Assessing Ethical Theory from Socrates's Question: Bernard Williams

Summary

This lecture explores ethical theory and moral philosophy through Socrates' question, 'How should one live?' It delves into Bernard Williams's critique of various moral philosophies, emphasizing the importance of rational reflection and general principles. The discussion distinguishes between ethics and morality, with the former being broader and the latter focusing on obligations. It also touches on different ethical theories like deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, egoism, and relativism, questioning their adequacy in capturing the complexity of ethical life.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The lecture focuses on ethical theory and moral philosophy, starting with Socrates' question, 'How should one live?'
• 📚 It reviews Bernard Williams's critique in 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy', discussing the nature of ethical inquiry and potential issues.
• 🤔 The lecture distinguishes between ethical and moral philosophy, with ethics being broader and morality a specific development within it.
• 🌟 Socrates' question is central as it seeks a general approach to living well, applicable to all individuals regardless of their specific circumstances.
• 🧐 Williams suggests that moral philosophy should be rationally reflective, abstract, and concerned with what can be known through various forms of inquiry.
• 🏛️ The lecture references Plato's 'Republic' to discuss the concept of justice and its role in understanding how one should live.
• 🔄 Williams critiques the reduction of ethical considerations to singular concepts like duty or happiness, advocating for a multiplicity of ethical concepts.
• 👥 The lecture touches on different ethical theories, including deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics, egoism, and relativism.
• 🌐 It discusses the various constituencies that ethical theories might consider, from the individual to the universal.
• ⏳ Williams raises questions about the commitment to reflection and whether it is inherently normative or necessary for ethical living.

Q & A

What is the central question of ethical theory discussed in the lecture?

The central question of ethical theory discussed in the lecture is 'How should one live?', which is derived from Socrates' philosophical inquiry.

What does Bernard Williams critique in his book 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'?

Bernard Williams critiques various moral philosophies throughout his book, with a particular focus on whether these philosophies are coherent with ethical life itself.

What is the difference between ethics and morality as discussed in the lecture?

Ethics is a broader term that encompasses moral philosophy, while morality is a particular development of ethics with a special significance in modern Western culture, emphasizing notions of obligation.

How does the lecture connect Socrates' question to the broader field of ethics?

The lecture connects Socrates' question 'How should one live?' to the broader field of ethics by suggesting that this question is fundamental to understanding what it means to live a good life and is the basis for exploring various ethical theories.

What is the significance of the question 'How should one live?' in moral philosophy?

The question 'How should one live?' is significant in moral philosophy because it is a general and timeless question that invites reflection on life from a broader perspective, beyond immediate desires or specific situations.

What are the different domains of morality mentioned in the lecture?

The different domains of morality mentioned in the lecture include obligations, virtue ethics, consequentialism, ethical egoism, and relativism.

How does the lecture address the concept of 'reflective equilibrium' in ethics?

The lecture addresses 'reflective equilibrium' as a state where a moral theory coheres with the individual's practical wisdom and actions, suggesting a balance between theory and practice in ethical considerations.

What role does the concept of 'normativity' play in the ethical question 'How should one live?'

Normativity plays a crucial role in the ethical question 'How should one live?' as it seeks to establish what one ought to do, providing a rational basis for moral action beyond mere description of how people live.

How does the lecture differentiate between the philosophical pursuit of truth and everyday life?

The lecture differentiates between the philosophical pursuit of truth and everyday life by emphasizing the philosophical quest for general, abstract, and rationally reflective understanding that can be applied to specific situations.

What is the implication of Socrates' question for individual moral decision-making?

The implication of Socrates' question for individual moral decision-making is that it encourages individuals to reflect on their actions and beliefs, seeking a more general and long-term perspective on what constitutes a good life.

How does the lecture discuss the relationship between ethical theories and practical life?

The lecture discusses the relationship between ethical theories and practical life by exploring how theories such as deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics can provide guidance for living a morally good life and the challenges of applying these theories in real-world situations.

