What does it mean to live a good life? A debate.
Tell us your argument stories!
What does it mean to live a good life? A debate.
Tell us your argument stories!
Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. Have you ever been in an argument that you thought was about one narrow issue, that expanded to then include every issue? The argument started about something small, let's say a change of weekend plans or a sarcastic comment, and grew to cover your entire relationship with someone.
Let's say you and your brother had a bad stay in a hotel on a trip to Florida some years ago. What would you do? Your brother booked the hotel. At a more recent dinner, you teased him about the bad hotel stay. And after some back and forth about the hotel, your brother says, well, of course, booking the room was on me because I'm always the one doing the heavy lifting in our relationship.
He brings up old stuff from childhood. He brings up your relationship with your parents. He brings up just about everything. Researchers call this strategy kitchen sinking. [00:01:00] The metaphor is pretty spot on. Your brother is throwing everything but the kitchen sink at you. And as frustrating as it is to experience this, kitchen sinking is also a really effective way to distract from an issue and overwhelm your counterpart.
But some researchers also suggest that kitchen sinking is the result of suppression. In relationships when one party feels put upon but doesn't say anything or address the issue Resentments can gather and sometimes they flood out in a single tidal wave fight I'm, michael lee professor of communication and director of the civility initiative at the college of charleston Today's guest on when we disagree is jennifer baker a philosophy professor from st.
Louis jennifer Tell us an argument story.
Jennifer Baker: Well, I'm a philosopher, so we do argue all the time. And I am glad that people find out we argue about things that, um, uh, really do apply to life and the way we think about life. So, I think my [00:02:00] example is, um, a friend of mine, uh, talking about her life and the value of it.
And, um, me beginning to disagree with her. Which kind of shows you like the philosophical temper, you know, and what she was suggesting, like the very reasonable common suggestion that your life is significant to the degree it impacts um, people after you're gone, like the actual impact it makes on people.
And uh, this sounds very pessimistic and there are like notes of this in, in the past, like I think the ancient Greeks were. pessimistic and in this exact same way at times, you know, they might not remember us 10 years later. I also, like, I'm looking at her and I'm just thinking she's so much more valuable than these accomplishments she thinks she's making, um, that she made.
Um, And so my argument [00:03:00] about happiness and the meaning of our lives is that, um, it's, it's a matter of being ethical and it's, it's really unpopular. It's unpopular in the field of ethics. We have a name, we're called like eudaimonous. Um, that's also a term in psychology that means something different.
Slightly different. So that's frustrating.
Michael Lee: Say the word again.
Jennifer Baker: Eudaimonism. Okay. Um, and it's that ethics is really what we figure out when we aim for happiness. And it's so difficult to communicate that because we have so many different ideas about happiness. You know, I feel like it's like a theory per person is how it goes.
But I do like to argue with people when they think they're important or their life is significant because of anything they do. Um, I mean, that just seems so wrong to me. If you examine it for a little bit, like we love every, you know, person we know, regardless of what they're doing. Your friends usually do.[00:04:00]
Don't care what your job is, you know, that's a sign of a good friend. It doesn't even come up our accomplishments sometimes can be like Negative examples, you know, maybe we're a chemist and we get something wrong, you know, do people build on it? Who cares, you know, you still had a life
Michael Lee: I think i'm getting stuck on A few different terms.
So the argument at which I've certainly heard before, and I imagine every listener has as well, which is the measure of the significance of a life is its impact on other people. But then we're also talking simultaneously about the meaning of a life. which is different than significance. Yeah. And we're also talking simultaneously about the mechanisms by which we achieve happiness in our lives, which is also different than significance.
That's so wonderful. And meaning. How do you parse those three different things from a eudaimonist perspective?
Jennifer Baker: Yeah. Well, it's not that we're so, so great on meaning. So I'm not sure I've ever won arguments on the meaning of meaning. Of human life, but we do [00:05:00] have an account, you know, from, from your lived perspective.
Um, one way you can feel your life, uh, having gaining meaning as you become an agent, you know, so I'm not, uh, uh, talking about, um, seven year olds, but is to try and organize what you're doing so that you no longer have to worry about, um, like unethical behavior on your part. So you want to really internalize, uh, the idea that the best thing to do will always be be to do what you think is right.
