Thoughts on: The Moral Philosopher and The Moral Life by William James

As a meditation practice, I have been studying philosophy and examining my own beliefs about everything from the meaning of life, happiness, death, morality, and ethics. Some of my most recent reads have returned me to my favorites, like Seneca and Nietzsche (through whom I discovered the concept of existentialism many, many years ago), and introduced me to new writings by people I am broadly acquainted with (Epicurus). 

I have also been exposed to writings by people who were wholly unfamiliar to me. A few months ago, a date mentioned the work of William James as one of his favorites. I am currently reading through a book containing a collection of William James’ essays. 

“The Will to Believe” is probably the best known work by William James. So far, it is the essay I felt has been most compelling and enjoyable. But the essay that intrigues me now is “The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life”. In this 1891 essay, addressed to the Yale Philosophical Club, William James posits that there is no ethical philosophy that is derived solely from principled concepts. Rather, he asserts that ethical philosophy is formed iteratively, through subjective experiences over time. 

Here are some quotes I found to be the most thought-provoking with my comments:

“In other words, there can be no final truth in ethics any more than in physics, until the last man has had his experience and said his say”

I find this acknowledgment to be very curious.

In my personal experience, people rarely make allowances for other ethical perspectives. This seems especially true among people who hold strong religious beliefs – though I do find that people who value intellectual honesty in tandem with religious belief tend to adopt the more open orientation encapsulated by this quote. Postmodernism, as it is now popularly called.

I would probably identify myself as postmodernist.

“One of these is that the thinkers may ignore each other’s attitude about good and evil altogether, and each continue to indulge his own preferences, indifferent to what the other may feel or do. In such a case we have a world with twice as much of the ethical quality in it as our moral solitude, only it is without ethical unity…”

This is only a partial quote, but made me think of some discussions I have recently seen online concerning the “importance” of religious unity and, consequently, presupposition of shared ethics to the development of the United States. Much of the discourse I observed was in response to Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s essay “Why I am now a Christian”, in which she seems to assert that the United States cannot prosper – and is in fact weakened – without Christianity as a unifying story.

 It seems to me that there is a logical error in assuming that a shared religion is synonymous with shared ethics or power. 

(For the record… I identify as a Christian. Although, to be precise, I am Christian agnostic)

“…We have learned what the words ‘good’, ‘bad,’ and ‘obligation’ severally mean. They mean no absolute natures, independent of personal support. They are objects of feeling and desire, which have no foothold or anchorage in Being, apart from the existence of actually living minds.”

“The actually possible in this world is vastly narrower than all that is demanded; and there is always a pinch between the ideal and the actual which can only be got through by leaving part of the ideal behind. There is hardly a good which we can imagine except as competing for the possession of the same bit of space and time with some other imagined good. Every end of desire that presents itself appears exclusive of some other end of the desire.”

In all topics from abortion to affirmative action to foreign intervention, I think of the latter quote as the fulcrum of all debate: what is good, bad, or what obligations we have. 

When I think of the question about what is “good”, often the inherent follow up that comes to mind is “this is good… for who?” Additionally, the second quote highlights the another set of considerations – why and how such good is achieved. 

(If you are interested to know what my general posture is: I tend to lean in on Machiavelli.)

“In point of fact, there are no absolute evils, and there are no non-moral goods; and the highest ethical life – however few may be called to bear its burdens – consists at all times in the breaking of rules which have grown too narrow for the actual case. There is but one unconditional commandment, which is that we seek incessantly, with fear and trembling, so to vote and to act as to bring about the very largest total universe of good which we can see. Abstract rules indeed can help; but they help the less in proportion as our intuitions are more piercing… for every real dilemma is in literal strictness a unique situation…”

I felt this quote was a valuable frame for reconciling perceived ethical incongruence when considering what to do in different situations. 

If I believe ethical behavior in a certain situation is exemplified by Choice X, it does not mean that I consider the same choice to be ethical in all other situations. This is one of my biggest annoyances in debating almost any contentious topic with intellectually lazy people – people who craft fallacious arguments.

Something else came to mind at this passage: the imperfect science of policymaking. 

While studying for my Master’s, I took a course on Information and Technology Public Policy and developed a new appreciation for the difficulty in crafting public policy that withstands philosophical scrutiny. The late Professor John Uhr wrote a fantastic essay entitled, “Be Careful What You Wish For”, wherein he discusses the problems that come with the great ethical expectations that people often have of policymakers and elected officials.

And lastly, a parting quote I will leave you with: