What makes a good life?

What makes a good life? Is a good life possible?
● Kant: A good life is not merely a happy life, but rather a moral life. Neither
happiness, nor riches, power, good health, or even all of these things
together guarantees a good life. A happy life may be more or less
achievable for particular people, depending on things like the particular
situation they are born into; most of the time, though, whether or not you
are happy is not fully under your control. However, everyone, no matter
their circumstances, can use reason to make morally good decisions (or
in other words, to develop a good will, motivated only by a sense of duty);
the decisions we make are always under our own control. A morally good
will is thus the most reliable foundation for a good life overall, because
every other thing in the world can become bad except a good will.
● (We also had discussions about Plato, Lorde, Kennett and Cocking, and
Kimmerer that are relevant to this GQ; any of them might also be options
for an exam question on this topic.)
What parts of our lives are relevant to our thinking about ethics? In other
words, if a person wants to do an ethical self-assessment, what should
they think about (for example, the motives behind their actions, the
consequences of their actions, their feelings, their desires, their diet, their
job, etc.)?
● Plato: The virtuousness (or, more generally, excellence) of a person’s own
soul is what’s most significant, ethically speaking, and should be the
focus of our thinking about ethics. This means, among other things, that
we should not worry so much about our bodies, our reputations, what
“most people” will think about us, etc.
● Kant: Our will, or in other words our decisions and the motivations that
drive them, is most significant, ethically speaking. The goodness of a will
is totally separate from how good it turns out in the world (that is, the
consequences a decision brings about, which are irrelevant to an ethical
assessment) or from a person’s other dispositions or talents (for example,
how charitable or wise a person is in general, which is irrelevant to an
ethical assessment). Saying something is morally irrelevant is not the
same as saying it is wrong, however: plenty of decisions will lack “moral
content” (because they are not done from duty) without being immoral
(because they are not contrary to duty). Giving to charity because you
Page 1 of 5
PHIL 103.101 (Fall ‘20)
Final Exam Study Guide
want a tax break, for example, is amoral: not bad, but not good in the
special way moral things are good. About decisions like these, people
might say “That was a smart move,” but probably wouldn’t say either
“Wow, that person really did something admirable” or “That is
despicable.”
● (Every other thinker in the course, including a generic utilitarian, is also
fair game here.)
How do we (or should we) form conclusions about what is right and wrong,
good and bad?
● Paul: Some decisions in life — like becoming a vampire, or a parent —
fundamentally transform who we are and what we care about;
sometimes, we only get one opportunity to make such a transformative
decision, and so such decisions must be approached carefully. When
forming a conclusion about a transformative decision, you shouldn’t base
it exclusively on how you now feel about the possible outcomes you
imagine, because you don’t know what it’s like until you do it, and thus
can’t be sure which outcomes would be positive and which would be
negative for your post-transformation self. You shouldn’t even base your
conclusion on the testimony of other people who have undergone the
transformation (e.g. people who have become vampires, parents, etc.
saying that they love it and would never go back), because you can’t
know if the transformation will affect you in exactly the same way. The
experiences of people who surround us should be taken into
consideration as theirs and not our own. Instead, you should approach
decisions like this by asking yourself if you’re curious enough to know
what you’ll be like after the decision.
● Kant: What makes an action good or bad is the motive behind the action
and not the outcomes that follow from it. A moral decision must be
motivated only by a rationally valid sense of duty. If I am not acting from a
sense of duty (a sense of what I should do, apart from any consideration
of what I want to do) — for example, if I’m motivated by my feelings or by
a wish to bring about some particular consequence in the world — my
action may not necessarily be morally wrong, but it cannot be morally
right. A valid sense of duty is one that is consistent with this “categorical
imperative”: “act only on that maxim such that you can at the same time
will that it should become a universal law.” In other words, your reason for
doing things must be one that everyone, in every situation, could in
theory act on. The various formulations of the categorical imperative —
Page 2 of 5
PHIL 103.101 (Fall ‘20)
Final Exam Study Guide
i.e. the “law of nature test,” the “persons v. things test,” and the
“autonomy test” — are ways of ensuring that one’s own sense of duty
meets this requirement.
● Arendt: All “preconceived standards, norms, and general rules” are of
dubious value when it comes to deciding what’s right and what’s wrong.
Instead, we must each think and judge anew, for ourselves. Before
coming to a conclusion about a decision, really stop and ask yourself
questions; in particular, ask yourself if you think it’s right, or whether you
could live with yourself after making that decision. As long as you’re
thinking, you’ll keep asking questions, breaking down your thoughts to
analyze each one. The more questions we ask ourselves, the more
doubts we will have about our previous conclusions and the standards of
right and wrong we’ve relied on before. This is beneficial, though, in at
least two ways. First, by interrupting our other activities, thinking makes it
harder to unwittingly do things you’ll come to regret later. Second, once
you begin to question your preconceptions and prejudgments, you’ll be in
a better position to notice every aspect and unique detail of the situation,
and this will later help you to form a conclusion of your own (rather than
simply relying on “pre-judgments” or prejudices). Thinking won’t tell you
what to do but thinking can help you sharpen your judgment. However,
you should always remain ready to think and judge s the situation
changes and new decisions present themselves.