Outlines

00:00

📖 Introduction to Ethical Theory and Socrates' Question

The lecture begins by setting the stage for an exploration of ethical theory through the lens of Socrates' question, 'How should one live?' It introduces Bernard Williams's critique of various moral philosophies presented in his book 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy.' The focus is on understanding what ethical or moral philosophy is concerned with, which includes seeking justifications for beliefs through logical reasoning. The lecture emphasizes the importance of philosophical questioning and the pursuit of truth, particularly in the context of understanding how one should live, which is derived from the dialogues of Plato's Republic. The discussion also touches on the nature of justice and the relationship between knowing what justice is and whether it is worth pursuing.

05:01

🤔 The Fundamentality of 'How Should One Live?'

This section delves into the reasons why 'how should one live?' is considered a fundamental question in moral philosophy. It contrasts this question with others such as duty, goodness, and happiness, arguing that these latter questions presuppose certain ways of living. The paragraph discusses how 'how should one live?' is more basic as it gets at the essence of human existence and the pursuit of the best way to live. It also addresses the impersonal nature of the question, suggesting that it applies to anyone and everyone, and raises concerns about the potential exclusion or privileging of certain ways of living or goods within ethical theories.

10:02

🔍 Morality as a Development of Ethics

The paragraph discusses the distinction between ethics and morality, as highlighted by Williams. It suggests that morality is a particular development of ethics that emphasizes obligations and has unique significance in modern Western culture. The lecture critiques the idea that moral philosophy might be at odds with ethical life, setting the stage for a deeper examination of the role of morality in society. It also touches on different domains of morality, such as obligations, duties, and the various ways in which moral theories can be constructed around these concepts.

15:03

🌟 Different Ethical Considerations and Theories

This section outlines various ethical theories and considerations, including deontology, virtue ethics, consequentialism, ethical egoism, and relativism. It discusses how these theories approach the question of how one should live, whether by focusing on duties, virtues, consequences, or self-interest. The paragraph also introduces the concept of counter-ethical motivations and the importance of considering different constituencies that ethical theories might serve, such as the family, community, or nation.

20:07

🌱 The Multiplicity of Ethical Considerations

The lecture continues to explore the multiplicity of ethical considerations and whether morality is correct in reducing ethical life to a few considerations like duty or happiness. It questions if existence itself, with its various situations and contexts, might require a multitude of ethical concepts to fully describe it. The paragraph reflects on Socrates' question as an ambitious and personal practical question that each individual must realize and act upon, differentiating it from immediate moral dilemmas.

25:07

🧐 Reflection and Commitment in Ethical Living

The final paragraph ponders the depth of reflection in ethical living and whether there is a presupposition about the normativity of reflection. It questions the commitment to reflection and whether it goes beyond the basic questions of ethical living. The lecture concludes by emphasizing the importance of engaging with these philosophical questions to truly understand what it means to live ethically.

Keywords

💡Ethical Theory

Ethical Theory refers to a set of principles that provide guidance on how to make moral decisions. In the video, ethical theory is discussed as a framework for understanding and evaluating different moral philosophies. It is connected to the main theme by exploring how these theories can help answer Socrates' question, 'how should one live?' The script mentions various ethical theories such as deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics, each offering different perspectives on what constitutes an ethical life.

💡Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that explores concepts such as right and wrong, good and bad, justice, and virtue. The video uses moral philosophy to delve into the broader questions of how one should live and what constitutes a good life. It is central to the video's narrative as it sets the stage for discussing the nuances of ethical theories and their implications for human conduct.

💡Socrates' Question

Socrates' question, 'how should one live?' is a central theme in the video. It represents the fundamental inquiry of ethical theory and moral philosophy, prompting individuals to reflect on the purpose and direction of their lives. The script uses this question to initiate a discussion on the nature of ethical living and the various theories that attempt to answer it.

💡Bernard Williams

Bernard Williams is a philosopher whose work is central to the video's exploration of ethical theory. His book 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy' is mentioned as a key text that critiques different moral philosophies. Williams' perspective is used to challenge and evaluate the assumptions underlying various ethical theories.

