Chapter 9. Can We Reason about MoralityChapter 8Can We Re.docx

Chapter 9. Can We Reason about Morality?
Chapter 8
Can We Reason about Morality?
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for
distribution. This chapter: 34 pages of reading.
1. Come, Let Us Reason Together
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once observed that if a man-made
law conflicts with morality, it is unjust and should be repealed
because morality, not man-made law, is our highest standard of
behavior. Similarly, if a businessman could increase his profits
by putting false labels on his products, he should not do so,
even if he can get away with it, because it would be immoral.
Morality takes precedence over deceptive business practices—
no matter how profitable they might be. Morality also takes
precedence over unexamined self-interest. A criminal may want
to snatch a purse from an old lady walking with a cane, and
perhaps he needs the money and could get away with it;
however, he should not do so because it would be morally
wrong.[endnoteRef:1] Surely these are eminently reasonable
observations. [1: Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from the
Birmingham City Jail,” reprinted in James M. Washington, ed.
A Testament of Hope. Essential Writings and Speeches of
Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Harper One, 1986), 289-
302.]
These thoughts remind us that morality is the ultimate criterion
of good and bad, right and wrong, that we ought to live by, all
things considered. Morality is ultimate in the sense that the
obligations it imposes on us take precedence over all nonmoral
considerations, including laws passed by legislatures, the profit
and loss calculations of businesses, social customs, instincts,

and the irrational impulses of ego, desire, prejudice,
unexamined self-interest, and cognitive bias.
One reason to agree with Dr. King, that morality is our highest
standard, is that any human law, social custom, institution,
business practice, desire, action—even traits acquired through
the evolutionary process--can be evaluated and judged on a
moral basis, using our faculty of critical thinking.
The principles or “laws” of morality have a number of important
properties. First, they are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
That is to say, they prescribe how we ought to act, they do not
describe how we do in fact act. Put another way, moral
principles are not empirical generalizations about the way
people actually behave, and they are not statements about the
way people have behaved in the past or will behave in the
future. Rather, they are norms or standards that we ought to
follow, whether or not we do in fact follow them and whether or
not we want to follow them. If someday it should come about
that most people hate each other, that descriptive fact would not
make it moral to hate. Hatred would still be morally wrong. If
someday it should happen that every government in the world
practices genocide, that descriptive fact would not make
genocide morally right—genocide would still be morally wrong.
For (again) morality is not empirical generalizations about the
way we actually behave—it is a prescriptive standard stating
how we ought to behave, all things considered.
Ethics, also called “moral philosophy,” is the philosophical
study of the nature and principles of morality. Among the
questions examined in this branch of philosophy are these: What
exactly are the true, or correct, principles of morality? How do
we tell the difference between moral right and wrong, and moral
good and bad? And, What is morality rooted in or based on?
We agree on many moral principles. For instance, reasonable
people all over the world agree that genocide, kidnapping,
violent unprovoked assault, sex trafficking, and slavery are
morally wrong. We agree that we ought to treat ourselves and
others with a certain degree of respect and care. Most of us

agree on the absolute value of an individual human life. When
we are at our best we agree that human relations and
transactions ought to be consensual. And we agree that
government should be accountable to the people. But other
principles are still being debated. For example, is capital
punishment morally right? Should the state equalize income and
wealth? Is abortion the morally wrong taking of an innocent
life? Or is it morally permissible? Should the wealthy pay more
in taxes? And we are still asking the question Socrates
emphasized: What is truly the best way to live, all things
considered? In moral philosophy we seek rational principles
that can help us make principled moral decisions in real time.
Socrates is considered the founder of moral philosophy as an
academic discipline based on independent critical thinking
because he was the first philosopher in recorded history to seek
(and to teach others to seek) systematic answers to moral
questions on the basis of reason and observation alone, thus
apart from myth, sacred scripture, and unquestioned priestly or
civil authority. Socrates claimed that if we will reason together
calmly, rationally, honestly, and respectfully on moral issues,
we will discover independent, objectively true standards of
conduct that apply to all human beings alike—prescriptive
moral principles we truly ought to follow. Moral philosophers
agree with Socrates. In philosophical ethics, as in the wider
field of philosophy, reason is our common currency.
So, let’s reason together about some of the most fundamental
ethical matters of all, beginning with the somewhat abstract but
vitally important concept of moral good and bad. Thinking
philosophically about good and bad can help you attain a higher
degree of moral clarity. Thinking critically about good and bad
may also help you improve your life. After examining the nature
of moral good and bad, we’ll turn to the equally important
concepts of moral right and wrong.
2. What Is the Summum Bonum or Highest Good?
Consider the following statements. Some people live morally

better lives than others. The life Hitler lived was a very bad
one, and the life Helen Keller lived was a very good one. Blind
hatred is a morally bad thing; love is a good thing. Most people
strive to live a good life, but some seem to consciously choose
evil. These statements seem eminently reasonable. Moral
goodness and badness must be real if these statements are true.
This raises the question. What, by its presence alone, makes for
a morally good life? Socrates put the question this way: What is
the best way to live, all things considered? What makes a life a
morally good life?
Two kinds of goodness must be distinguished at the outset.
Something is instrumentally, or extrinsically, good if it is good
only insofar as it can be used to attain something else that is
itself good. In common terms, an instrumental good is only as a
means to an end. It derives its goodness from the purpose it
serves. A hammer, for example, is instrumentally good—valued
not for its own sake but for the good it helps us attain (building
something). In other words, we value it as a tool. In contrast,
something is intrinsically good if it is good in its own right,
apart from any use to which it may be put or any good that it
leads to. It is good completely on its own.
Now, many things in life possess only instrumental goodness or
value. A dollar bill is ordinarily valuable only because we can
use it to purchase something we value. Lacking intrinsic value,
it is valuable only as a means to an end. Other examples are
easy to think of. A trip to the dentist, a vitamin pill, a credit
card, a ride on the bus—these things are usually valued only as
instrumental goods, as means to an end.
Many things in life are valued only for what they help us attain.
And in most cases, what they help us attain is itself valued only
for something further it helps us attain, and so forth. Where
does the process end? Is there a highest good? Is there one good
at the end of the line, something that is intrinsically good and is
also the good from which all instrumentally good things draw
their goodness?
Or are there many intrinsic goods? If there are, are they related

