The Good Life
June 1, 2023
Ethical theories tell us what is right and wrong, but they say little about what it means to have a good life. All philosophers will tell you that what is morally right is an obligation, but that doesn’t mean these moral actions are conducive to well-being (unless you're an ethical egoist). There are two major branches of such “good life” theories: reductionist ones and complex ones. Reductionist theories (this term is not exclusive to this branch of philosophy) are theories that stand by one or two simple principles. The best example in this context is hedonism. The hedonist says that a good life is only a factor of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. This is a simple rule that can be applied to just about any crossroad one comes across. Which choice will give me a better life? It's simple math according to the hedonist, the right choice is the one that provides more pleasure and less pain. There are obvious problems with hedonism. My favorite argument against it is what I like to call the Genuine loss argument:
If hedonism is true, you can only be harmed by sadness/pain
Sadness/pain are often symptoms of loss, and loss can harm you
To lose something valuable proves something thing other than pain or pleasure must have intrinsic value
Therefore hedonism is false
Another reductionist theory comes from Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, a good life comes from the constant pursuit of individual excellence. What this individual excellence is may be up to debate, but Nietzsche believes that following one's own credence is of utmost importance. However, we must acknowledge the thread of skepticism throughout all of his work. Nietzsche did not seek to replace traditional philosophical thought with universal prescriptions, but rather to undermine our confidence in all such notions of universality. In short, unlike hedonism, Nietzsche is not looking for a following, but instead attempting to disrupt the confidence of faith and traditional views.
A more complex (and for that part modern) theory comes from Susan Wolf. Her theory is a form of objective list theory, meaning that she quite literally lists things necessary for a good life. Her version of a good life comes from finding meaning, and to find meaning she lists two primary necessary conditions 1. Active engagement and 2. Projects of worth. So, what is an active engagement or a project of worth? Wolf believes that these things are fully objective (I am not convinced). In her view, feeling fulfilled is not enough for an action to meet either of these qualifications. It is important to note she does not say that active engagement and projects of worth are sufficient for a good life, only that they are necessary for one. In this delicate phrasing, she allows for the understanding that many people (if not everyone) requires more than these two things to find meaning.
Don’t find these answers satisfactory? Neither do I. Welcome to the world of philosophy, where innovation is only met with further skepticism.