💡Philosophical Question

A philosophical question, as discussed in the video, is one that seeks to understand the nature of existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. In the context of the video, philosophical questions are used to explore the deeper meaning of ethical and moral concepts, such as justice and the good life.

💡Rationally Reflective

Rationally reflective refers to the process of thinking deeply and critically about one's beliefs and actions. In the video, being rationally reflective is presented as a key aspect of ethical thinking, where individuals are encouraged to examine their moral beliefs and the reasons behind their actions.

💡Normative

Normative in the video refers to the prescriptive aspect of ethics, which is concerned with how people ought to act, rather than how they do act. It is used to discuss the ideal or standard way of living as opposed to a descriptive account of how people actually live. The script explores how ethical theories provide normative guidance on living a good life.

💡Deontology

Deontology is an ethical theory that suggests certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their consequences. In the video, deontology is mentioned as one of the moral philosophies that provide a framework for understanding duty and obligation, emphasizing the importance of following moral rules.

💡Consequentialism

Consequentialism is an ethical theory that evaluates the morality of an action based on its outcome or consequence. The video discusses consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism, as a theory that promotes actions that maximize happiness or pleasure, highlighting the focus on the ends rather than the means.

💡Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethics is an ethical theory that emphasizes the development of good character and virtues as the basis for moral action. In the video, virtue ethics is presented as an approach that focuses on cultivating virtues such as courage, wisdom, and justice, rather than adhering to specific rules or maximizing outcomes.

💡Relativism

Relativism, as discussed in the video, is the belief that moral truths are not absolute but depend on cultural, social, or individual perspectives. The script explores both subjective and cultural relativism, questioning the objectivity of moral values and how they might vary across different contexts.

Highlights

The lecture focuses on ethical theory through Socrates' question 'How should one live?'

Bernard Williams critiques various moral philosophies in his book 'Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy'.

Ethical philosophy is concerned with rationally reflective questions about the correct way to live.

Socrates' question seeks a general understanding applicable to all individuals.

Philosophy in the West originates from the Greek words 'Philo' and 'Sophia', meaning 'love of wisdom'.

Philosophy aims to unburden assumptions and seek justifications through logical reasoning.

The question of 'how should one live' is more fundamental than questions of duty, goodness, or happiness.

Williams suggests morality is a particular development of ethics with a special significance in modern Western culture.

Morality emphasizes obligations and has peculiar presuppositions, unlike general ethical considerations.

Different moral theories address various domains such as obligations, duties, and consequences.

Consequentialism focuses on the outcomes of actions, with utilitarianism promoting pleasure or happiness.

Virtue ethics emphasizes the development of character and practical wisdom over theoretical deliberation.

Ethical egoism posits that each person should pursue their own self-interest.

Relativism suggests moral correctness varies based on individual or cultural perspectives.

Williams critiques the reduction of ethical considerations to a single concept like duty or happiness.

Socrates' question is both general and timeless, inviting reflection on life from a broader perspective.

Williams questions the commitment to reflection and its normativity in ethical living.