in some way to a “one over the many” in the moral realm—a
highest good that unites the many intrinsic goods into a whole?
Is it the case that there are many intrinsic goods, but each is
related in some way to a single highest good of all—as Plato
argued? Or are there many independent intrinsic goods? In
philosophy, the term for the highest good of all is summum
bonum, a Latin phrase meaning “supreme good,” introduced by
the great Roman philosopher Cicero (106 BC–43 BC). So, our
question becomes, Is there a summum bonum in life? If so, what
is it?
There are good reasons to believe that a supreme good in life
exists. Major moral philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have
argued that the process of one instrumental good drawing its
goodness from another instrumental good, which draws its
goodness from another, cannot go on without end in an infinite
regression of instrumental goods, for then nothing would
possess any goodness at all. Recall a lesson from chapter 3: Just
as an infinite regression of book borrowers doesn’t explain why
the book on the desk exists, an infinite regression of
instrumental goods would not explain why anything is good.
Any process of one instrumental good drawing its goodness
from another instrumental good therefore must end in at least
one thing good in itself, that is, in at least one highest good that
supplies goodness to everything before it in the series, without
drawing its goodness from something beyond itself. If this is
right, then at least one summum bonum within life exists.
However, Ockham’s razor nudges us toward the hypothesis that
there is one ultimate or highest good in life.[endnoteRef:2]
Following Ockham’s razor, our question becomes, What is life’s
highest good?[endnoteRef:3] [2: In this introductory
discussion, we will set aside the question of whether the
summum bonum is one or many, or whether it is in some sense a
unity of many within one.] [3: We examined a parallel
explanatory regress in chapter 8—one having to do with
existence rather than goodness. That regress pointed to the
existence of a being that supplies existence to everything else

while not deriving its existence from anything external to itself.
]
3. Egoistic Hedonism: The First Theory of the Good Life
One answer has seemed obvious to many people throughout
history. Pleasure, they answer, is the summum bonum of life.
Their argument is plain. Pleasure is the only thing that is wholly
good all by itself. Everything else is good only insofar as it
produces or helps us attain pleasure. If something does not give
us at least some pleasure, it has no worth at all. Pleasure is thus
the end of the line, the one intrinsic good that imparts goodness
to everything else in the worldly series of instrumental goods.
In philosophy this theory is known as “hedonism” (from the
Greek word hedon for “pleasure”). The hedonist philosophy has
been stated in many different forms; the simplest is known as
egoistic hedonism (from the Latin word ego for “I,” or “self”).
You are living the best life possible, says the advocate of
egoistic hedonism, if your life is filled with as much net
pleasure as possible, where net pleasure is defined as the total
quantity of pleasure left after the total quantity of pain has been
subtracted. In everything you do, your own net pleasure
(hereafter simply “pleasure”) is the bottom line, the only
consideration that matters.
Egoistic hedonism is one of the oldest ethical theories ever
proposed. We know from Plato’s Dialogues that it was taught by
some of the Sophists during the fifth century BC. The Sophists,
you’ll recall, were professional teachers who traveled from one
Greek city-state to another, offering instruction for a fee in
subjects ranging from wrestling, law, and grammar, to speech
communication and rhetoric (the art of persuasive speech).
Their services were in great demand because the Greeks were
conducting the world’s first experiment in democratic
government, and democracy requires an educated citizenry with

activists and public speakers trained in rhetoric and other
communication skills. The Sophists claimed to meet the needs
of the fledgling Greek democracy.
Many people today certainly act as if they believe that
their own personal pleasure is the only thing that matters
morally. If something doesn’t promise them pleasure, they
abandon it. They spend a great deal of money and time pursuing
drugs, sex, thrills, and other things that bring pleasure. Egoistic
hedonism has always attracted converts. (But most people
change over time. In many cases, the person who is acting as a
blatant hedonist today may be pursuing higher values later in
life, right? Saint Augustine is a good example.)
If you adopt egoistic hedonism as your moral theory, then you
should evaluate everything in life on the basis of only one
consideration: Does it, or will it, give me enough pleasure? For
(again) on the hedonist view, your life is going well to the
degree to which it is filled with pleasure. For pleasure, in the
final analysis, is the highest good.
4. Socrates Challenges the Hedonists
Socrates entered the public square to counter the Sophists and
their hedonistic theory of the good life. The historic debate that
followed covered many of the most important issues in ethics—
including questions we’re still discussing today.[endnoteRef:4]
Plato re-created the discussions between Socrates and the
hedonists in a number of his dialogues, including the Gorgias
and the Republic. [4: For example, during the 1960s, activists
such as the Harvard professor Timothy Leary advocated a
modern form of hedonism that included rock and roll and
experimentation with psychedelic drugs.]
Several Socratic arguments can be distilled from those
fascinating discussions. First, pleasure in itself cannot be the
highest good in life, for clearly not all pleasures are good. For
example, pleasure gained by blatantly using others without
regard for their welfare is bad, isn’t it? Pleasure gained by
harming others is clearly and most certainly not good, right?

But if some pleasures are not good, then there must be a
standard of goodness above that of pleasure—an objective
standard apart from pleasure by which pleasures can be judged.
If so, then pleasure in itself cannot be the summum bonum of
life. More formally:
1. Clearly and objectively, not all pleasures are morally good.
2. If not all pleasures are good, then there must be an objective
standard of moral goodness above that of mere pleasure—a
3. If there is an objective standard of moral goodness above that
of pleasure, then egoistic hedonism is false.
4. Therefore, egoistic hedonism is certainly false.
A second and deeper Socratic argument against hedonism began
with observations on the nature of the soul. We know, Socrates
argued, that our soul, or inner self, contains three distinct parts:
reason, emotion, and bodily desire. The proof that these parts
are distinct is that they can oppose each other: emotion can
oppose reason (and vice versa), desire can oppose reason (and
vice versa) and emotion can oppose desire (and vice versa). For
example:
· Our emotions sometimes overrule our reason. For example,
imagine that ten motorcycle gang members carrying knives and
guns cut in front of Joe in the line at the grocery store. Joe’s
reason tells him not to pick a fight. But his anger (an emotion)
leads him to do just that—with a predictable result.
· Our bodily desires sometimes overrule our reason. For
example, while on a diet, Joe’s rational part tells him he should
not stop at Dick’s drive-in on the way home and eat three
greasy hamburgers before dinner. But his bodily desires lead
him to violate his vow to eat more healthily.
Next, life experience teaches that when our raw emotions
overrule our reason, the result is usually something we later
realize, using our best reasoning, was harmful. In such cases,
we look back and wish we had followed the prompts of sound
reasoning rather than uncontrolled emotion. Road rage is a
contemporary example. Similarly, experience teaches that when