And like some of these claims just seem so like contentious, you know, just like, are we, are we that clear to ourselves? You know, aren't we always lying to ourselves? So that's, um, some of the most interesting work in eudaimonism, I think is trying to, uh, fit this with, you know, like psychology and behavioral psychology.
But the idea would be not that we, uh, are real clear about what ethical principles are, but that we get a kind of, um, [00:06:00] like negative feedback from ourselves when we do something of which we're rightly ashamed. And society, you know, society, but like society will really try and encourage us to be ashamed of all sorts of like false positives, you know, so like you, you can't just go by what you feel ashamed by, you know, I think I just like walk around feeling ashamed.
Michael Lee: Sure. But
Jennifer Baker: it's going to be different, um, because it's going to be behavior that you figure out for yourself is the right thing to do. Like the word integrity. applies really well. Um, and the reason it's so different than other people's account of happiness is that they think it sounds very self sacrificial or arrogant.
Um, and, uh, they think the good stuff comes from, like, the acknowledgement of other people or that achievement, you know, being associated with something larger than yourself. This is really at odds with that. Right. Like, you can be small. And this can work just by yourself in a room. You can be hated, you know, [00:07:00] Like it's it's really not the approval of others or your association with a project or whether your name got on something Power feels really empty early, you know, like even high school kids with social power.
They're good sources on this It's like starts to feel empty charisma feels empty a lot of the wealth feels empty Um and is alienating so like a lot of the things we get talked into You pursuing with whatever kind of focus, a eudaimonist would say they're, they're really misleading. Um, and the way to really feel content and to also treat people the way, a way in which you can justify is not by being some genius with principles you can't explain,
Michael Lee: but
Jennifer Baker: by stating like ethical rules for yourself plainly and like being real open to correction, um, because you'll need that, you know, you're kind of starting from nothing.
Um, and then what we promise is a regard for your life [00:08:00] that feels happy. Right. This is fascinating. I appreciate you
Michael Lee: bringing this. The, where I'm getting stuck, and I think, I think the way that I frame this too is in the sense of disagreements over what it means to live a good life. Yeah. What it means to be a good person, independent of questions of happiness, which can get really complicated.
Yeah. Questions of, you know, Our impact on others, which can be really hard to measure and are also bound up in power. For instance, I can think of lots of monsters in history who had a lot of impact on others, but we've certainly judged them quite negatively and not positively because of that impact and so forth.
And so the question is, There's a disagreement here about what it means to live a good life. Some people are saying, well, that's measured socially in the sense that you're involved in some sort of charitable causes or good works or you gave a lot of money to the poor or you were involved in some religious organization or whatever it is.
And then, and then y'all, the group of people you're associated with is philosophers saying, [00:09:00] no, this can happen by yourself. Yeah. Alone in a room reading books, never speaking to a soul, so it's not a social endeavor. So then what importance is it, from your point of view, that they have a code of ethics if this person can live a good life and never interact with another human being?
Jennifer Baker: Well, you do want to, like, you kind of want to make peace with other people's behavior. So you're supposed to feel in harmony. So you're not, like, here, here's some ways that it will sound really unreasonable. Like they can, you can do all the charitable things in the world. If you have a crappy attitude, snotty, gossipy, done, you're out.
Like it's like you're not even close. And that can be very relaxing because if you catch someone lying or being snarky, they're like out of the running. So that's a very, very high standard. But then on the other hand, um, it doesn't assume that, um, it doesn't assume that you're going to, uh, Oh, I lost my train of thought.
So it's not like you can do good things and [00:10:00] somehow you get purified.
Michael Lee: But then you were saying you can do it alone. Oh, so like you can't get angry in traffic.
Jennifer Baker: Come on. It's like you should anticipate traffic's going to be frustrating. So that's another high bar, I guess, but it's, it's like your, um, internal assessment of things need to get realistic so you feel in harmony with others.
And part of that is you need to know some people will never like you. You need to know, you know, you'll never be able to please others. You need to know like, you know, popular guidance is misleading about all sorts of things and you'll become a kind of stubborn Happier person is the promise Here's another terrible thing about it.
It's very unappealing. It's not like this is common So those of us who work on it, we don't think we've like I'm pretty happy But I don't think I'm that ethical but we still think it's a good explanation of ourselves and other people's psychology, but it's rare. Like the, the [00:11:00] Stoics said it was as rare as the Phoenix for someone to achieve this, but it's still very explanatory.
