched defense of a position or point of view advanced in relation to a disputed issue.

Going Deeper: Ethics and Religion

Many readers have religious commitments that inform their ethical views. Is there a conflict between such religious commitments and the philosophical study of ethics? See Going Deeper: Ethics and Religion at the end of this chapter for more.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

In some cases we may find that certain claims are well supported, while others seem much less so, even if we are far from absolute certainty. In other cases we may find ourselves more perplexed than when we started, which calls us to keep the question open and continue to reflect and search. Either way, we will be less subject to the whims of popular opinion, the power of persuasion, and attractive personalities and be more capable of forming and defend- ing our own answers to the question of how one should live.

1.2 Ethical Reasoning What is ethical reasoning? There are many conflicting answers to this question that reflect different ethical theories, such as utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We will exam- ine each of these theories closely in the chapters to come. However, some features of ethical reasoning are common to all of the major theories.

The “Dialectic” Between the Abstract and Concrete Ethical enquiry involves a dialectic. This term refers to the process of moving back and forth between abstract judgments—general considerations about values, rules, the purpose of things, and so on—and concrete judgments—those having to do with particular questions and problems, such as what’s right to do here and how. This process is undertaken in an attempt to find what philosopher John Rawls (1971) called “reflective equilibrium” (p. 18).

For example, we might start with a concrete ethical judgment with which most people would agree, such as that it is wrong to exploit a child to satisfy one’s sexual urges—a form of what we call child abuse. We would then consider why this act is wrong. Is it because it causes great suffering for the child, both at the time of the abuse and later in life? Is it because it violates a rule not to treat innocent children as objects of gratification? Is it because it is a corruption of the role we have of nurturing and caring for the next generation?

Our answer would then have implications for other, more disputed situations, such as whether it is right to spank a child or to use modern science to change a child’s genetic code. In other words, on these more disputed questions we are looking for reasons why certain behaviors or choices might be right or wrong or better or worse. We can sometimes try to find them by considering the reasons we have for other more commonly accepted judgments of right, wrong, better, or worse. These reasons are the abstract part of the dialectic, while the specific judgments are the concrete part.

Similarly, we might start with commonly accepted abstract ideas such as “be honest” or “thou shalt not kill.” We then consider whether and how “thou shalt not kill” applies to the concrete situation of soldiers in combat or when one person is threatening another’s life. Or we might consider whether those we are obliged not to kill include nonhuman animals, human fetuses, or the terminally ill. Similarly, does “be honest” mean that we must give Aunt Gertrude our honest opinion when she asks if we like her new dress (and we think it is hideous)? Or that we must honestly answer a psychopath’s question of where our friend is hiding when doing so will likely lead to our friend’s murder?

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

Such considerations of the concrete application of an abstract value, rule, or principle might compel us to revise or even reject it in favor of a more refined principle. On the other hand, if we are convinced that something is wrong and this is explained by some general principle, we may find that applying the same principle to a case we are less sure about ends up entailing that it, too, must also be wrong.

Why is this important? If we simply stick with abstract values, rules, and principles (such as be honest or thou shalt not kill) without looking carefully at how they apply to a variety of concrete cases, we can become lost in a sea of ideas that leave us confused with respect to particular questions and choices; or we might be unable to appreciate the challenging impli- cations these ideas can have for our choices and judgments. On the other hand, if we simply consider concrete cases and rely on our gut instincts or what we have been accustomed to believe about them, we will be unable to adequately consider more abstract questions. Such questions include the following:

• Why do people disagree, and can their disagreements be resolved? • What assumptions are people making when they express moral beliefs, and are they

legitimate? • What is valuable and worthwhile, and are there any objective answers to that

question?

Moral theories like utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics deal largely with the abstract side of this dialectic. They consider questions such as the following:

• What is the nature of morality? • What principles should guide moral reasoning? • What rights or obligations should we respect? • What kind of life is most worth living, and what would be the characteristics of such

a life?

Defending and justifying these abstract ideas will require a person to consider the concrete implications of one abstract theory compared to another. In other words, while we will exam- ine the general claims a theory makes about how one should live, and the values and assump- tions that underlie these claims, we will also consider what that means for our specific lives and choices.

We might find that while a theory seems plausible in the abstract and helps us make sense of certain concrete judgments that seem right, on further reflection we might decide that it also supports other concrete judgments that are questionable or seem wrong. When con- fronted with such concrete judgments, we must therefore back up and reexamine the theory’s abstract ideas. If those ideas still seem right, then we might have to reconsider our concrete judgments. However, if we think there are problems with the theory itself, our task is then to examine what those might be and whether a different set of principles and values would bet- ter guide us.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

This process should not be regarded as a matter of merely picking and choosing which theory to follow when confronted with a moral problem. For instance, after reading Chapters 3 (on utilitarianism) and 4 (on deontology), one might say, “The utilitarian would say that thus- and-such is morally right, while a Kantian would say that thus-and-such is morally wrong.” It may be tempting to add, “One must simply choose which theory to follow when considering a particular problem and form one’s beliefs and decisions accordingly.”