our bodily desires overcome our reason the result is usually
something we later realize, again using our best reasoning, was
unhealthy. In such cases, we look back and wish we had
followed reason rather than unexamined bodily desire.
Overeating and drinking too much are examples. Life
experience teaches, in short, that we live better when our soul is
ruled by sound reasoning—reason following realistic principles
of critical thinking--than when it is ruled by unexamined
emotions or raw bodily desires.
Reason thus stands out, Socrates argued. It is the one part of the
soul whose full-time job is to seek truth and real goodness on
the basis of objective and realistic standards. Emotion and
desire unchecked by correct reasoning can be wild and often
lead to unhealthy and unproductive results. Part of reason’s
full-time job, argued Socrates, is keeping the emotions and
desires in check and balanced as we pursue objective truth and
real goodness in life. The urgings of emotion and desire are
fine, he argued, and can help, as long as they are governed by
sound reasoning.
At this point in the exposition of the theory, some students
point out that reason can also lead us astray. For our reasoning
can be biased, it can be errant, it sometimes operates on half-
truths. People can also use their reasoning dishonestly, to
justify bad things, to figure out how to rob banks, to calculate
the best way to steal without getting caught, and so forth. So
why, they ask, does the faculty of reason deserve this exalted
status? Why is it special or privileged?
Socrates agreed that our own personal reasoning can sometimes
take an illogical path and lead us to a fallacious conclusion. It
can also be biased. It can be used to rationalize bad actions. He
was keenly aware of the many ways people misuse their faculty
of reason. After all, his life mission, as we saw in chapter 1,
was to help people reason more realistically. Which leads to his
reply to this objection.
By “reason” Socrates meant soundreasoning. And by this he
meant “trained and educated reasoning.” When we are young

and immature, our reasoning is not functioning at its best.
Reason needs to be trained in the objective methods of critical
thinking. It also needs to be educated on the nature of true
goodness. Which brings us to the next step in his theory of the
highest good or summom bonum: the nature of the highest good.
The theory begins with an argument for God’s existence. The
material universe is orderly, functional, and intelligible in the
large scale. The best explanation, Socrates argued, is that nature
is ultimately the product not of unstructured random chance but
of a supreme intelligence overseeing and guiding the whole--an
intelligent designer which he named the “divine craftsman.” He
also called the divine craftsman “God.” We examined Socrates’s
argument for God’s existence in chapter 2.
Next, the human soul—like everything else in the material
universe--was designed by God to function in a certain way.
The soul functions properly, as it was meant to function, when
educated reason governs and balances the emotions and desires
while directing the soul toward the highest good. And what is
the highest good?
When we reason critically, reason points us toward an absolute
good of infinite value. This good, however, is not (as the
hedonists claimed) bodily pleasure; rather, it is a supernatural,
immaterial good that exists beyond the material world, a good
that is attracting us from beyond the material world. Socrates
calls this being “the Form of the Good” or simply “The Good”
and he gives at least four deep philosophical arguments for its
existence.[endnoteRef:5] [5: A discussion of these arguments
would take us far beyond this introduction. I present the
Socratic case for the form of the good in Come Let Us Reason. ]
There is an additional mechanism at work here. Reason, when it
is functioning at its best, points us toward the highest good; but
in addition, the highest good attracts all things in the material
world like a magnet attracts iron filings. The form of the Good
thus attracts human reason and the soul along with it.
Now, when the soul functions as it was meant to, it attains an

internal harmony experienced as a state of well-being or
happiness distinct from irrational pleasure, a state which
Socrates calls “eudaimonia” (Greek: “flourishing”). The value
of having a balanced, smoothly functioning, harmonious soul,
argued Socrates, surpasses anything else in life, including the
alleged goods of irrational pleasure, fame, power, glory, and
wealth. Since Socrates believes in (and argues for) life after
death, and since he holds that the highest good is supernatural,
he also argues that the attainment of an even higher degree of
flourishing awaits us in the next life.
Next, goodness is the fundamental moral category and the form
of the Good is the objective foundation of all moral value. It
follows that the form of the Good is the summum bonum. Those
who live by sound reasoning informed by a knowledge of the
highest good therefore live a moral or “just” life. Immoral
people behave immorally and fail to attain eudaimonia because
their reasoning has been sidetracked by irrational emotions and
unexamined desires aimed at an imposter—usually the lower
“good” of bodily pleasure.
So, why not choose bodily pleasure as one’s summom bonum?
Pleasure is, well, fun. Socrates has an answer. Those who have
experienced both hedonistic pleasure and the goodness of
eudaimonia know that the moral life is the best way to live, all
things considered. It is superior to pleasure-seeking in every
way. The hedonistic pleasure gained through irrational pursuits
is not worth the opportunity cost (the loss of real well-being or
flourishing). Which brings us to another important aspect of the
theory.
Socrates frequently calls the form of the Good “divine.” When
we follow correct reasoning in pursuit of the highest good, he
argues, we come as close to the divine as it is possible to come
in this earthly life. After we die and enter the next life the
process will continue. The good life, then, is really a spiritual
pursuit aimed ultimately at the divine. This explains why
Socrates says to the hedonist, in so many words, “You can do
better than this. Your soul can reach higher.”

