Book Reviews, Resources, Uncategorized

Review: An Introduction to Ethics, Brian Besong

by Dave Seng

Brian Besong. An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, Cascade Books, 2018. (Paperback ISBN:9781498298896); $30.00

The light of natural reason, whereby we discern what is good and what is evil, which is the function of the natural law, is nothing else than an imprint on us of the divine light. – St. Thomas Aquinas

Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by nature a political animal. – Aristotle

Although it has largely been forgotten, natural law theory has played a primary role in the Western intellectual tradition for at least two thousand years. In his book, An Introduction to Ethics: A Natural Law Approach, (AIE), ethicist Brian Besong presents and defends a very accessible and easy to understand formulation of natural law. AIE itself is written as an introductory text for a college-level ethics course, but it is also a very nice resource for the general reader just wanting a basic understanding of ethics and the main ideas of the natural law tradition. Ethics, of course, is the branch of philosophy that seeks to explain how things like good and evil are applied to personal actions, decisions, and relationships, including one’s interaction in their community and society at large. Our moral values are what help us to determine right and wrong human behavior. Natural law is simply the ethical theory that helps us understand how general and universal rules of conduct, both at the individual and social levels, are derived from natural reason, and the world itself, which is conceived as rationally ordered.

Before we get to the review, I want to make a few comments about the natural law tradition and then posit three key concepts of natural law, which are important as they relate to AIE. As noted, natural law is an important idea in Western thought. It is important because it directly relates to human flourishing. In intellectual history, it can be seen in Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics (Epictetus, Seneca, Aurelius, and others), it was incorporated into Christian philosophical reflection, and is starting to see a re-discovery today. It is not necessary to be a Christian, or theist, in order to hold to natural law theory. Three key concepts of the classical natural law tradition are:

1. Human beings have an essential nature established by God, who designed humans to live and flourish in prescribed ways (philosophers from Aristotle to the Stoics have largely developed this concept).

2. Even without knowledge of God, reason as the essence of our nature, can discover the laws that are necessary for human flourishing (Aristotle and Aquinas primarily develop this line of thought).

3. The natural laws are universal and unchangeable, and they should be used to judge individual societies and their positive laws. Positive (or actual) laws of societies that are not in line with the natural law are not truly laws but counterfeits (mostly from the Stoics).

As we will soon discover, AIE does an excellent job explicating these key ideas. Besong’s book has two goals, (first) it seeks to lay out the central concepts of ethics, and why it is important to think about right and wrong human conduct, and (second), apply natural law thinking to the important questions and issues that arise from ethical concerns. As an introduction to ethics, Besong provides excellent illustrations which, I think, naturally resonate with many students today. The book succeeds in meeting these goals, which is not an easy accomplishment.

AIE has these six basic chapters—Foundational Issues, The Pursuit of Happiness, Good and Evil, Moral Responsibility, Rights and Duties, and Virtues and Vices. The book itself comes to 232 pages including two appendices (one on how to read philosophy, the other answering objections to natural law theory), a bibliography, and an index. Unfortunately, however, the book is poorly indexed as key terms are missing (this is probably due to the publisher, not the author, as a good index is expensive to produce). Each chapter has comprehension questions that the reader or student can use to better understand the content of the material. In addition, clear definitions of key terms are always given.

One of the first things that Besong discusses in his chapter, Foundational Issues, is that is it impossible to be a moral relativist. The reason for this is straightforward, if one were to hold moral relativism as objectively true, he or she would then be making an objectively true statement, and hold to an objective position, not a relative or subjective one. Further, our most basic intuitions of right and wrong are rarely incorrect. Who would really argue that torturing babies for fun is morally acceptable, or kindness to others is morally wrong? On occasion, our basic moral intuitions could be wrong (though maybe more rare at the most fundamental levels), they are generally corrected with careful reflection and thoughtfulness. After all, we have the ability to think rationally and carefully about which moral intuitions are correct and how they relate to one another. Human beings do have the capacity for rationality. Besong does a great job pointing out that moral laws have objective validity. The human faculty of reason is an important one.

Throughout the book, the importance of human rationality is highlighted. It is the unique capacity for rationality that makes humans distinct from other animals. Squirrels, kangaroos, and cephalopods do not rationally reflect on their actions or create institutions that benefit their species. Peregrine falcons do not build hospitals, law courts, libraries, or seek an education that promotes their well-being. As Besong points out, when humans reason well, they are using their characteristically highest function (51).

The chapter on happiness is significant and demonstrates the primary motivation in human action and the foundation for natural law. In addition to the natural use of reason in ethical reflection, it is also the drive for human happiness which is the chief concern for the natural law tradition and the key factor in human flourishing. Both Aristotle and Aquinas believe that everyone acts for some good which provides happiness. It is irrational to act towards one’s misery and dissatisfaction. Natural law explains that happiness is that which ultimately supplies human flourishing. When someone makes rational choices for a good end, happiness is the result, just as a well-governed, rational, and just state provides happiness and flourishing for its citizens. The human drive for happiness is easily discovered. When you ask someone why they do what they do, you will find that happiness is the chief end of human activity. Perhaps you have questioned someone, “why do you work so hard?” They might say, so I can meet the needs of my family and buy things.” But when you drill down and ask, “why do you want to meet your family’s needs or buy things?”, you will discover that happiness is the ultimate pursuit. Whatever we do, it is with the end of some form of happiness in mind.