This will not do, however, because these theories aim for consistency between the abstract values, principles, and rules that define the theory and the plausibility of the concrete judg- ments that the theory entails. If utilitarianism, for instance, seems the best way to reason about one particular case, then it should likewise be the best way to reason about any other case. If utilitarianism seems to lead to a problem when applied to another case, it suggests there may be a problem with utilitarianism itself, and it becomes no longer clear that it was the best way to reason about the first case.

Ethics FYI

Consistency When the general rules, principles, and values of an ethical theory seem right, and they support and explain judgments about particular cases that also seem right, there is consistency between the general and the particular (or the abstract and the concrete, to use other terms). Inconsistency arises when the general or abstract does not cohere with the particular or concrete.

For example, someone might hold to the general rule that killing is always wrong, but he or she may also support the death penalty. This would appear inconsistent because the death penalty involves killing, and so if one supports it, then one is denying the principle that killing is always wrong. Therefore, to be consistent, one would either need to reject the death penalty or revise the principle in such a way so that killing is justified in the case of those convicted of certain crimes.

If there is an inconsistency or disconnect between the theory and the conclusions it supports, then further explanation, revision, or rejection is in order. We may need to explain how the values, rules, and principles of the theory support the concrete judgment that seems most plausible; we may revise the theory’s principles so they are more consistently applicable to a range of cases; or we may need to either reject the theory or reject the concrete judgments that called the theory into question.

The bottom line is that no one who advocates for a certain abstract theory of moral reasoning believes that the theory will apply in some cases while another theory applies to other cases. But neither does anyone believe that our particular concrete moral judgments and choices

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

are arbitrary, without any reasoning behind them. We should strive for consistency and harmony between the particular judgments and choices that we make regarding con- crete situations and the general reasons we have for making them.

Practical Reasoning in Everyday Life Moral reasoning can seem complicated and daunting, and oftentimes it is. However, it is not that different from the way we rea- son about everyday choices—what we call practical reasoning, or reasoning about what to do. Consider being a student. How should one best live out the goals of a stu- dent? A student has certain concrete aims, such as passing a class, obtaining a degree, and learning. There are other consider- ations involved, such as the financial cost of pursuing these goals and the impacts these pur- suits have on one’s career and perhaps on one’s family.

Concrete questions might include “What courses should I take?,” “How much time should I devote to my studies?,” and “Should I cheat on this assignment?” These questions might bump up against more abstract questions such as “Is it more worthwhile to study philosophy or to study computer science?,” “Does coaching my son’s Little League Baseball team take priority over learning about the French Revolution?,” or “Is my goal simply to obtain a good grade, or does it include becoming educated in a certain subject?” Answering these questions would then lead to deeper questions about what is most important in life, as the words worthwhile, priority, and goal indicate.

Moral reasoning works in much the same way and overlaps with these kinds of real-life ques- tions (note the question about cheating, for example). It may seem that many such questions pertaining to being a student are matters of personal choice that one must answer for oneself, as opposed to questions that have objectively right or wrong answers. Moral reasoning, on the other hand, is commonly thought to deal with a very particular set of concerns, such as those having to do with the impact of our choices on the lives of others. These are more than just matters of achieving our personal goals or following our individual desires. As such, is there a difference between moral reasoning and everyday practical reasoning?

This is a matter of heated debate, and many philosophers do indeed draw a sharp distinction between “moral” matters and matters of practical concern, often in terms of the degree of impact our actions have on others. However, this distinction becomes complicated when we recognize how interconnected our lives are and how many of the choices that we might be inclined to consider personal or nonmoral are in fact laden with moral significance due to this interconnectedness.

Dialectic

Ethical reasoning involves moving back and forth between abstract rules, principles, and values and concrete judgments. Click here to read three example dialogues that illustrate this process. As you read them, try to notice when someone is proposing a general principle. Also notice when someone is challenging a general principle by using a concrete example. Does the first person modify the principle? Does the person hold on to it but try to clarify it? Are there points at which one person accepts the other person’s principle and has to rethink his or her views about a concrete case?

See your eBook for videos of these scenarios.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: Imag- ine you live in the United States in the 1850s, prior to the Civil War and before the slaves were emanci- pated. You need a new shirt and can choose between a cotton one that is nice but a little expensive and another shirt that seems just as nice but is a fraction of the cost. However, you find out that the second shirt is less expensive because the cotton used to produce it was picked by slaves, whereas the more expensive shirt was made from cotton picked by free persons who earned a decent wage.

