Washington Pass, North Cascades, Washington.
I have been reading a book written by Michael Schur, the originator of The Good Place, a marvelous and often funny series on Netflix, which does nearly the impossible- makes philosophy interesting. His book is called How to be Perfect: The Correct Answers to Every Moral Question. Obviously tongue in cheek, it is an entertaining romp through the toughest questions of moral philosophy. Shur focuses on three major theories-namely Virtue Ethics (Aristotle and earlier Greek philosophers), Deontology (Kant and others) and Utilitarianism (Mill and others) and, as he notes, he shies away from religious philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, St.Augustine, and Kierkegaard. Other philosophers he does not feature include such notables as Lao-tzu, David Hume and John Locke, plus various Stoic and Buddhist philosophers, and some others as well. However, he does cover what he thinks are the most important people who are involved in moral philosophy.
In my undergraduate days I had a professor, Dr. Knipe, at Arizona who also made a course in philosophy, that I had to take and that I thought would bore me to tears, fascinating. In fact it was one of the best courses I took during my college years. Knipe was so good a lecture that he was the only professor I had who got a standing ovation from 400 students at the end of the course! This may have predisposed me to be receptive to a comedy with a philosophical bent, but it is hard to believe that the series would not capture anybody’s imagination.
While it seems to be the current fashion to deride philosophy as one of those useless and possibly “woke” academic aberrations, in reality it is vital that we as a people understand philosophy and indeed have a philosophy of life, or we face an existence that can easily fall prey to disinformation and chaos. Real critical thinking is thus necessary so that we can discern fact from fiction. That we have way too many people who are easily led by demagogues into seemingly mindless cults is a very good reason as to why we should concern ourselves with this seemingly esoteric subject! It is the very foundation for our country, and of civilization for that matter. It is fairly obvious that it is seldom used and that too often what is politically expedient is substituted for real analysis.
One cannot discuss philosophy without mentioning the Greeks- Socrates, Plato and Aristotle come immediately to mind. Socrates was so important in this subject that those who came before him are lumped into Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers. However, we have no books written by Socrates, but only the writings of his student, Plato, on which to judge him. Socrates noted that he was considered the wisest man in Athens because he readily admitted that he knew nothing! Instead he asked questions. The result was that after the Peloponnesian War ended he was put to death for “corrupting” the youth of Athens. Greek philosophy involves the Aristotelian Golden Mean and promotes Virtue Ethics.
Schur in his book next tackles Kant (difficult to read in any language, but imagine it in the original German!) In essence Kant tells us not to do things, that if everybody did them, it would destroy society. He also says that truth is always necessary and that one should never lie. This is one of the tenets of Quakerism (Officially I am a Quaker, but probably not a very good one!) There are problems with this because would you tell Nazi storm troopers that you had Jews in your basement? If you did it would likely get you and the Jews you were hiding all killed!
Then there is the Utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill, which promotes the seeking of the largest amount of pleasure for everybody. One would think that to be an admirable goal (Mill was himself a very kind man who loaned the French entomologist Jean Henri Fabre enough money to start again after he lost his home and livelihood for teaching girls biology! Mill was a strong supporter of equal rights!) Unfortunately Utilitarianism results in several serious problems, one of which is that pleasure means different things to different people and peoples goals often conflict.
Shur then introduces us to a few other views on how to be a good person. First in the writings of T. M. Scanlon and Contractualism. This looks at society as a contract between the individual and the society as a whole and to other individuals. In many ways this system looks better than that proposed by Kant as it asks a very important question, namely what do we owe to each other? In essence Scanlon takes Neonatology and makes it less doctrinaire. To an extent one does not have to be truthful in all situations, especially if being truthful hurts others unnecessarily.
I was impressed, however, especially in how Schur takes down Ayn Rand and her system of “objectivism,” or Rational Selfishness, in which anything that helps the individual obtain happiness is not only allowed, it is required for her idea of utopia. Under Randian “philosophy” society should encourage people to get what they want by any means, without, in her opinion, stupid ethics, such as seeing other people as an end in themselves. Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan insisted that his staff read her Atlas Shrugged, one of her florid novels, and her other works, and it shows in modern Republican politics. Shur sums her up as a “Bad Writer, Worse Philosopher.” If in my comments on the KOS I have harped a bit on Rand, it is because modern Republicans seem to have taken her selfishness to heart to justify what they do. One of the main problems I can see about objectivism is that such a society would, by its nature, foster distrust or downright paranoia, as since everybody would be after their own gain, an individual would be justified in thinking that they could trust no one, nor could they be trusted. as they would be doing the same. This is not a society in which I would like to live. Ayn Rand did not invent this- it was always the philosophy of kings, emperors, autocrats, aristocracies and strongmen. Rand, herself, ironically died on Medicare and Social Security, both of which she loathed.
Then of course, we have the Existentialists, who on the face of it seem to be nihilists. Camu asks us two questions, namely why should we not kill ourselves and conversely why we should not just adapt to the hell hole he perceives society to be. Sarte is equally dismal in his philosophical writings.
Shur does not mention Eastern philosophy, but Zen is most certainly a recognized one. In Zen, the tenuous associating with gods or goddesses in most Buddhism, is so downplayed that it does not exist as an important question, and instead the main question is “How should I live?” This is not that far removed from what other philosopher’s writings that I find in Greco-Roman Stoicism (Marcus Aurelius, was both a Roman emperor and a major Stoic philosopher.)
So what is the correct philosophy that will lead us to the best life? I certainly cannot tell you or anyone else the answer. I can only say what works for me. Shur sums up his conclusions in a final letter to his kids at the end of the book with two inscriptions at the Greek temple at Delphi. “Know yourself” and ”Nothing in excess.” These seem to me to be pretty good bases for a good life, but he also says that while an individual will actually never be perfect, the journey is important and one should always be trying to be the best version of themselves, although reaching such a state is unlikely. I would add that Scanlon’s “what do we owe to each other?” and a modified Kantian categorical imperative is also worth contemplation. Finally I would, for what it is worth, offer both Zen and Stoicism as models, to be modified to fit the individual. Life is precious, it is terrible to waste it on petty issues (as my younger daughter says, "if someone is hateful to me than I seperate from them. I just don't have the time to spend on getting even or wasting energy on hating them.” Now if the MAGA crowd only thought that! )
In sum, we need philosophy to live a good life. Pick what works for you, in part or in whole, and possibly mixed together. However, I would urge anybody to have the goal of becoming the best version of themselves that they can be, while seeing this as a journey that will never completely end. It is worth the effort and brings us, I think, as close as we can be to fulfilling our brief existence on this planet.
