INTRODUCTION

“Do you think it a small matter to determine which whole way of life would make
living most worthwhile for each of us?”—Plato

You walk through the streets of a big city and a dirty, smelly person wearing
moth-eaten clothing begs for your money: “Can you spare some change?” Judg-
ments or questions rush through your mind. About this person’s moral character:
Does she lack ambition? Is she an alcoholic? Is she sincere or is she a scammer?
About the benefits to her and to society of giving her money: Will it encourage
laziness? Foster drug addiction? Or will your kindness allow her room to gather
herself so that she can get a job? About yourself: Will generosity somehow bene-
fit you by building your character, that is, by making you the kind of person
that you think you want to or ought to be? Will your act of kindness serve to cre-
ate the kind of society that you wish to live in? Hard questions all; ethical judg-
ments all.
Perhaps you are a college student and face the question “Why are you in
college?” You don’t have a good answer to that question (“It beats flippin’ burgers
at McDonald’s”) and your lack of a good answer plagues you during finals week.
Just when you most need to be motivated to study, your lack of a goal or a vision
makes you wonder whether it is really worth all the trouble. You look around en-
viously at those premed or preengineering students whose lives are entirely
planned out; you see that their clearly perceived goals keep their minds alert and
their bottoms stuck to their chairs when you are tempted to run off to a party.
Why ARE you in college? Because it’s the next thing to do after high school? Be-
cause it’s good to get away from home and parental authority? Because it’s a good
place to make new friends and, perhaps, snag a mate? Because you will get a more
interesting and higher paying job? Because it’s good to get an education? Maybe
your answer is simply and painfully, “I have no idea.”
Going to college, most of us believe, makes some sort of contribution to a
good life. Of what does that good life consist? Knowing lots of things? Earning
lots of money? Having lots of friends? Creative self-expression? Sex and booze in-
terspersed with sleep? A spouse and children? Big houses and fast cars? Serving the
community? Working at an interesting job? Loving God? Again, these are all eth-
ical questions. And again, these are all hard questions.
We are all familiar with straightforward cursory “Dos and Don’ts” answers
to ethical questions: Don’t murder, steal, or lie. Do cultivate your talents, be faith-
ful to your spouse, kind to friends, and generous to the poor. Should we settle for
the “Dos and Don’ts” answers to these questions? Will, for example, faithfulness,

1
2 THE STORY OF ETHICS

generosity, and truthfulness really make us happy? Will such a life satisfy us as per-
sons? If not, why be faithful, generous or trustworthy?
Ethical or moral theories1 help answer such questions. They do so, in part,
by answering two other questions: What kind of persons are human beings? And,
What kind of life should we live to fulfill ourselves as persons? Answers to these
questions enable us to more deeply understand and evaluate the role “Dos” and
“Don’ts” are to play in our lives.
Some people answer the question about the nature of human beings by
claiming that we are totally self-absorbed. They consider the sorts of rules in-
volved in typical “Dos and Don’ts” morality a constraint on their self-interest.
Suppose, for example, that I want more than anything lots of money. Generosity
constrains or is opposed to my desire. So generosity will frustrate, not satisfy, my
deepest desire. It should be noted, of course, that if people are generous to me
(and I would like to encourage that kind of behavior), their generosity will satisfy
my desires. But the demand that I be generous runs contrary to my deepest desire
to accumulate wealth.
Great moral thinkers like Plato and Aristotle did not believe that morality
constrained or frustrated our deepest desires. Indeed, they believed that given our
nature, morality is the primary contributor to a good, satisfying, and fulfilling life.
This conviction was echoed by medieval thinkers such as Augustine and Aquinás,
enlightenment thinkers such as Kant, late modern thinkers such as Marx, Mill,
and Kierkegaard, and contemporary thinkers such as Rawls, Hare, and MacIntyre.
In contrast, revolutionaries such as Nietzsche and Sartre claimed that human na-
ture is such that the usually accepted moralities do run contrary to our deepest de-
sires and frustrate our attempts at fulfillment. They sought to replace traditional
morality with a radically new morality. Despite their differences, this diverse batch
of thinkers holds in common the view that morality (traditional or radical) and
the good life are intimately related. The connection between morality and human
fulfillment is human nature. The moral life is the most fulfilling life for human be-
ings given human nature. One simply cannot answer questions about the nature of
morality and the good life without also, perhaps first, answering the question,
What makes human beings essentially human?
If you think humans are basically and irredeemably selfish, you might opt
for the moral views of Thrasymachus, the Sophists, or Hobbes. If you suppose
that humans are initially selfish yet capable of obtaining the divine grace necessary
for moral transformation, you may embrace the views of Augustine, Aquinás,
Kant, or Kierkegaard. If you conclude that our finer nature can be trained by
proper education for virtuous activity and selfless pursuits or for contemplation,
you may prefer the moral teachings of Plato or Aristotle. If you judge that human
beings are by nature good and social, you may prefer the views of Marx. And if
you believe that humans are animal-like in their need for power and dominion, or

1.
“Ethics” and “Morality” are sometimes distinguished in various ways. The distinctions are not impor-
tant for our text; we will use the terms interchangeably.
Introduction 3

godlike in their need for creative self-expression, you may find the moral views of
Homer, Nietzsche, or Sartre attractive.
This text takes us on a journey through the history of ethics, placing the
various ethical theories in the context of judgments about human nature. Most of
these great thinkers will defend (roughly) traditional morality—kindness, moder-
ation, wisdom, justice, and generosity. Yet, their differing views of human nature
will require radically different justifications of traditional morality and the good
life. Others defend more revolutionary approaches to morality, valuing power,
domination, pride, and enmity. Again, their different views of human nature en-
tail different views of morality and the good life.
Some 20th-century thinkers have challenged this entire approach to ethics,
and our journey would not be complete without a look at their revolutionary
views. Thinkers such as Moore, Ayer, and Rorty have severed ethics from the phi-
losophy of human nature. Rorty, for example, argues that there is no such thing
as an essential human nature and so moral philosophy must proceed very differ-
ently than it has in the past. It is not a matter of discovering the best way to fulfill
out essential nature but, rather, a matter of radically free self-creation.
Our journey would also not be complete without a look at the feminist
challenge to moral philosophy. Feminists such as Wollstonecraft and Gilligan claim
that the study of the good life for man has been just that—the study of the good
life for man.2 They argue that woman, no less than men, are capable of moral ex-
cellence and human fulfillment.
At times, the theories in this book may strike the reader as strange or ex-
travagant, possibly even outdated. It is important to remember that often times
moral philosophers offered elaborate theories in response to challenges, both
practical and theoretical, which threatened to undermine morality. The very real
attraction of immorality as well as some highly persuasive arguments in its favor
led Plato, for example, to develop and elaborate a grand anthropological and
metaphysical system within which his views of morality safely fit. Big problems
require big solutions. Seen as responses to the specific challenges he faced, Plato’s
solutions are not as extravagant as they might appear at first glance. Situating each
of the thinkers within his historical context, at times including the political, reli-
gious, and cultural challenges as well as the philosophical challenges, will lead to a
more sympathetic and fuller understanding of their moral theories. It may also en-
able us to find in their thought much that is relevant today.
This text is necessarily selective. There are a few major thinkers in the his-
tory of Western thought with which every educated person should be acquainted.

2. Regrettably, we must use the term “man” when discussing many of these views in this book. Women
were often downgraded in these societies and their characteristic (and stereotypical) virtues were not
prized like the “manly” virtues. Indeed, alleged deficiencies in strength, intelligence, and social status
often were considered detrimental to women’s pursuit of a full and rich life. These issues will be dis-
cussed more fully in the discussions of Mary Wollstonecraft (Ch. 3) and Feminist Ethics (Ch. 5). We will
use the term “man” when it seems necessary for historical accuracy. We will use gender-inclusive lan-
guage when it is appropriate.
4 THE STORY OF ETHICS

Not everyone will agree with all of our choices, but most people will agree with
most of our choices. This is all that could be expected. In our limited space, we
have tried to present the most central views of each of the thinkers as clearly as
possible. This means we have had to omit a great deal of the peripheral (but often
important) positions of the various thinkers; we also have had to avoid the com-
plex (but often important) debates about more subtle points including matters
textual interpretation.
We hope this journey will help the reader understand the answers some of
the Western world’s greatest thinkers have given to the questions, What are hu-
man beings like? How should we live? How are we fulfilled? In coming to under-
stand their answers, we hope the reader is better able to formulate and frame his
or her decisions, both large and small, within the all-important context of what it
means to flourish as a human being.