Natural law is an important ethical theory. Brian Besong has done a service by bringing an introductory text to the student and general reader. As noted, one does not have to hold to Christian theism in order to believe in natural law–Aristotle and the Stoics were not Christians while Aquinas was. The important contribution of Western natural law thinking is a compelling and significant view of reality itself. It is the view that social and political values are built into human nature and reality itself. This is the important metaphysical foundation of ethics. Ethical values are properties of being and can be rationally discovered, expressed, and applied.

Ethics, Happiness, Philosophy

Eudaemonia: An Existential Exploration

by Dave Seng

Call no man happy until you know the nature of his death. — Herodotus, Clio, I, 32.

But we must add ‘in a complete life’. For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy. – Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.

This is a follow up to my post: Wisdom, Virtue, and Happiness.

In this post, we revisit the moral and ethical elements of the classical conception of eudaemonia and explore the implications of happiness as the final cause of our lives. An examination of the moral or ethical definitions of happiness is important because the psychological definitions of happiness as desire and fulfillment are often fleeting, vague, and temporal. Further, our desires are often misplaced and we become misguided in a false pursuit of happiness. Nonetheless, the issue of what constitutes happiness is valid. “Man wishes to be happy, and only wishes to be happy, and cannot wish not to be so,” writes Blaise Pascal. On the question of what moves human desire, John Locke tells us “happiness and that alone.” In fact, many philosophers—from a variety of perspectives—have made happiness the primary object of human action (which, by the way, implies an ethical element). Here I’m thinking of philosophers such as Aristotle, Aquinas, Locke, or J.S. Mill. Happiness and its pursuit seems to be a universal quest for humanity and the human impulse for happiness seems to be intuitively correct. Therefore, seeking the correct definition of happiness is important for several reasons. As noted in my previous post, social scientists are able to talk about the need for human happiness without giving a definition of it. Statistics mean little if no definition or perhaps a wrong definition of happiness is given. However, if we can define happiness correctly, we will have a better understanding of how to attain it.

Wisdom is the discovery and understanding of first principles combined with the virtue of using our knowledge well. In the classical Western tradition, Eudaemonia is among the first principles in correctly understanding happiness. It is the idea that happiness as the highest good of the individual is achieved rationally without the extremes of excessive repression or inordinate indulgence. Happiness understood as the harmony and consonancy of a rationally well lived life will help in understanding why it is thought to be the final end or purpose in human activity.

In this sense, happiness is said to be the goal or final end of mankind. We begin at the end as T.S. Eliot reminds us. In this case, the end is the purpose or reason for the goal-directed activity that all of us partake in one way or another. What is the end of human existence? Happiness. This is why many philosophers have said that the happy life is one with a good ending. Think of someone who is suffering with chronic pain or experiencing genuine existential tragedy in his or her life but is also happy. A play or TV show is considered a comedy although the characters themselves display a painful existence and many tragic flaws. Think of the talented genius, gifted artist, or young entrepreneur whose life is suddenly cut short in a horrible way. We call this a catastrophe, not happiness. I think this is one reason Herodotus reminds us to “call no man happy until you know the nature of his death”. Happiness, therefore, is seen as the end, purpose, or goal-directed nature of human existence and what it means to be and become in this temporary life. It is that which mankind tends toward—as all things tend toward the fulfillment of their nature.

Understanding that there is nothing beyond happiness for which humans seek, Aristotle uses the term happiness as the ultimate good, last end, or summum bonum (highest good).

“The chief good,” he writes, “is evidently something final . . . Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing. Therefore, we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else. Such a thing, happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for itself and never for the sake of something else.” (Nicomachean Ethics)

Aristotle supports his argument that happiness is the final end of human activity with the notion of self-sufficiency or completeness. It would make no sense to pursue happiness as a final end if it were incomplete or something in addition is needed to make it complete. One would run into an endless regression of desire fulfillment. Ultimately, the happy life leaves nothing to be desired. As Aristotle explains:

“The self-sufficient we now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among others—if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (Nicomachean Ethics)

When you ask someone why they do what they do, you will find that happiness is the chief end of human activity. Perhaps you have questioned someone, “why do you work so hard?” They might say, so I can meet the needs of my family and buy things.” But when you drill down and ask why do you want to meet your family’s needs or buy things, you will discover that happiness is the ultimate pursuit. Whatever we do, it is with the end of some good in mind. Happiness understood as the harmony and consonancy of a rationally well-lived life will help guide one in making the right goal directed choices for their life. This is why Aristotle explains that “human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue.”

It is simply impossible to cover the entire range of human happiness in just two posts. I hope to come back to it again. There is much more to be discussed such as the function of wisdom and the happy life, the role of virtue in the pursuit of happiness, and perhaps the social aspects of happiness as the common good. Nonetheless, understanding happiness as the primary goal-directed nature of human existence is the primary first principle one must grasp.

Until I get to this topic again, I recommend the following for further reading:

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

Aquinas’ section on happiness in his Summa Theologica

Josef Pieper’s book Happiness and Contemplation

Martin Seligman’s book Authentic Happiness

Miguel de Unamuno’s book Tragic Sense of Life