● (Every other thinker in the course, including a generic utilitarian, is also
fair game here.)
How does (or should) who we are affect what we ought to do? For instance,
might our ethical obligations shift according to different theories of human
nature, information from biology and psychology, or the time and place
where we live?
● Lorde: A person’s identity — for example, their race and gender — can
affect what they should do. For instance, for “Women of Color in america
[who] have grown up within a symphony of anger at being silenced at
being unchosen,” it is both necessary and right to “learn to orchestrate
those furies… and use them for strength and force and insight within our
daily lives.” The same is true more generally: our lives our best when we
live “from our own internal knowledge and needs” — grounded in “the
considered phrase ‘It feels right to me’” — rather than “when we live
outside ourselves” by simply following what others say.
Page 3 of 5
PHIL 103.101 (Fall ‘20)
Final Exam Study Guide
● (We had also discussions about Paul, Kant, and Kimmerer that are
relevant to this GQ; any of them might also be options for an exam
question on this topic.)
How can we put our ideals into action?
● Lorde: To put our ideals into action, we must stop being afraid to have
and express strong feelings. In particular, the strong feelings of passion
and satisfaction known as “the erotic” provide an internal requirement
toward excellence that can power a person to action: “once we know the
extent to which we are capable of feeling that sense of satisfaction and
completion, we can then observe which of our various life endeavors
bring us closest to that fullness.” The task of clarifying our feelings and
discovering what brings us that kind of joy can, in turn, be achieved
through creative endeavors like poetry, and through open — at times,
even angry — conversations with people different from ourselves.
● Kimmerer: Rituals and ceremonies can give us a viewpoint on what our
ideals are and how we act on them. However, some rituals tend rather
toward thoughtless repetition with no reasoning; as currently used in
public schools in the United States, the Pledge of Allegiance often tends
in that direction. By contrast, the Thanksgiving Address as practiced in
Onondaga territory is a ritual that creates room for thought: it gives
reasons for being thankful, and invites interaction. Through such rituals,
we can begin to recognize our ideals and what kinds of actions those
ideals might require.
● (We also had discussions about Plato and Arendt that are relevant to this
GQ; they might also be options for an exam question on this topic.)
(How) could taking a class — or reading a book — about ethics help a
person become more ethical?
● (We had discussions about Plato and Arendt that are relevant to this GQ;
they might also be options for an exam question on this topic.)
When do our moral judgments affect the behavior of others? When do
attempts to influence moral decisions and behavior through criticism,
blame, condemnation, praise, and persuasion themselves become ethically
relevant? For example, when is it right to tell other people they’re wrong?
When should you mind your own business?
● Lorde: The moral judgments of society can often affect our behavior
before we realize they have. In our society, that often happens with
Page 4 of 5
PHIL 103.101 (Fall ‘20)
Final Exam Study Guide
judgments about what is “manly” or “masculine,” for example. Even the
most ardently feminist mother might catch herself about to go off on her
son for crying after he’s been bullied! We should resist the urge to live our
lives based on these kinds of “external directives” and “alien forms.”
While we can learn from each other (and parents, especially, can have a
positive affect on the behavior of their children), we should remind
ourselves and others to listen first to our own deepest emotions.
● (We also had discussions about Plato, Arendt, and Cocking and Kennett
that are relevant to this GQ; any of them might also be options for an
exam question on this topic.)
How do ethics and politics relate? Can good personal values make us
better in political life (for example, better citizens, better leaders)? Can
good institutions make us better people?
● Kimmerer: The contrast between the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance and the
Onondaga Thanksgiving Address provides one powerful example of the
way the institutions we live in can shape the kinds of people we are. The
contrast between the kinds of behaviors encouraged by a “gift economy”
and those encouraged by a “profit economy” provides another.
● (We had discussions about Plato, Lorde, and Arendt that are relevant to
this GQ; any of them might also be options for an exam question on this
topic.)
B. Potential “Section I” topics:
● The ethical questions posed by the Nazi dictatorship
● Ecological ethics (recycling contests, etc.)
● The ethics of stealing to survive, and related ethical questions raised by
the concept of private property and a profit economy
● The ethical questions raised in decisions about parenting (whether to
become a parent, how to parent, how to interact with younger
generations regardless of whether or not you’re a parent, etc.)
● The ethics of influence (peer pressure, social pressure, political pressure,
the influence exerted on us by rituals, relationships, etc.)
● Conflicts between ethics and politics
● The issue of if/how formal knowledge (like the kind you get from reading a
book or taking a class) can make a person more ethical
● Whether or not being moral at all times is important to live a good life
Page 5 of 5