MBS315 Mackie
1. The good for mankind

"The good life will be such as to satisfy the interests in question...of those who participate in the good life...(for) .....any specific activities, the interests both of those who engage in them and those who are affected by them - but also ours: what we call the good life must be one that we can welcome and approve."

The question is hard to resolve

• we have variable views of the good life - at different times in history, in societies and cultures, from political and religious perspectives and from personal inclination what we prefer/desire. This is the congition, subjective-relative, and cultural view about what ethical beheviour - what right and proper behaviour "ought to be".

• Mackie argues that universal, abstracted rules about what is right/wrong are implausible. History and biography offers many descriptive assertions about what is generally good or evil about people or in people. Not everyone holds the same view about absolutes. Life's reality and variability presents problems for generalised, must-apply-to-everyone rules. Draw your own moral conclusions?

Mackie nonetheless explores the generalities and rehearses ideas and arguments that stem from from many sources. He argues

"any individual's good life (is) made up largely of the effective pursuit of activities that he finds worthwhile, either intrinsically, or because they are directly beneficial to others about whom he cares, or because he knows them to be instrumental in providing the means of wellbeing for himself and those closely connected with him."

Egoism and altruism

"I am a reasonably benevolent person, I want happiness and contentment. Fly me to the moon and let me sit amongst the stars."

Much contentment is linked with those we care about/identify with. It is a synergy - more than a sum of individual enjoyments. Thus I might say - "I had a good...life... it had its ups and downs but....."

One function of "morality" perhaps is to mediate and constrain narrow selfish interests. Mackie feels that all individuals can expect and reasonably hope for is a general "Good life" with self-referential altruism (Hume's confined generosity). There is nothing wrong with self-love although excess or absence of it can be damaging.

Cooperation, competition and conflict

We develop (pluralism) ways of institutionalising and regulating cooperation, competition, and conflict between rival social and political ideals. On this basis Mackie argues that

• moral absolutism is impracticable and implausible.
• extreme individualism is not a feasible alternative as desirable, human life (feasible) is social.
• The "good life" argument, as represented in Christian and humanist traditions (universal brotherly love and selflessness etc) or by J S Mill's notion of 'common utilitarianism' (love our neighbours and hate our enemies) - suffer from generality. Like Lisa's bucket - they leak.

He references Fitzjames Stephen's view

"Love your neighbour in proportion to the degree in which he approaches yourself and appeals to your passions and sympathies. In hating your enemy, bear in mind ...that under excitment you are likely to hate him more than you would wish to do upon a deliberate consideration of all his relations to yourself and your friends, and of your permanent and remote as compared with your immediate interest".

Fitzjames Stephen contrasts

• the person "who works from himself outwardly clearly focusing his own advantage and ...those...connected with himself"

  with

• someone who talks general love for everyone but who can then argue convincingly for violence - physical or mental against others.

As distinctive, independent individuals we inherit biology, upbringing, historical and social traditions /values - part of the good life's baggage. Nevertheless forms of co-operation and competition and conflict must be managed in our groups - within families, supplier networks, between employers and employees and between states. These of course may overlap and provide dilemmas of loyalty.