Socrates’s ethical theory thus connects morality, God, the soul,
life after death, and reason in one interrelated system. The
highest good is not, as the hedonists contended, of this world; it
is a supernatural reality attracting us from beyond the material
world--a good we’ll embrace fully only in the next life.
Socrates added a startling claim to his theory when he argued
that the state of flourishing or eudaimonia attained by the moral
person cannot be ruined or diminished by any external
circumstances. True well-being once attained cannot be lost
because it is an internal, spiritual state that exists above the
flux of ever-changing circumstances. Even the just person who
has been wrongly imprisoned does not lose the internal wellness
or flourishing flowing from within his harmonious soul.
Pleasure can be taken away from us, it can fade, lose its allure.
Nothing can take away the spiritual goodness flowing from
within the well-balanced soul. This is what Socrates meant
when he claimed that the just person cannot be harmed. We find
a similar idea in Chinese and Indian philosophy, as well as in
Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
voiced a similar view when he expressed his conviction that
the universe in some form is on the side of justice. That there is
something unfolding in the universe whether one speaks of it as
an unconscious process…an unmoved mover…or a personal
God. There is something in the universe that unfolds for justice.
[endnoteRef:6] [6: Martin Luther King Jr., “The Power of
NinViolence,” reprinted in James M. Washington, ed. A
Testament of Hope. Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin
Luther King Jr. (New York: Harper One, 1986), 13-14.]
The universe, in some deep sense, he believed, wants us to be
deeply happy as well as moral.
As I mentioned in chapter 1, many people have improved their
lives after learning that their soul has three parts—reason,
emotion, and desire—and that they have the power within

themselves to achieve a rational balance and with that balance a
more harmonious, reasonable, and fulfilling life—regardless of
circumstances.
<Box> Two Schools of Egoistic Hedonism
The ancient Greeks distinguished two kinds of pleasure. The
philosopher Aristippus of Cyrene (c. 435–350 BC), one of the
earliest of the egoistic hedonists, taught that bodily pleasure—
the physical sensations associated with such things as food,
wine, drugs, and sex—is the only intrinsic good in life. His
students, the Cyrenaic hedonists, therefore believed that living
the good life means filling it with as much sensual pleasure as
possible.
Epicurus (341–270 BC) argued that the Cyrenaic pursuit of
bodily pleasures often has unhealthy side effects that end up
diminishing overall pleasure in the long run. For instance,
indulging in alcohol results in a hangover and can eventually
ruin your health, eating too much food can harm your body, and
so on. Only the “refined,” or “higher,” pleasures, those
associated with the intellect, he argued, constitute the true
highest good.
Epicurus had in mind the largely mental pleasures that flow
from such things as friendship, community, the appreciation of
beauty, music, and art, reading a good book, and so forth. The
Epicurean hedonists thus warned against indulging in sensual
bodily pleasure and urged people to live disciplined lives
dedicated instead to the cultivation of the finer pleasures in life,
the intellectual pleasures, which, they argued, lead to a state of
inner tranquility.
Both forms of egoistic hedonism have devotees today. Yet both
theories face serious objections. The bodily pleasure obtained
by overindulging in self-destructive drugs, for example, is
obviously a bad sensual pleasure and an unwise pursuit. But
indulging in expensive and frivolous Epicurean pleasures while
friends need your help and people around you are suffering is

surely not a morally good thing either, is it? But if some
refined, or Epicurean, pleasures are good and some are bad, and
if some sensual pleasures are good and some are bad, then there
must be a yardstick of moral value above both kinds of
pleasure—a standard against which both sensual and intellectual
pleasures can be judged. In which case, pleasure of either kind
is not the highest intrinsic good. As theories of the good life
and as guides to living well, both hedonist theories appear to be
inadequate. <End Box>
Modern Considerations
Imagine that Moe the mugger makes his living robbing blind
people. He makes a lot of money, and robbery is how he
maximizes the quantity of pleasure in his life. He doesn’t care
how his actions affect others. What does egoistic hedonism say
about this? According to egoistic hedonism, if his actions
maximize his pleasure, then he is living a morally good life. For
if egoistic hedonism is true, we have no obligations to our
fellow human beings; in particular, we have no duty to treat
others with respect or to treat them in any particular way.
Again, our only obligation, according to egoistic hedonism, is
to win for ourselves the greatest balance of pleasure over pain.
Consider this calmly and rationally: isn’t it clearly, distinctly,
and indubitably (to borrow a phrase from Descartes) wrong to
harm others in this way? Isn’t it just as clearly wrong to use
others merely to gain pleasure for yourself? Isn’t it most
certainly morally wrong to treat others as if they are mere tools
put on earth for our own satisfaction? Isn’t there something
profoundly irrational about Moe’s chosen career? I realize these
are rhetorical questions. I ask them because I want you, the
reader, to think for yourself. Although it is full of pleasure and
follows the hedonistic principle, isn’t Moe’s life a seriously
immoral life? Couldn’t he do better than this? Critical thinkers
can come up with other test cases on their own.
The problem here is that egoistic hedonism does not require that

people take into account the intrinsic value of other people. But
is this morally acceptable? What would society be like if no one
ever cared about anything but their own pleasure? What would
society be like if no one cared how their choices affect others?
Would you want to be in a relationship with someone who cared
only about his or her own pleasure?
Is egoistic hedonism an adequate guide to the good life? Or
could it be used to justify actions that are clearly, distinctly,
and rationally just plain morally wrong? Virtually all ethicists
agree: hedonism, in its egoistic form, is a selfish and inhumane
theory. It is also antisocial. Reason enough to give it the boot.
1. Egoistic …
Reading Guide:
Reading Guide Overview: This reading focuses on two broad
questions: What is the good life (the theory of the good) and
what makes an action right or wrong (the theory of the right).
The first 6 sections focus on the theory of the good. The
remaining sections highlight theories of the right action. The
quiz will be weighted towards material in the first 6 sections.
Section 1: Let us Reason Together:
1. What does it mean to say morality is “ultimate”?
2. What is the difference between a prescriptive and a
descriptive statement. Identify examples of each.
Section 2: Summum Bonum:
1. Define summum bonum. (Is it instrumentally or intrinsically
valuable?)
2. Whats’ the difference between instrumental (or extrinsic)
value and intrinsic value. Be able to identify examples of each.
Section 3: Egoistic Hedonism: The First Theory of the Good
Life:
1. State the theory of egoistic hedonism: what is the summum
bonum, on that view?
Section 4: Socrates Challenges the Hedonists:
1. Describe the basic steps in the “higher standard” argument
against egoistic hedonism.