You strongly believe that slavery is a great evil and that Black people have every right to live as freely as White people. You may reason that by buying the less expensive shirt, you are using your money to help support this vile and evil industry. Perhaps you reason that even though your own individual choices won’t significantly impact this industry, you

find it important that your choices align with and reflect your values—that as a person of integrity, you want to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. On the other hand, perhaps you may think that, although slavery is evil, it is a necessary evil when compared to the importance to you of being able to buy cheaper clothing. If clothing was more expensive, you may find it more difficult to provide adequate food for your children. Or you may not be able to have as many items of clothing or enjoy the latest fashions. Some reasons for want- ing cheaper clothing produced by slaves may seem important (even if they don’t outweigh the evils of slavery), some relatively trivial and selfish. The crucial point is that the choice of which shirt to buy, though an everyday choice and one you may have thought to be merely personal or morally neutral, is in fact a choice with moral significance.

We all face decisions like this in our contemporary lives—decisions we may be inclined to regard as a matter of personal choice, rather than morally significant, but that turn out to have moral significance after all.

Consider, for example, an everyday activity like eating or shopping for food. Eating at a res- taurant or having a summer barbeque with friends can be either greatly enjoyable, boring and mundane, or stressful and hectic. Because of this, we easily overlook the many ways that our choices involve us in complex and intricate webs, the strands of which have recognizably moral dimensions.

For example, as we will discuss in a later chapter, the ways that farm animals are commonly raised would distress many people if they were aware of those conditions. Additionally, inexpensive produce is often the result of farmers and factories engaging in practices not too far removed from slave labor: employing undocumented immigrants at a fraction of the wages that would be paid to legal workers and forcing them to work long hours in danger- ous, unregulated environments (there is even evidence that some industries still use actual slave labor; Estabrook, 2011). The crops we eat are often sprayed with chemicals that have detrimental impacts on the environment. These and other production methods make food

Jupiterimages/Stockbyte/Thinkstock Would you pay a higher price for your cotton to avoid supporting the institution of slavery?

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning

cheap, convenient, and enjoyable—but arguably in ways that, for many consumers, conflict with their moral values.

Without getting into these specific debates, the main point to consider is that the kinds of everyday choices we make about what to eat or buy—whether motivated by cost or desire for certain kinds of products or simply made without much thought at all—turn out to be morally significant because our in-store choices connect us (and our wallets) to larger webs.

Similar things can be said of other choices we may regard as morally insignificant or merely personal. What will my career choice mean for my family? If I look away when individuals are doing wrong, does this mean I believe that those individuals’ right to do what they want is more important than the rights of the people they are harming? Do people’s personal choices express a certain attitude about the nature and value of certain forms of human life, and what would be the implications if they applied that attitude to other circumstances? Would we think it is no longer a matter of personal choice?

Who’s to Say? We will examine many concrete examples of choices, policies, and judgments in the course of our study. As we do so, undoubtedly there will be times when you will think, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong? We should just leave it up to each person to decide.” This will be espe- cially tempting regarding matters that are very complex or those that feature different and contentious ideas about what is most worthwhile in life, the nature of humans and the world, and similar issues. In the next chapter, we will examine philosophical positions that challenge the idea that moral reasoning can lead to judgments that are objective or true for everyone. Before looking at these challenges, however, there are a few things to consider that might help us think more critically about the “who’s to say?” attitude, especially when it seems to release us from the burden of moral reasoning.

First, the mere fact that there are different opinions does not mean that each opinion is equally valid. To be sure, there are cases in which different opinions are equally valid. For example, if one person feels that cilan- tro is a fresh and bright addition to many dishes, and another person finds that it tastes revoltingly like dish soap, it would be silly to think that one person is “right” and the other is “wrong.” This is a matter of taste (and perhaps genetics; McGee, 2010) and does not have any moral significance.

However, consider an example in the oppo- site extreme. Suppose Person 1 believes that Jewish people are a scourge on society and that we would be better off if they were eliminated, and Person 2 is of the opposite opin- ion. Clearly this is not like differing opinions on cilantro. Person 2 would, no doubt, insist that

Going Deeper: “Who Am I to Say?”

Sometimes people refrain from taking a stand on a moral issue because they do not think they are yet in a position to do so, and thus they remain undecided. Or they may think they cannot or should not take a stand and thus believe they have to remain neutral. Is there a difference? See Going Deeper: “Who am I to Say?”: Neutral vs. Undecided at the end of this chapter for more.

© 2018 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

Section 1.2 Ethical Reasoning