How are we to live: ethical frameworks and meaning

Life: A Philosophical Perspective

The concept of self-interest which is central to many of the themes in Peter Singer's work of non-fiction, How Are We To Live?, has been existent for several hundred years and influenced many previous philosophers and their principles. This particular doctrine simply states that mankind is primarily motivated by an inherent interest in one's own self, and that virtually all actions, thoughts, and decisions are made by people to further their own particular interests. Political philosophers such as the 17th century author Thomas Hobbes claim that even seemingly altruistic acts of sacrifice and interests in the welfare of others can be reduced to principles of self-interest, which merely prefer such a sacrifice to the alternative of the guilt one may feel at not having made a sacrifice. Morally, of course, such primal, instinctive principles of human governance lead to a self-absorbed culture (such as what Singer claims exists within contemporary Western Society) whose ultimate function is merely to consume and to seek pleasure, primarily through the pursuit and consummation of monetary and technological assets. The moral worth of an act in such a society is determined by fiscal value as it relates to the individual alone, and not to the greater good of society.

Such self-absorbed behavior contributes to the degradation of society since everyone is merely living, acting, and interacting with others simply for the benefit of their own selves. The sociological and ecological crisis which Singer references to is based on the fact that with fluctuating mores dictated by a host of individual self-needs, there is no true ethical fiber to cohere community relations. Therefore, the philosopher believes such a society is headed for inevitable disaster related to such disparate conflicting interests. Self-interest is distinguished between selfishness by the fact that acts may be done to benefit others that encompass the former term, although the root cause of such actions are to benefit the author of those acts. Selfishness is essentially defined as an act which only benefits an individual, and no one else. The answer to the question of "How Are We To Live?," which is the premise of Singer's entire novel of the same name, is that we should live ethically and embrace such a decision as the ultimate choice, one which will provide our lives with much more significance and lasting importance than the transient pleasures of money and technology. The pursuit of the latter are merely restricted choices, particularly in light of their ephemeral nature and the fickleness of mankind. Meanwhile, the committing of one's life to the ultimate choice to live ethically frees one from the culture of self-interest and enables one to begin living for the benefit of others.

The Ring of Gyges is a mythological artifact that allegedly granted its bearer -- whoever was using it -- the power of invisibility. The ring was eventually mentioned in Plato's republic as an example that no man is truly moral, particularly when freed from the responsibility of being judged by the morality of others. By donning the ring and becoming invisible, an individual would supposedly reveal the base nature of mankind by committing a series of immoral acts. The scope and nature of these acts, of course, varies with the particular philosophy applied to the bearer of the ring. Utilitarianism philosophy, for example, would have what is traditionally considered an immoral act (such as robbing a bank) committed and utilized for decidedly moral means (such as to feed the starving poor in war-torn countries). The usefulness in the act would be decided by the positive effects of the benefit to the poor, which would conceivably outweigh the negative effects of wealthy capitalists merely losing, say, a tenth of their total holdings. Such actions should more than likely be committed, particularly if the resources used (which is the money in this case) can be verified to be from dubious or even insidious sources, and if the charitable recipients (the starving poor) can be certified as in need of a decided miracle. These two verifications would provide the reason for one to be moral, in this particular instance.

However, most individuals, particularly in contemporary Western Society, would probably act in their own self-interest, somewhat akin to the philosophy Hobbes propagated as being inherent to the nature of man. In this example, morality is decided by the gain, pleasure, and other self-interest of the individual donning the ring. Such individuals would more than likely obtain this gain by committing illicit activities, such as robbing a bank, but use their winnings for fairly self-absorbed means to further their consumption of whatever suits their fancy. Houses, cars, women and other material items would more than likely be procured, for the simple fact that the individual is sating his own personal desires. In this case there is no need to act ethically, since the bearer of the ring is outside of the judgment (both literally and figuratively) of others, whose morals no longer apply to that individual.

The Rashomon effect describes the degree of subjectivity involved in the recollection of a memory, and is what is attributed to the fact that different people may recall the same incident with conflicting descriptions of it. This concept is significant in regards to moral dialogue because a moral conversation may be had between or within subjects to distinguish what may be ethically correct or even true, similar to what takes place in the film Rashomon. The metaphor involved with "falling into a dark hell" is one in which the light of the world, which symbolizes good, is contrasted with the darkness of the world, which symbolizes evil. The fact that there is a falling into a dark hell in the film symbolizes a decidedly pessimistic view of the inhabitable world, which strongly likens it to hell.

This notion presents an interesting dichotomy with Anthony Weston's concept of care ethics, which is based on principles of benevolence that consider the interdependence upon people for one another. In the film itself, the priest and the vagabond represent morally incomplete characters for the simple fact that they are giving testimonies (which may determine the outcome of another man's life) that are conflicting and not altogether true. These same elements are represented in the Woodcutter for similar reasons, yet he makes up for stealing the dagger from the crime scene by adopting the child at the movie's conclusion, thus presenting a moral action, and ending, in a film full of ethical ambiguities.