Michael Lee: Yeah. And then just teasing out the, the arguments in favor of eudaimonism or eudaimonist point of view, it sounds to me like. the measure of goodness is the extent to which somebody has reflected on, clarified, and articulated their rules of ethics for themselves. Yes. What if those rules of ethics are not super pro social?
In other words, I have a rule of ethics that is incredibly
Jennifer Baker: me first
Michael Lee: and hedonistic and malicious, but I'm super clear about my villainous ways. Does that then Satisfy the eudaimonous code
Jennifer Baker: it can't but that's a great objection, you know, so like that really gets pushed Um, you know just like well you could be you know, you'd have internally consistent views or you could have consistently evil views But there is a lot of um, [00:12:00] like eudaimonous and you know, they can continue to evolve But i'm kind of committed to some of the older established moral psychologies, but like they would suggest That's not possible and that anyone You Would feel self conscious about being selfish like you'll know You'll know what you're doing, and you won't really approve of it.
Michael Lee: seems like a lot of trust.
Jennifer Baker: It's a it's and it's a lot of Similarity that they're positing over all of us So you could be like if you have I mean, I don't know much about like the research on on Sociopaths, but they would be excluded from the account, you know, like if you have I think even Aristotle but pointed this out.
Like, you can have certain psychologies like, oh, we don't even mean that. You also have to, uh, be raised kindly. My, my students really resonate with this because if you're treated really poorly, we're just hoping you survive that. If you have negative thoughts, what was yelled at you when you were seven?
Like, [00:13:00] All support to you, but that's probably not a good building block for this kind of freedom, you know, I mean, uh, sometimes people have thought that sounded elitist, but people I know who have been abused are like, that's not elite. That's like literally descriptive. Like, I just want to make it through, you know, coping, coping with this.
So you do have to have kind people around you who kind of, you know, don't hit you when you're, you're reaching out for love or something like that. So there is a lot of it that's not, um, consciously. accessible, I think. Okay. Until you do that work as you described, where it's like, what am I doing here?
Like, an example would be, all my students think they're good friends, but it's like, okay, tell me what that literally involves.
Michael Lee: Like, when
Jennifer Baker: are you not being a good friend and when are you?
Michael Lee: Which is the qualities of goodness. Yeah. And I'm having a debate about that.
Jennifer Baker: Yes. And it's really hard to articulate and then really hard.
I mean, I don't think I've had any class, like we haven't. So we think we're a good friend. We don't do the work to figure out what that [00:14:00] takes. And if we did do the work, we would surely fall short. I mean, for sure, we would not be a good friend all, in all the cases we think we are.
Michael Lee: That's right. It seems, I think one of the other places I'm, I'm super curious about is the fundamental difference between the two positions, which seems like so much of the world and the arguments you're sketching are a reaction to the idea that goodness or meaning is measured by the way that we interact with other people and our impact on those other people.
Yeah. But then in the end, it seems like from this. alternative point of view that you're sketching, the examples we're giving are about kindness and pro social behavior, honesty with ourselves and to others. But then we're right back to the first question, which is we're just measuring yet again our ethics by our impact on and treatment of other people.
And so the fundamental difference between the two positions is, is a little murky to me. [00:15:00]
Jennifer Baker: Yeah. Um, I mean, I used to really dislike, uh, Like virtue training in grade school because I thought this is so unphilosophical and they're just trying to sell them on the idea that these virtues are, you know, they're just like mentioning words, you know, maybe pointing out a behavior.
Michael Lee: Yeah,
Jennifer Baker: but there is supposed to be a coincidence. So like if they call it being practically rational is really getting a lot of attention in psychology now in education theory, which is exciting for us. who've like toyed with it. You know they're doing interventions, they're doing experiments. It's like, oh, thank goodness.
But they, it is, they do expect this coincidence where if you become practically rational, just the way you described. Note no fancy principles that aren't easy to articulate, but just simple like, you know, help your neighbor when you can. You know, when someone, one of my rules is I always buy a Palmetto rose no matter what.
