Slate's Bizbox
the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Being Good

the book club
entries
1234
from: Nell Minow

Too True To Be Good

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2001, at 11:31 AM ET

Dear Debra,

Drag clubs and philosophy slams--sounds like the name of a book of Lester Bangs' rock rants. I suppose the main thing they have in common is that they attract more show-offs than people who appreciate them.

You're right that Americans love to tell each other how to behave, but we are not nearly so crazy about adopting for ourselves ethical burdens of duty, patience, sacrifice, and modesty, words that can sound musty and Puritan, as though the next on the list might be something really scary, like "chastity."

We are also mistrustful of those who aspire to too much "goodness." Indeed, in American parlance, the term "the good life" implies not martyrdom but an image of a suburban couple relaxing on the patio, sipping martinis and listening to the hum of all of their appliances. We seem relieved when those nude photos you refer to surface. I snickered as much as anyone at proof that Dr. Laura is a hypocrite. (Though the real jerk was the ex-boyfriend who released the photos they took in intimate moments.) As Don Marquis said, "An idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it," and we should not throw the baby of ethical discourse out with the bath water of individual failures to meet ethical standards.

The concerns you raise about the volunteer army and public restrooms and Blackburn's focus on the United Nations' attempt to define worldwide human rights just show how our problems multiply when we try to go from a personal moral code to one imposed on groups, corporations, countries, and the world.

This is the collective choice problem--what do we do when there is something we all need, but no one has sufficient interest in it to make sure that it works? Blackburn falls back on everyone's favorite, the categorical imperative (a sort of variation on the golden rule, which most of the philosophy he describes boils down to anyway). Maybe then we would all enlist or devote half an hour every month cleaning up public restrooms, just because we all think that would be a good rule if everyone followed it. But I don't think so.

The same collective choice problem is a factor in corporate messes that make public restrooms look like the ladies' lounge at the Plaza (the one with the real towels and the very elegant if nonfunctional fireplace). I know some people consider "business ethics" an oxymoron. Corporations, with "no soul to damn, no body to kick" protect people who commit crimes that would have them fined or jailed if committed as individuals. Instead, with the protection of the corporate structure, fines are paid with a check from their director and officer liability insurers, and they don't even have to give up the key to the (very lovely I am sure) executive washroom.

I wish Blackburn had tried to address that problem. But my bigger concern is his too modest aspirations for the role that the ethical discourse he advocates should play. He disarmingly gives us an example from P.G. Wodehouse in which Jeeves tries to comfort Bertie with Marcus Aurelius' view that everything good and bad that happens is destiny, and part of "the great web." Bertie replies, "I doubt, as a matter of fact, if Marcus Aurelius' material is ever the stuff to give the troops at a moment when they have just stubbed their toe on the brick of Fate. You want to wait until the agony has abated."

This acknowledgement that even a very compelling worldview may not provide much comfort or guidance in the midst of the direst of circumstances raises a challenge to the study of ethics that this book comes nowhere near addressing. Blackburn concedes early on that ethics are not of much help to someone on a death march and only suggests that perhaps a better understanding of our ethical environment might prevent such tragedies in the future.

That is just not good enough. Ethical values allow us to define ourselves through our choices and reactions. Ethical principles must provide context and direction to people confronting the most tragic, unjust, agonizing, and hopeless circumstances. If they don't provide some support to someone on a death march, they are of no value to the philosopher in the ivory tower, speculating about how many hairs a man must have before we can no longer call him bald.

For me, this exchange demonstrates the merits of a willingness to engage and not just pontificate on ethical issues. Thanks for making it such a pleasure!

Nell

the book club
entries
1234
from: Nell Minow

Too True To Be Good

Posted Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2001, at 11:31 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Being Good, by Simon BlackburnThis week, Slate's Book Clubbers tackle Being Good, philosopher Simon Blackburn's short, handy introduction to ethics. Click here for an explanation of our format and here to buy the book.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Reader Comments From The Fray:


[Note from the Fray Editor: Kassandra's post brought Simon Blackburn, the author of the book, into The Fray...]


Why are ethics required to give "context and direction" to people in hopeless circumstances? That's asking an awful lot, isn't it? If the circumstances are hopeless enough, nothing can do that; why should ethics be the exception? Freud discusses this cogently and without the usual psychoanalytic it's-true-because-I-say-so in Civilization and its Discontents, in which he itemizes some of the consolations of life and then frankly adds that they don't work when one is sick or in pain.

Ethics, and philosophy in general, aren't magic. And they aren't of value only to the extent that they can console us for the inevitable pain and sorrow of life. Alain de Botton and Boethius each wrote a book called The Consolation of Philosophy, but de Botton was half joking and Boethius' book is part fable.

On the other hand, philosophy, thought, mental activity can be great sources of joy, excitement, motivation, enthusiasm. They're underrated in our culture in favor of more touchy-feely or therapeutic or 'spiritual' or family-values consolations, but that's our mistake. There's a charming bit in The Once and Future King when Merlin cheers up a depressed Arthur telling him the best thing for a fit of the blues is to learn something.
But even if ethics can't console us or cheer us up or give us context & direction, they are still of value, and it's just not good enough to say it's not good enough.

--Kassandra

(To reply, click here.)


Reply from the Author:

 Well said Kassandra. I am really puzzled why I should be criticized for not writing a book to help people in desperate circumstances, any more than for not writing a book about motor cycle maintenance. Still, I know how to be Stoical...

--Simon Blackburn

(To reply, click here.)




Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
Fiscal Drunkards, Dry Out
Ruth Marcus | Which candidate could lead us to economic sobriety?
Meyerson: Gods That FailedMilbank: Confidence Isn't Cheap