It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which
is the nature of right and wrong.
-Jeremy Bentham
Children have never been very good at listening to their elders,
but they have never failed to imitate them.
-James Baldwin
Play by the rules, but be ferocious.
-Phil Knight
This month I am going to talk about some ways that we can try to decide how we should live our lives. I am assuming that the reader wants to live some sort of ‘good life’. That is not necessarily the case, but it was largely my own thoughts on this topic that led me to philosophy.
On one hand we can just drift through life with no thought about the moral implications of our actions. Whether we should do so or not is itself a moral judgement. As I quoted before, Plato would suggest that such an unexamined life is not worth living. The other alternative is to decide that we want to consider how we live and try to decide what is the correct course of action. I may be wrong, but I suspect that most people who give this any thought would lean towards the latter.
There are many approaches that we can take when looking at how to live, but they can mostly be placed in three broad categories with fuzzy boundaries. Common terms for these, which I will use, are deontology, consequentialism and virtue ethics. These can be defined in many ways under many different labels, but in the interest of simplicity I will give brief summaries of the three.
Deontology is a theory that actions can be judged as right or wrong based on whether or not they conform to rules and regulations, rather than the results of those actions. On the surface this would seem to be the simplest ethical system. It requires only a knowledge of ‘the rules’ and a willingness to obey them. Unfortunately this can break down quickly when rules are ambiguous or contradictory. Even when rules are clear there are often many sets of rules that do not always align. There are the laws of the land, the rules that you were taught by your parents or guardians as you grew up, the rules laid out by your religion or any other group to which you belong. When these different sets of rules are in conflict it is not always easy to decide which ones should win out. One solution is to decide on an overriding set of rules that say which rules prevail in such circumstances.
Cosequentialism, also sometimes referred to as utilitarianism, doesn’t consider the rules so much as the consequences of behaviour. In simple terms we should do what makes good things happen and not do what makes bad things happen. Unfortunately any action can lead to whole host of consequences, some good and some bad. Some of the consequences may be ambiguous or unknown. Even deciding what is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ can be a problem. Philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham tried to utilize a semi-mathematical approach where you try to calculate and maximize what is sometimes called utility. Not everyone will agree on what this utility is that we are maximizing. Is it pleasure, freedom from pain, long term health? For Star Trek fans a clear cut consequentialist philosophy is that of the Ferengi. The correct action is the one that maximizes monetary profit. Few real world people would fully agree with this system, but it has the advantage of relative simplicity. If we look at more nebulous terms such as ‘happiness’ things get more complicated. And even if we have a good handle on the term it becomes next to impossible to work out what the long term effects of any significant action will be.
A third idea that has been taken more and more seriously in recent years is virtue ethics. It is harder to define but is probably closer to the way that many people try to good lives. The idea dates back to at least the time of Aristotle and can be simply stated as “Act as a virtuous person would act in your situation.” This assumes that the actor has some sense of how a virtuous person would behave, either through some internal model of virtue or one or more outside role models.
There is no clear consensus which ethical system is correct, if any. I suggest that each is appropriate in different circumstances. Virtue ethics can often guide us through our daily life, behaving as we know a virtuous person would or should act. Sometimes things are a bit more complicated and we need to slow down and consult our knowledge of the rules. If the rules are unclear or seem morally wrong then we need to slow down and weigh the possible outcome of our actions. To attempt to calculate maximum utility for every one of our actions would be paralyzing. Virtue ethics and deontology are useful shortcuts most of the time. Often when virtue ethics conflicts with deontology or when two sets of rules are at odds we need to make some attempt at consequentialism.
These different systems are also appropriate when we are acting in different roles. As imperfect as the results may be, a legislator who is formulating a law must make their best effort at maximizing the utility of the law’s enforcement. A hockey referee has a very narrow role, to enforce the rules of the game. Virtue ethics and consequentialism rarely enter the equation. A parent who wishes to be a role model to their child is best to behave as a virtuous person.
Wayne
May 2025
Recent Comments