If a little kid is selling it, you know, simple. So like any, any fourth grader could follow. Um, those are what contribute to our practical rationality on this account. And then [00:16:00] they result in you having certain virtues. But some of us are very nervous about the named virtues because if, if like psychologists are working on what, um, compassion is, I mean, I think you're exactly right.
Like this account is not going to match up with, with, with that. Like, what are the odds? Like you're constructing it yourself. You're figuring it out. It's not going to fit some carefully constructed criteria for compassion. And we do see that over and over again. So we can't just, we can't rely on psychology to tell us what virtue is.
We really do suggest it has to be worked out kind of from the bottom and we might have surprising conclusions, but we don't think selfishness would fly because it just can't be justified, you know, um, like why you first. You know, if we just keep asking people that, like, we figure they'll become inarticulate at a certain point.
That's not what they, they really want. If we assume everybody wants to be happy, they want to really feel at peace with other people. So they're going to have to come up with some sort of plan, [00:17:00] um, so that they don't always feel in tension with others. No matter what.
Michael Lee: What's at stake for you in this issue?
In other words, it sounds like you've had personal disagreements with folks on this, maybe friends and colleagues. You've also written and published about this in philosophical literature. What's at stake for you in the outcome of this disagreement?
Jennifer Baker: Well, it's funny because it's it's very hard to defend philosophically like a lot of what I just said I can't I can't defend in my writing, you know, I mean the parts you were skeptical about yet Yeah, exactly like these are very hard to convince a reader of but I have tested it since it was presented to me and And, you know, it's kind of an awkward thing to become committed to, but it just seems to work.
It's, it explains everyone's behavior well to me. So like people who act badly or cruelly. It gives you a lot of sympathy for them. So you, you know, or lie. I'm always shocked. Adults still lie. It's like, [00:18:00] what is going on? But they're unhappy. And so they're coping in a panicky way. They've been misled or someone who really needs acknowledgment or, um, money, you know, desperate for money when they have plenty.
Like this is a very, it's a very good working explanation, um, for why people are like that. And then it also. It's so comforting to think you're done when you're content. Like I, you know, I don't want us all in a rat race until we're 86. So if you're just able to like, enjoy the little things and, uh, you know, not be difficult to love.
And you do need some kind, I mean, you do need feedback, you know, like, even though most people, you know, won't like you, unrealistic to expect, like, I do think feedback and criticism is crucial to this approach, like, you, you, you might not be liked, you might be a Socrates or something, but you still have to pay attention to, if you can't predict how people are reacting, like, you know, you probably have to rethink, [00:19:00] like, there's some Some explanation missing, but to me, it just gives me a lot of confidence because it, it means you don't have to struggle to, to, to game anything.
It's like, if you're, I gave this advice to my 20 year old son for the first time. So I've always cared about this view. This is what I've always written on. And, um, usually I just give him practical advice. Like there's 5 on the counter or you should sign up for that class or whatever. But for the first time, he kept having girlfriend problems or something, and he was really bereft and not sure what to do.
And he was prepared for it, but he's 20. I give him advice nine times a day. And for the first time, I was like, You just got to, you just got to make sure you don't do anything unethical, like just like one, one foot in front of the other, like just don't do anything with a poor motive. And I thought that's kind of really, usually we're doing other things, but when, um, pinch comes to shove and you have nothing else to rely on, which, you know, his, his example, isn't that dramatic, but he really did feel kind of bereft.
Like he had nothing, uh, he [00:20:00] thought he could rely on. I think it's really, um, useful guidance. It's like reassuring.
Michael Lee: So at stake for you is really, it's sometimes really hard to figure out why people behave the way that they do. In other words, it's, it's inexplicable. It's maddening. It's bewildering. It's befuddling.
It's all those things. Yeah. And this, This point of view really helps you not only explain behavior, but also empathize with that behavior. Is that a fair characterization of what's at stake for you?
Jennifer Baker: Yeah. And maybe other people just enjoy this. So like, you may, maybe it comes down to like, you know, uh, people's personalities or preferences, but you know, I don't want to be fighting with people till I'm 82.
You know, it does seem like, They talk about different things we waste our lives on, but one thing I notice is that, you know, people fuss with others their whole life long, just in littler cycles or longer cycles. And, um, that, that, that I think is unfortunate. [00:21:00]
Michael Lee: Jennifer, thank you so much for being on When We Disagree.
When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. com.