2. Describe the basic steps in the “nature of the soul” argument
against egoistic hedonism.
3. How does Socrates reply to the objection that reason can
often lead us to make bad decisions?
4. How does the concept of “harmony” play a role in the “nature
of the soul” argument?
5. On Socrates’ view, could someone in physical misery be
happy? Hint: See “Socrates’ startling claim”, as discussed
towards the end of this section.
6. Summarize the “Moe the mugger” objection to egoistic
hedonism.
Section 5: Virtue Ethics: Aristotle’s Theory of the Good Life:
1. Aristotle argues that everything has a defining purpose. How
do we identify a creatures distinctive function?
2. What is a human beings distinctive function?
3. For Aristotle, the good for a human being is to live virtuously
(the excellent life is the virtuous life). What does it mean to
live virtuously? Give a general definition and then a more
specific description of Aristotle’s idea of a moral virtue
4. How are virtues learned and acquired?
5. Is there a role for emotion, in modern virtue theory? In
modern approaches, like Martha Nussbaum’s, what is the
relationship between reason and emotion.
6. Virtue requires following reason. But why, for Aristotle,
should we follow reason?
Section 6: Difficulties for Virtue Theories: Just skim this. I
will not test over this.
Section 7: An Initial Theory of Right and Wrong – Ethical
Egoism:
1. State the ethical egoist theory of right action (What is our
fundamental moral obligation?)
2. Are all ethical egoists also hedonists?
3. You should understand at least one of the common objections
to ethical egoism, but I won’t test you on them.
Section 8: Utilitarianism:
1. Which two philosophers are associated with Utilitarianism?

2. What is the difference between Bentham’s version of
utilitarianism and Mill’s.
3. State the utilitarian rule of right action (what is our
fundamental moral obligation): i.e., a particular action is
morally right if an only if [what?].
Section 9. Difficulties for Utilitarianism:
1. Utilitarianism seems to have implications that are
inconsistent with our views on justice. Explain the conflict.
(hint: study the “riotous mob example)
Section 10: Kant’s Theory of Universal Respect:
1. Kant proposes a single rule for determining right from wrong.
He says that the rule can be formulated, or stated, in different
ways. Be able to state the basic idea of the first two
formulations: i.e., the universal law test and the Humanity as an
end, not a means test. I WILL NOT TEST OVER THE
TECHNICAL DETAILS OF THE UNIVERSAL LAW TEST;
JUST FOCUS ON THE SUMMARIES OF THE UNIVERSAL
LAW FORMULATION.
2. If I buy a coffee from a barista, am I treating my server as a
mere means? Explain.
3. Final Formulation: Kingdom of Ends: I will not test over
this.
4. Rights: Be able to define and identify examples of positive
and negative rights.
· Basic Distinction: The two types of rights impose different
types of obligations on others. Positive impose a duty of
assistance. Negative impose a duty of forbearance, or non-
interference.
· Example: The phrase “I have a right to X” is ambiguous. We
should always ask the speaker whether they are claiming a
negative right or a positive right. Some examples:
· “I have a right to education:” A negative right implies that no
one can interfere with your attempts to educate (laws that
prohibited slaves or women from learning to read violate a
negative right). A positive right implies a duty to actively
assist with the right-holder’s education. In the U.S. citizens

have a positive right to a K-12 education. Additional education
is only a negative right (though that might be changing).
· “I have a right to life”. Interpreted as a negative right, this
means others can’t interfere with my attempt to stay alive (i.e.,
no murder). Interpreted as a positive right, this means that
others have an obligation to help me stay alive.
· “I have a right to marry.” Interpreted as a negative right, this
would imply that others can’t prevent me from marrying.
Interpreted as a positive right implies an obligation to help me
to become married – perhaps by providing each right-holder a
spouse!
Key to Highlighted Reading
Yellow: General topics (Key passages, or topics)
Green: Argument and sequence indicators (help you to identify
logical steps in an argument)
Bold: key terms (be able to define and apply)
Gray: Transition statements. (Pay attention to these to keep up
with logical flow of reading)
Chapter 8
Can We Reason about Morality?
Copyright by Paul Herrick, 2020. For class use only. Not for
distribution. This chapter: 34 pages of reading.
1. Come, Let Us Reason Together
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., once observed that if a man-made
law conflicts with morality, it is unjust and should be repealed
because morality, not man-made law, is our highest standard of
behavior. Similarly, if a businessman could increase his profits
by putting false labels on his products, he should not do so,
even if he can get away with it, because it would be immoral.
Morality takes precedence over deceptive business practices—
no matter how profitable they might be. Morality also takes
precedence over unexamined self-interest. A criminal may want

to snatch a purse from an old lady walking with a cane, and
perhaps he needs the money and could get away with it;
however, he should not do so because it would be morally
wrong.[endnoteRef:1] Surely these are eminently reasonable
observations. [1: Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter from the
Birmingham City Jail,” reprinted in James M. Washington, ed.
A Testament of Hope. Essential Writings and Speeches of
Martin Luther King Jr. (New York: Harper One, 1986), 289-
302.]
These thoughts remind us that morality is the ultimate criterion
of good and bad, right and wrong, that we ought to live by, all
things considered. Morality is ultimate in the sense that the
obligations it imposes on us take precedence over all nonmoral
considerations, including laws passed by legislatures, the profit
and loss calculations of businesses, social customs, instincts,
and the irrational impulses of ego, desire, prejudice,
unexamined self-interest, and cognitive bias.
One reason to agree with Dr. King, that morality is our highest
standard, is that any human law, social custom, institution,
business practice, desire, action—even traits acquired through
the evolutionary process--can be evaluated and judged on a
moral basis, using our faculty of critical thinking.
The principles or “laws” of morality have a number of important
properties. First, they are prescriptive rather than descriptive.
That is to say, they prescribe how we ought to act, they do not
describe how we do in fact act. Put another way, moral
principles are not empirical generalizations about the way
people actually behave, and they are not statements about the
way people have behaved in the past or will behave in the
future. Rather, they are norms or standards that we ought to
follow, whether or not we do in fact follow them and whether or
not we want to follow them. If someday it should come about
that most people hate each other, that descriptive fact would not
make it moral to hate. Hatred would still be morally wrong. If
someday it should happen that every government in the world

practices genocide, that descriptive fact would not make
genocide morally right—genocide would still be morally wrong.
For (again) morality is not empirical generalizations about the
way we actually behave—it is a prescriptive standard stating
how we ought to behave, all things considered.
Ethics, also called “moral philosophy,” is the philosophical
study of the nature and principles of morality. Among the
questions examined in this branch of philosophy are these: What
exactly are the true, or correct, principles of morality? How do
we tell the difference between moral right and wrong, and moral
good and bad? And, What is morality rooted in or based on?
We agree on many moral principles. For instance, reasonable
people all over the world agree that genocide, kidnapping,
violent unprovoked assault, sex trafficking, and slavery are
morally wrong. We agree that we ought to treat ourselves and
others with a certain degree of respect and care. Most of us
agree on the absolute value of an individual human life. When
we are at our best we agree that human relations and
transactions ought to be consensual. And we agree that
government should be accountable to the people. But other
principles are still being debated. For example, is capital
punishment morally right? Should the state equalize income and
wealth? Is abortion the morally wrong taking of an innocent
life? Or is it morally permissible? Should the wealthy pay more
in taxes? And we are still asking the question Socrates
emphasized: What is truly the best way to live, all things
considered? In moral philosophy we seek rational principles
that can help us make principled moral decisions in real time.
Socrates is considered the founder of moral philosophy as an
academic discipline based on independent critical thinking
because he was the first philosopher in recorded history to seek
(and to teach others to seek) systematic answers to moral
questions on the basis of reason and observation alone, thus
apart from myth, sacred scripture, and unquestioned priestly or
civil authority. Socrates claimed that if we will reason together
calmly, rationally, honestly, and respectfully on moral issues,

we will discover independent, objectively true standards of
conduct that apply to all human beings alike—prescriptive
moral principles we truly ought to follow. Moral philosophers
agree with Socrates. In philosophical ethics, as in the wider
field of philosophy, reason is our common currency.
So, let’s reason together about some of the most fundamental
ethical matters of all, beginning with the somewhat abstract but
vitally important concept of moral good and bad. Thinking
philosophically about good and bad can help you attain a higher
degree of moral clarity. Thinking critically about good and bad
may also help you improve your life. After examining the nature
of moral good and bad, we’ll turn to the equally important
concepts of moral right and wrong.
1. What Is the Summum Bonum or Highest Good?
Consider the following statements. Some people live morally
better lives than others. The life Hitler lived was a very bad
one, and the life Helen Keller lived was a very good one. Blind
hatred is a morally bad thing; love is a good thing. Most people
strive to live a good life, but some seem to consciously choose
evil. These statements seem eminently reasonable. Moral
goodness and badness must be real if these statements are true.
This raises the question. What, by its presence alone, makes for
a morally good life? Socrates put the question this way: What is
the best way to live, all things considered? What makes a life a
morally good life?
Two kinds of goodness must be distinguished at the outset.
Something is instrumentally, or extrinsically, good if it is good
only insofar as it can be used to attain something else that is
itself good. In common terms, an instrumental good is only as a
means to an end. It derives its goodness from the purpose it
serves. A hammer, for example, is instrumentally good—valued
not for its own sake but for the good it helps us attain (building
something). In other words, we value it as a tool. In contrast,
something is intrinsically good if it is good in its own right,
apart from any use to which it may be put or any good that it

leads to. It is good completely on its own.
Now, many things in life possess only instrumental goodness or
value. A dollar bill is ordinarily valuable only because we can
use it to purchase something we value. Lacking intrinsic value,
it is valuable only as a means to an end. Other examples are
easy to think of. A trip to the dentist, a vitamin pill, a credit
card, a ride on the bus—these things are usually valued only as
instrumental goods, as means to an end.
Many things in life are valued only for what they help us attain.
And in most cases, what they help us attain is itself valued only
for something further it helps us attain, and so forth. Where
does the process end? Is there a highest good? Is there one good
at the end of the line, something that is intrinsically good and is
also the good from which all instrumentally good things draw
their goodness?
Or are there many intrinsic goods? If there are, are they related
in some way to a “one over the many” in the moral realm—a
highest good that unites the many intrinsic goods into a whole?
Is it the case that there are many intrinsic goods, but each is
related in some way to a single highest good of all—as Plato
argued? Or are there many independent intrinsic goods? In
philosophy, the term for the highest good of all is summum
bonum,a Latin phrase meaning “supreme good,” introduced by
the great Roman philosopher Cicero (106 BC–43 BC). So, our
question becomes, Is there a summum bonum in life? If so, what
is it?
There are good reasons to believe that a supreme good in life
exists. Major moral philosophers since Plato and Aristotle have
argued that the process of one instrumental good drawing its
goodness from another instrumental good, which draws its
goodness from another, cannot go on without end in an infinite
regression of instrumental goods, for then nothing would
possess any goodness at all. Recall a lesson from chapter 3: Just
as an infinite regression of book borrowers doesn’t explain why
the book on the desk exists, an infinite regression of
instrumental goods would not explain why anything is good.

