Living Ethically / The
Good Life
Peter Singer
We must, of course, be thankful for the
fact that today we can help strangers
without dreading the knock of the Gestapo
on our door. We should not imagine, however,
that the era of heroism is over.
Reason's capacity to take us where we
did not expect to go could also lead to
a curious diversion from what one might
expect to be the straight line of evolution.
We have evolved a capacity to reason because
it helps us to survive and reproduce.
But if reason is an escalator, then although
the first part of the journey may help
us to survive and reproduce, we may go
further than we needed to go for this
purpose alone. We may even end up somewhere
that creates tension with other aspects
of our nature. In this respect, there
may after all be some validity in Kant's
picture of tension between our capacity
to reason, and what it may lead us to
see as the right thing to do, and our
more basic desires. We can live with the
contradictions only up to a point.
Here is an example, from Gunnar Myrdal's
"An American Dilemma":
"The individual ... does not act
in moral isolation. He is not left alone
to manage his rationalizations as he
pleases, without interference from outside.
His valuations will, instead, be questioned
and disputed.... The feeling of need
for logical consistency within the hierarchy
of moral valuations -- and the embarrassed
and sometimes distressed feeling that
the moral order is shaky --- is, in
its modern intensity, a rather new phenomenon."
Our ability to reason can be a factor
in leading us away from both arbitrary
subjectivism and an uncritical acceptance
of the values of our community. Reason
makes it possible to see ourselves in
this way because, by thinking about my
place in the world, I am able to see that
I am just one being among others, with
interests and desires like others. I have
a personal perspective on the world, from
which my interests are at the front and
center of the stage, the interests of
my family and friends are close behind,
and the interests of strangers are pushed
to the back and sides. But reason enables
me to see that others have similarly subjective
perspectives, and that from "the
point of view of the universe" my
perspective is no more privileged than
theirs. Thus my ability to reason shows
me the possibility of detaching myself
from my own perspective and shows me what
the universe might look like if I had
no personal perspective.
Consistent with the idea of taking the
point of view of the universe, the major
ethical traditions all accept, in some
form or other, a version of the golden
rule that encourages equal consideration
of interests. "Love your neighbor
as yourself," said Jesus. "What
is hateful to you do not do to your neighbor,"
says Rabbi Hillel. Confucious summed up
his teaching in very similar terms: "What
you do not want done to yourself, do not
do to others." The "Mahabharata,"
the great Indian epic, says: "Let
no man do to another that which would
be repugnant to himself." The parallels
are striking.
The perspective on ourselves that we get
when we take the point of view of the
universe yields as much objectivity as
we need if we are to find a cause that
is worthwhile in a way that is independent
of our own desires. The most obvious such
cause is the reduction of pain and suffering,
wherever it is to be found. This may not
be the only rationally grounded value,
but it is the most immediate, pressing,
and universally agreed upon one. We know
from our experience that when pain and
suffering are acute, all other values
recede into the background. If we take
the point of view of the universe, we
can recognize the urgency of doing something
about the pain and suffering of others,
before we even consider promoting (for
their own sake rather than as a means
to reducing pain and suffering) other
possible values like beauty, knowledge,
autonomy, or happiness.
The possibility of taking the point of
view of the universe overcomes the problem
of finding meaning in our lives, despite
the ephemeral nature of human existence
when measured against all the eons of
eternity. Suppose that we become involved
in a project to help a small community
in a developing country to become free
of debt and self-sufficient in food. The
project is an outstanding success....
Now someone might say: "What good
have you done? In a thousand years these
people will all be dead, and their children
and grandchildren as well, and nothing
that you have done will make any difference."
That may be true, or it might be false.
The changes we make today could snowball
and, over a long period of time, lead
to much more far-reaching changes. Or
they could come to nothing. We simply
cannot tell.
We should not, however, think of our
efforts as wasted unless they endure forever,
or even for a very long time. We can make
the world a better place by causing there
to be less pointless suffering in one
particular place, at one particular time,
than there would otherwise have been.
As long as we do not thereby increase
suffering at some other place or time,
or cause any other comparable loss of
value, we will have had a positive effect
on the universe.
I am not defending the objectivity of
ethics in the traditional sense. Ethical
truths are not written into the fabric
of the universe: to that extent the subjectivist
is correct. If there were no beings with
desires or preferences of any kind, nothing
would be of value, and ethics would lack
all content. On the other hand, once there
are beings with desires, there are values
that are not only the subjective values
of each individual being. The possibility
of being led, by reasoning, to the point
of view of the universe provides as much
"objectivity" as there can be.
When my ability to reason shows me that
the suffering of another being is very
similar to my own suffering and (in an
appropriate case) matters just as much
to that other being as my own suffering
matters to me, then my reason is showing
me something that is undeniably true.
In a society in which the narrow pursuit
of material self-interest is the norm,
the shift to an ethical stance is more
radical than many people realize. In comparison
with the needs of people starving in Somalia,
the desire to sample the wines of the
leading French vineyards pales into insignificance.
Judged against the suffering of immobilized
rabbits having shampoos dripped into their
eyes, a better shampoo becomes an unworthy
goal. An ethical approach to life does
not forbid having fun or enjoying food
and wine, but it changes our sense of
priorities. The effort and expense put
into buying fashionable clothes, the endless
search for more and more refined gastronomic
pleasures, the astonishing additional
expense that marks out the prestige car
market in cars from the market in cars
for people who just want a reliable means
to getting from A to B -- all these become
disproportionate to people who can shift
perspective long enough to take themselves,
at least for a time, out of the spotlight.
If a higher ethical consciousness spreads,
it will utterly change the society in
which we live.
We cannot expect that this higher ethical
consciousness will become universal. There
will always be people who don't care for
anyone or anything, not even for themselves.
There will be others, more numerous and
more calculating, who earn a living by
taking advantage of others, especially
the poor and the powerless. We cannot
afford to wait for some coming glorious
day when everyone will live in loving
peace and harmony with everyone else.
For a long time to come, the world is
going to remain a tough place in which
to live.
Nevertheless, we are part of this world
and there is a desperate need to do something
*now* about the conditions in which beings
live and die. There is no time to focus
our thoughts on the possibility of a distant
utopian future. Too many humans and nonhuman
animals are suffering now.
We have to take the first step. We must
reinstate the idea of living an ethical
life as a realistic and viable alternative
to the present dominance of materialist
self-interest. If a critical mass of people
with new priorities were to emerge, and
if these people were seen to do well,
in every sense of the term -- if their
cooperation with each other brings reciprocal
benefits, if they find joy and fulfillment
in their lives -- then the ethical attitude
will spread, and the conflict between
ethics and self-interest will have been
shown to be overcome, not by abstract
reasoning alone, but by adopting the ethical
life as a practical way of living and
showing that it works, psychologically,
socially, and ecologically.
Anyone can become part of the critical
mass that offers us a chance of improving
the world before it is too late. You can
rethink your goals and question what you
are doing with your life. That might mean
quitting your job, selling your house,
and going to work for a voluntary organization
in India. More often, the commitment to
a more ethical way of living will be the
first step of a gradual but far-reaching
evolution in your lifestyle and in your
thinking about your place in the world.
One thing is certain: you will find plenty
of worthwhile things to do. You will not
be bored or lack fulfillment in your life.
Most important of all, you will know
that you have not lived and died for nothing,
because you will have become part of the
great tradition of those who have responded
to the amount of pain and suffering in
the universe by trying to make the world
a better place.
|
