Introduction
In Plato’s Republic, the character Glaucon cites the story of a shepherd who, obtaining a ring that would enable him to be invisible, is able to kill his king, marry the queen and become king himself. Glaucon argues that no one could sincerely believe that the use of the ring was not profitable. Plato, through the character of Socrates, argues that the use of the ring did not benefit the shepherd because it tied him to his appetites and desires, rather than leading him to live a virtuous life.
But what makes living a virtuous life so much better than a life filled with the satisfaction of one’s desires? Suppose one were to inherit a great deal of money, have a happy childhood surrounded by adoring relatives, marry a rich, kind, intelligent, and attractive mate, have lovely well-behaved children, and spend a life enjoying the best entertainment, food, and sports available along with good health. Then suppose one were to die instantly of a heart attack at the age of seventy, never experiencing old age, sickness, or death? Suppose one were to never have performed an act of kindness towards strangers, but only, because so inclined, had been good to one’s delightful family? Could one say that such a person had not had a perfectly satisfying life?
Such a life is an unlikely prospect. The Greek philosopher Aristotle gave an example of someone who may seem to have had a happy life, yet at the time of death something might happen that will make this person feel that his or her life had been a failure. Aristotle’s example was that of a prosperous man who had a son he adored. He discovered on his deathbed that his son had never loved him and had betrayed him. Aristotle concluded that the man did not have a happy life. This would be true of successful, happy people who in their golden years had lost everything and had died in a concentration camp. Or more commonly, people who invest in a fancy retirement community only to find that when their minds begin to fail, they are barred from many activities, even from eating in the common dining room. They may end their lives lonely and bitter.
Many of us take out long-term care insurance policies, but where is one to find an insurance policy that guarantees a satisfying life? And is it possible to escape the cruelties of the end of life and remain in a calm and peaceful mental state until death?
Some religious people seem to succeed in doing just that. My dear Irish Catholic step-grandma refused to stay with her loving children and chose to go to a simple, non-luxurious nursing home to end her days. I often visited her there and she spoke to me of how she had no fear of death but looked forward to being in heaven with her beloved husband Amador. She had faith that no matter what happened, God was taking care of her. This worked well for her because as far as I could see, she had perfect faith. But what of those among us who have no faith, or have a shaky faith at best?
The Primacy of Conscience
Many people substitute conscience for faith. Perhaps the first time many of you may have heard about conscience was in the Disney movie “Pinocchio,” in which Jiminy Cricket sings “And always let your conscience be your guide.” This advice usually works for us. But on closer examination, it becomes clear that the issue is not so simple. The difficulties implicit in the concept of conscience were shown in Jonathan Bennett’s essay “The Conscience of Huckleberry Finn.” There is a scene in which Jim, a slave in pre-Civil War Mississippi, is about to be sold by the widow who “owns” him, who is badly in need of money. Jim appeals to his friend Huck, a young white boy, for help. Huck sympathizes with Jim and wants to help him escape, but his conscience troubles him. For Huck, Jim is by white society’s standards, considered legal property, and to help him escape would be morally wrong, as well as a sin. He thinks he might be punished by God. But his feelings of sympathy are stronger than his conscience and he helps Jim anyway. What are we to make of this?
Could we argue that Jim followed his true conscience and that the false conscience that allowed him to see Jim as property was an aberration? Sometimes conscience seems to require that we go against our conditioned instincts, as in the case of Huck.
Where can we find a rational guide to moral behavior? The hallmark of rational behavior is often called ‘consistency’. As children, when we harm another child we may well be told, “Would you want this to be done to you?”
This comes from the Golden Rule, perhaps first expressed by Hillel, the Jewish scholar (110 B.C.E.–10 C.E.). A Roman soldier asked Hillel to explain Judaism, but since the soldier was busy, he asked him to explain it in the time Hillel could balance on one foot. Hillel complied saying, “What is hateful to you, don’t do to your fellowman; that is the whole Torah, and the rest… is just a commentary. Go then and learn it!”[1] Jesus is said to have invoked the Golden Rule in his Sermon on the Mount when he said, “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, ye even so to them.”[2]
The ancient Confucians in China expressed it similarly as, “What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others.”[3]
The value of an objective criterion such as the Golden Rule may be understood by the following example: Suppose a math teacher were to come into class dressed in black leather and long black leather boots, carrying a whip, and wrote 4+5=9 on the board. Cracking the whip, she said, “Memorize this, or I’ll beat you.” That would be absurd. But the following case would be equally absurd: Suppose the math teacher came into class dressed in flowers, bells, and fringes and said after writing 4+5=9 on the board, “Well class, you know most people say the answer is 9. But if you want to say 6 or 7 or any other number—hey that’s cool. Whatever turns you on.”
What we need is the math teacher to teach the method of addition so that every student can get the same answer without the teacher using any force. Could we have this for morality as well?
As we will see, the eighteenth-century philosopher Immanuel Kant intended to find such a method to use in the discovery of objective moral rules. In the following chapter, we will judge his success. We will also examine rival methods for achieving the same goal.