Any process of one instrumental good drawing its goodness
from another instrumental good therefore must end in at least
one thing good in itself, that is, in at least one highest good that
supplies goodness to everything before it in the series, without
drawing its goodness from something beyond itself. If this is
right, then at least one summum bonum within life exists.
However, Ockham’s razor nudges us toward the hypothesis that
there is one ultimate or highest good in life.[endnoteRef:2]
Following Ockham’s razor, our question becomes, What is life’s
highest good?[endnoteRef:3] [2: In this introductory
discussion, we will set aside the question of whether the
summum bonum is one or many, or whether it is in some sense a
unity of many within one.] [3: We examined a parallel
explanatory regress in chapter 8—one having to do with
existence rather than goodness. That regress pointed to the
existence of a being that supplies existence to everything else
while not deriving its existence from anything external to itself.
]
1. Egoistic Hedonism: The First Theory of the Good Life
One answer has seemed obvious to many people throughout
history. Pleasure, they answer, is the summum bonum of life.
Their argument is plain. Pleasure is the only thing that is wholly
good all by itself. Everything else is good only insofar as it
produces or helps us attain pleasure. If something does not give
us at least some pleasure, it has no worth at all. Pleasure is thus
the end of the line, the one intrinsic good that imparts goodness
to everything else in the worldly series of instrumental goods.
[PG: Is this circular reasoning?]
In philosophy this theory is known as “hedonism” (from the
Greek word hedon for “pleasure”). The hedonist philosophy has
been stated in many different forms; the simplest is known as
egoistic hedonism (from the Latin word ego for “I,” or “self”).

You are living the best life possible, says the advocate of
egoistic hedonism, if your life is filled with as much net
pleasure as possible, where net pleasure is defined as the total
quantity of pleasure left after the total quantity of pain has been
subtracted. In everything you do, your own net pleasure
(hereafter simply “pleasure”) is the bottom line, the only
consideration that matters.
Egoistic hedonism is one of the oldest ethical theories ever
proposed. We know from Plato’s Dialogues that it was taught by
some of the Sophists during the fifth century BC. The Sophists,
you’ll recall, were professional teachers who traveled from one
Greek city-state to another, offering instruction for a fee in
subjects ranging from wrestling, law, and grammar, to speech
communication and rhetoric (the art of persuasive speech).
Their services were in great demand because the Greeks were
conducting the world’s first experiment in democratic
government, and democracy requires an educated citizenry with
activists and public speakers trained in rhetoric and other
communication skills. The Sophists claimed to meet the needs
of the fledgling Greek democracy.
Many people today certainly act as if they believe that
their own personal pleasure is the only thing that matters
morally. If something doesn’t promise them pleasure, they
abandon it. They spend a great deal of money and time pursuing
drugs, sex, thrills, and other things that bring pleasure. Egoistic
hedonism has always attracted converts. (But most people
change over time. In many cases, the person who is acting as a
blatant hedonist today may be pursuing higher values later in
life, right? Saint Augustine is a good example.) [PG: The
emphasis is on PERSONAL pleasure. Other theories will focus
on other’s pleasure.]
If you adopt egoistic hedonism as your moral theory, then you
should evaluate everything in life on the basis of only one
consideration: Does it, or will it, give me enough pleasure? For
(again) on the hedonist view, your life is going well to the
degree to which it is filled with pleasure. For pleasure, in the

final analysis, is the highest good.
1. Socrates Challenges the Hedonists
Socrates entered the public square to counter the Sophists and
their hedonistic theory of the good life. The historic debate that
followed covered many of the most important issues in ethics—
including questions we’re still discussing today.[endnoteRef:4]
Plato re-created the discussions between Socrates and the
hedonists in a number of his dialogues, including the Gorgias
and the Republic. [4: For example, during the 1960s, activists
such as the Harvard professor Timothy Leary advocated a
modern form of hedonism that included rock and roll and
experimentation with psychedelic drugs.]
Several Socratic arguments can be distilled from those
fascinating discussions. First, pleasure in itself cannot be the
highest good in life, for clearly not all pleasures are good. For
example, pleasure gained by blatantly using others without
regard for their welfare is bad, isn’t it? Pleasure gained by
harming others is clearly and most certainly not good, right?
But if some pleasures are not good, then there must be a
standard of goodness above that of pleasure—an objective
If so, then pleasure in itself cannot be the summum bonum of
life. More formally:
1. Clearly and objectively, not all pleasures are morally good.
1. If not all pleasures are good, then there must be an objective
standard of moral goodness above that of mere pleasure—a
1. If there is an objective standard of moral goodness above that
of pleasure, then egoistic hedonism is false.
1. Therefore, egoistic hedonism is certainly false.
A second and deeper Socratic argument against hedonism began
with observations on the nature of the soul. We know, Socrates
argued, that our soul, or inner self, contains three distinct parts:
reason, emotion, and bodily desire. The proof that these parts
are distinct is that they can oppose each other: emotion can

oppose reason (and vice versa), desire can oppose reason (and
vice versa) and emotion can oppose desire (and vice versa). For
example:
1. Our emotions sometimes overrule our reason. For example,
imagine that ten motorcycle gang members carrying knives and
guns cut in front of Joe in the line at the grocery store. Joe’s
reason tells him not to pick a fight. But his anger (an emotion)
leads him to do just that—with a predictable result.
1. Our bodily desires sometimes overrule our reason. For
example, while on a diet, Joe’s rational part tells him he should
not stop at Dick’s drive-in on the way home and eat three
greasy hamburgers before dinner. But his bodily desires lead
him to violate his vow to eat more healthily.
Next, life experience teaches that when our raw emotions
overrule our reason, the result is usually something we later
realize, using our best reasoning, was harmful. In such cases,
we look back and wish we had followed the prompts of sound
reasoning rather than uncontrolled emotion. Road rage is a
contemporary example. Similarly, experience teaches that when
our bodily desires overcome our reason the result is usually
something we later realize, again using our best reasoning, was
unhealthy. In such cases, we look back and wish we had
followed reason rather than unexamined bodily desire.
Overeating and drinking too much are examples. Life
experience teaches, in short, that we live better when our soul is
ruled by sound reasoning—reason following realistic principles
of critical thinking--than when it is ruled by unexamined
emotions or raw bodily desires.
Reason stands out, Socrates argued. It is the one part of the
soul whose full-time job is to seek truth and real goodness on
the basis of objective and realistic standards. Emotion and
desire unchecked by correct reasoning can be wild and often
lead to unhealthy and unproductive results. Part of reason’s
full-time job, argued Socrates, is keeping the emotions and
desires in check and balanced as we pursue objective truth and
real goodness in life. The urgings of emotion and desire are

