Tom Gilson

Ethics and the Good Life

Contemporary ethical theories like that of Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape, Alonzo Fyfe’s desire utiltarianism, and your typical man-in-the-street relativism make human flourishing, the fulfillment of needs and desires, etc. — the “good life,” in other words — their standard for ethics.

In other words, they measure virtue by how it contributes to “the good life.”

There was a time when serious thinkers measured the good life according to how it developed and displayed virtue.

It seems to me the latter approach is richer and deeper. In fact, it seems to me that it’s the best route to “the good life” in both senses of the term.

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

6 thoughts on “Ethics and the Good Life

  1. So you prefer virtue ethics over consequentialism. But why? So far your only argument is that virtue ethics seem “richer and deeper,” but what does that even mean?

    I have a request for you: Can you try to keep separate the concept of relativism from the “human flourishing” idea? Please don’t mix them up, because human flourishing is a particular objective thing, and it’s not a matter of personal opinion. Human flourishing is an essential part of human nature, common to everyone. In that sense, it’s an objective basis for morality. This is different from relativism.

  2. How can you evaluate my argument “so far,” John, when there’s no argument at all in this post, just observations and opinions?

    I spoke of two objectivist ethical approaches (Harris’s and Fyfe’s) along with relativism. Thus it’s not true that I equated ethics of human flourishing with relativism. What, was I supposed to name every other objectivist ethical philosophy that’s based on human flourishing, too? (Or were trying to make the point that relativistic ethics are never associated with ideas of human flourishing? I seriously doubt it: it would be far too obviously false.)

    In other words, John, you’re picking misplaced two fights here. Rather bellicose of you, I would say.

    I’d be glad to answer your question in the first paragraph if I thought you meant it seriously.

  3. You might be interested in one of the latest podcasts fom apologetics.com that dealt with ethical schools of thought from the context of the lives and actions of superheroes/ villains. Is Superman an example of someone driven by virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism and so on? What about Batman et al? Sounds silly but I think that they used a very accessible medium to get to the heart of otherwise difficult and abstract concepts. There is a bit of geeky stuff throughout, and especially at the start, but I found it to be a rewarding listen.

    http://www.apologetics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=841:an-introduction-to-ethics-using-superheroes&catid=43:kkla-995-fm-los-angeles&Itemid=74

  4. We have to be a little careful here not to get confused with terminology.

    A central concept in virtue ethics is eudaimonism, which bases virtues in human flourishing. In this instance, human flourishing is to perform one’s distinctive function well.

    Harris’s concept of human flourishing is talking about the flourishing of the human race, in a consequentialist sense.

  5. Thank you for that clarification.

    Harris’s preferred term is actually wellbeing.

    The question these terms raise is indeed a central one; it is the question of the post: what does it mean to experience the good? What is the good for humans? Is it comfort? Safety? Satisfaction? Fulfillment? All of these are good, yet corruptible for evil. All of them are easy to recognize in ourselves when we experience them, but exceedingly complicated to recognize in others. Any of them could be accomplished in one person’s life if the rest of the world cooperated, but the rest of the world competes instead, not just over the experience but over the definition of the experience.

    Thus all of them are good, but none of them defines the good, not individually nor in combination.

    The ancient moral philosophers recognized that too much pursuit of any of these was a bad thing. They were right. This implies that there must be some principle greater than any of these, one that guides and supervises them as it were. For some it was moderation. For others it has been justice, or the cardinal virtues taken together. Either way, when we begin talking about this kind of higher principle we have moved into the realm of virtue.

  6. Another way of looking at virtue ethics is that it is about being (i.e. character), whereas other ethical theories are about doing (i.e. moral duties, achieving good consequences).

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

Clicky