Conversation on the Good Life

Download Conversation on the Good Life

Conversation on the Good Life:

 HH: Martha Nussbaum's central capabilities approach offers a broader approach than either DWF or AQ.  DWF's perspective in "This is Water" remains very much within his own head and both his and Anne's proposals have a kind of built-in elitism -- that is, their point of view requires individualistic privilege that for most folks around the world is simply superfluous to the exigencies of their daily lives. Martha's list of ten central capabilities  (and her book on same) would a good place to begin a discussion of the good life:

1. Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the senses, to imagine, think, and reason—and to do these things in a "truly human" way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training. Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain.
5. Being able to have attachments to things and people outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger. Not having one's emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
6. Practical Reason.Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one's life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.)
7. Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other humans, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting the freedom of assembly and political speech.)
8. Having the social bases of self-respect and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin and species.
9. Other Species.Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
10. Play.Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
11. Control over one's Environment.
12. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one's life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.
13. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search and seizure. In work, being able to work as human, exercising practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual recognition with other workers.

SL: It’s true, Hugh, there is an assumption of privilege in both Quinlan and Wallace’s approach. Our students are in possession of that privilege, so, I think, that it really speaks to them in a way that is very real for them. I was hoping to make a series of posters to articulate different takes on the meaning of a good life—the Holstee Manifesto, for example, is one that I want to use. Martha’s is one that we should also use.

HH: It is not accurate, Stu, to say our students as a whole are in possession of "that privilege".  Additionally, I don't think that such an assumption is one that the school would want to project. I thought the ethos of our school was the recognition that our individual well-being is intimately connected to that of others, especially to those who do not have the privilege of an Albuquerque Academy education.  My concern is not that Martha's point of view would not be included, but that given your presentation the answer to the question of the good life is already strongly biased toward the individualistic and subjective. For many of the students, this approach will certainly be appealing. It has the feel of pandering to the audience. Is it, however, the direction we should be guiding our students?  

As I mentioned in my previous note to you, Martha's perspective offers a much broader perspective.  She challenges us to question whether any life can be considered good (no matter the subjective feeling) that is dependent on a privilege that is denied to others. We should face that challenge together with the students.  Martha's perspective does recognize the individual search for the good as one of the central capabilities (#6), but it takes place within a framework of our responsibilities to others. Martha's list is not the Decalogue, but it is a good place to start our discussion. It would be wonderful if we could arrange for Martha to speak to our school community. 

SL: Actually, our students live in America, go to the Academy, have houses, shoes, and clothing, do not carry AK47s. They are, by definition, privileged. 

I think that you are right-- the discussion begins in the subjective and individualistic, which is, I think, the right place to begin. It is where our students live. But David Foster Wallace’s piece and Anna Quinlan’s piece both ask us to look beyond ourselves for meaning. Wallace wants us to not be lords of our “skull sized kingdoms,” but to look to others for true meaning in our lives.

The main point of the pieces that I used was to provide a starting point that was accessible to all grades, parents, staff, and teachers.  I think that Martha’s is too imposing for that starting point. When I brought her last time, she didn’t want to talk to 6/7; she wanted to only deal with 12th grade. Still, I will look into bringing her again. She was great with 12th.

HH: What I am urging is that the yearlong theme begin with a broader perspective within which DFW and AQ may be viewed as possibilities. The importance of the broader perspective that Martha or others offer is that our thinking about the good life would then take its starting point within our shared human existence and outside of our private and subjective and 'privileged' existence. Another time we can and should sort through the different meanings of 'privileged'. Whatever we may understand that word to mean, it implies separateness from others.

Starting with what I would call a more substantive description of the good life leads to the possibility that there are at least some objective elements that any worthwhile theory would need to include even at the cost of our own subjective sense of well-being -- e.g. moral courage. Once our thinking about the good life is placed within our shared human existence and not primarily inside our heads there are important questions that arise:  Can any life be called good that lacks moral virtue? Can any life be called good when we participate in practices that deny the possibility of that life to others? Of course, concern for others also appears in DWF's perspective. If, however we begin by 'worshipping" the subjective, we will never arrive at the objective elements of our shared human existence. Those objective elements do not depend primarily upon our being moment by moment 'attentive' to our own thinking. DWF himself was 'hosed' by this very ideal. By focusing on 'attentiveness to our own thinking' he leaves us, despite his words to the contrary, within the very skull that he warns us about.  

SL: Actually, I don’t think that our disagreement is fundamental. We both want students, and others in our community, to engage in complex ways with the question of what makes for a good life. Certainly, neither of us wants to suggest that the shallow pursuit of wealth or “personal fulfillment” is the ultimate and most cherished goal of that pursuit. I think that we disagree over pedagogy; you would like the complexities put front and center. I want to draw folks in with what they most keenly feel in their own lives. Beyond that, however, I think that we are striving for the same things. 

HH: I do think we agree on the overall goal: "We both want students, and others in our community, to engage in complex ways with the question of what makes for a good life." Though I understand how you could see my suggested approach as presenting the complexities of the question front and center, my suggestion is really to begin simply with our common humanity, our feeling for others, rather than for ourselves.  The better question from my perspective is "What constitutes human dignity?" That is a question that is less likely to end up in self-justifying egoism.