fine, he argued, and can help, as long as they are governed by
sound reasoning.
At this point in the exposition of the theory, some students
point out that reason can also lead us astray. our reasoning can
be biased, it can be errant, it sometimes operates on half-truths.
People can also use their reasoning dishonestly, to justify bad
things, to figure out how to rob banks, to calculate the best way
to steal without getting caught, and so forth. why, they ask,
does the faculty of reason deserve this exalted status? Why is it
special or privileged? [PG: Reading tip: a common pattern in
philosophy is to present an argument, then present objections,
then present replies to objections. Anticipate and look for this
pattern as you read. It often provides a good way to structure
your notes.]
Socrates agreed that our own personal reasoning can sometimes
take an illogical path and lead us to a fallacious conclusion. It
can also be biased. It can be used to rationalize bad actions. He
was keenly aware of the many ways people misuse their faculty
of reason. After all, his life mission, as we saw in chapter 1,
was to help people reason more realistically. Which leads to his
reply to this objection.
By “reason” Socrates meant And by this he meant “trained and
educated reasoning.” When we are young and immature, our
reasoning is not functioning at its best. Reason needs to be
trained in the objective methods of critical thinking. It also
needs to be educated on the nature of true goodness. Which
brings us to the next step in his theory of the highest good or
summum bonum: the nature of the highest good. [PG: Is this a
strong reply? Some object that reason can lead us astray. Is
Socrates’ answer: “Yes, except when it doesn’t”?]
The theory begins with an argument for God’s existence. The
material universe is orderly, functional, and intelligible in the
large scale. The best explanation, Socrates argued, is that nature
is ultimately the product not of unstructured random chance but
of a supreme intelligence overseeing and guiding the whole--an
intelligent designer which he named the “divine craftsman.” He

also called the divine craftsman “God.” We examined Socrates’s
argument for God’s existence in chapter 2.
Next, the human soul—like everything else in the material
universe--was designed by God to function in a certain way.
The soul functions properly, as it was meant to function, when
educated reason governs and balances the emotions and desires
while directing the soul toward the highest good. And what is
the highest good?
When we reason critically, reason points us toward an absolute
good of infinite value. This good, however, is not (as the
hedonists claimed) bodily pleasure; rather, it is a supernatural,
immaterial good that exists beyond the material world, a good
that is attracting us from beyond the material world. Socrates
calls this being “the Form of the Good” or simply “The Good”
and he gives at least four deep philosophical arguments for its
existence.[endnoteRef:5] [5: A discussion of these arguments
would take us far beyond this introduction. I present the
Socratic case for the form of the good in Come Let Us Reason. ]
There is an additional mechanism at work here. Reason, when it
is functioning at its best, points us toward the highest good; but
in addition, the highest good attracts all things in the material
world like a magnet attracts iron filings. The form of the Good
thus attracts human reason and the soul along with it.
Now, when the soul functions as it was meant to, it attains an
internal harmony experienced as a state of well-being or
happiness distinct from irrational pleasure, a state which
Socrates calls “eudaimonia” (Greek: “flourishing”). The value
of having a balanced, smoothly functioning, harmonious soul,
argued Socrates, surpasses anything else in life, including the
alleged goods of irrational pleasure, fame, power, glory, and
wealth. Since Socrates believes in (and argues for) life after
death, and since he holds that the highest good is supernatural,
he also argues that the attainment of an even higher degree of
flourishing awaits us in the next life.
Next, goodness is the fundamental moral category and the form

of the Good is the objective foundation of all moral value the
form of the Good is the summum bonum. Those who live by
sound reasoning informed by a knowledge of the highest good
therefore live a moral or “just” life. Immoral people behave
immorally and fail to attain eudaimonia because their reasoning
has been sidetracked by irrational emotions and unexamined
desires aimed at an imposter—usually the lower “good” of
bodily pleasure.
So, why not choose bodily pleasure as one’s summom bonum?
Pleasure is, well, fun. Socrates has an answer. Those who have
experienced both hedonistic pleasure and the goodness of
eudaimonia know that the moral life is the best way to live, all
things considered. It is superior to pleasure-seeking in every
way. The hedonistic pleasure gained through irrational pursuits
is not worth the opportunity cost (the loss of real well-being or
flourishing). Which brings us to another important aspect of the
theory.
Socrates frequently calls the form of the Good “divine.” When
we follow correct reasoning in pursuit of the highest good, he
argues, we come as close to the divine as it is possible to come
in this earthly life. After we die and enter the next life the
process will continue. The good life, then, is really a spiritual
pursuit aimed ultimately at the divine. This explains why
Socrates says to the hedonist, in so many words, “You can do
better than this. Your soul can reach higher.”
Socrates’s ethical theory connects morality, God, the soul, life
after death, and reason in one interrelated system. The highest
good is not, as the hedonists contended, of this world; it is a
supernatural reality attracting us from beyond the material
world--a good we’ll embrace fully only in the next life. [PG:
note, Socrates’ God is not the same as the theist God we studied
earlier. See my …
Part One. Pick any idea in this week's material that interests you
and post your philosophical thoughts on it.

As a way to help you study for the quiz, take a look at the
reading guide published in this week's module. The quiz will be
based on the topics highlighted in the guide. So you can pick
one of those topics to write about and this will help you to
prepare for the quiz. Of course, it requires that you do the
discussion before the quiz. :-)
Part Two. Respond critically when you comment on the post of
one (or more) members of the class. This means: give an
argument to support your view.
Qi
This week I would like to discuss Socrates’s argument about
goodness. His ethical theory connects morality, God, the soul,
life after death, and reason all together. Although I agree that
reason, especially critical thinking ability, plays an important in
judging goodness, I do not agree that morality is a supreme
existence that connects to God and life after death. In my
opinion, I think morality matters because they are created by
human beings and used to guide our behavior. If morality links
to God and life after death, then why it only matters to human
beings instead of all the other species existing in the world, like
birds and tigers?

Chapter 9. Can We Reason about MoralityChapter 8Can We Re.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from tiffanyd4

More from tiffanyd4 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 9. Can We Reason about MoralityChapter 8Can We Re.docx