Transcripts

how do we understand ethical Theory

moral philosophy

in this lecture video we're going to be

assessing ethical Theory from socrates's

question looking at the first chapter of

Bernard Williams's book ethics and the

limits of philosophy

most of this is really a setting up for

Williams's critique as he surveys each

different moral philosophy throughout

his book

some of that will come out some

questions will be raised that will

eventually lead to that throughout this

lecture but what we're going to focus on

is two things one

what does it mean to think ethically or

what is the kind of question that moral

or ethical philosophy is chiefly

concerned with

and what are the potential questions

that might arise from it and maybe

potential problems as well

so we begin with socrates's question

it's a philosophical question

how should one live

Williams says like Socrates Plato hoped

that one could direct one's life if

necessary redirect it through an

understanding that was distinctly

philosophical that is to say General and

Abstract rationally reflective and

concerned with what can be known through

different kinds of inquiry

so what it means first to ask a

philosophical question is

complicated and is itself a

philosophical question

uh philosophy in the west comes from the

uh Greek words Philo and Sophia the love

of wisdom

it's a concern with truth for truth's

sake

and in The Pursuit Of Truth and being

concerned with truth one is concerned

with

um

maybe perhaps two things we might say

try to unburden or shake what we take

for granted in our maybe everyday lives

but also to seek justifications

uh logical reasoning is involved in this

case right to seek

um ideas theories beliefs

that are justified by premises by

another set of beliefs that ultimately

would need to be justified as well

and in this case what Williams is saying

then is this kind of a philosophical

question where Socrates says what we are

concerned with is the question of how

one should live

we are looking for something that is

rationally reflective we're looking for

reasons to give why one theory of how

one should live is better for another

theory so we're not looking for in some

descriptive sense how different people

live we want to know in some normative

sense how should one live how ought one

live

what is the correct way to live

but in some cases well we're not just

looking for a particular case of how

should I Austin uh live as far as you

know my capacity in the place I live the

time I live Etc but something general

that can both be applied to the

particular

so this question comes out of uh the

dialogue of Plato's Republic

a couple questions are involved that

lead to ultimately this question of how

one should live

the question revolves around first what

is justice

so we want to know what is the nature of

Justice what is the essence what is it

that makes Justice what it is such that

if it didn't have that one thing it

wouldn't be Justice what is it that

makes it such that when we let's say

punish someone for a crime we might say

this is carrying out Justice or maybe if

I just slap my friend we would say that

is not a case of Justice right what is

the difference how can we know what

Justice is so we can correctly apply it

but also we want to know if we can know

what Justice is is it by knowing what it

is are we able to know whether it's

worth pursuing whether it is Worthy

and in that case is Justice more

valuable than Injustice should we pursue

Injustice over Justice why would Justice

be worthy

finally assuming Justice is worthy uh

worth pursuing

how does one actually live justly what

does it mean to live a just life

so these are the kind of basic questions

that uh to some extent the Republic is

concerned with and out of this we get

the kind of uh core philosophical

ethical question how should one live all

of these questions the ideas Williams is

saying Socrates is really trying to get

at the question how should one live

now why would we begin moral philosophy

with the question how should one live

why not something like what is our duty

how may we be good how can we be happy

why aren't those sufficient answers to

begin moral philosophy with

but what Williams points out is that in

some way or another the question of Duty

for example already presupposes a whole

list of things a bunch of concerns it

already presupposes ways of living that

would involve duties how may we be good

again already presupposes certain states

of Affair

that would lead one to prioritize good

or how can we be happy again

presupposes all kinds of ways that we

live such that we want to orient our

life towards happiness and and whatever

happiness may involve in terms of how we

live

there's something more basic more

fundamental in the question how should

one live because how should one live is

getting at life itself

it's getting at distinctively perhaps

human life

and it's getting at this distinctive

question a distinctively moral question

which is we exist

perhaps there are better and worst way

worse ways of existing are there how

would we know how would we go about

following through and achieving what is

that better way of living

the question how should one live is

impersonal the way Socrates asks it does

not ask again how should I Austin live

or how should you live

it's a question that applies to anyone

and everyone

and no one

William says the implication is that

something relevant or useful can be said

to anyone in general and this implies

that something general can be said

something that Embraces or shapes the

individual Ambitions each person may

bring to the question how should I live

so there's a way in which the question

how should one live if it is applied to

human beings well human beings are

varied and how they exist right there's

a kind of multiplicity of ways that we

can exist in each one of us in some way

or another is different from another

so at one in the same time it is

impersonal this this basic ethical

question because it seeks to get rid of

our differences and yet simultaneously

account for our differences or at least

those differences which are deemed

important to the question how should one

live

but we might want to ask

what or maybe even who made this kind of

impersonal question leave out

if we want to reduce our differences

such that it can apply to everyone

other kinds of people maybe that aren't

accounted for in the ethical Theory are

some people privileged over others

are certain kinds of goods privileged

over others some things might be deemed

worth pursuing some others maybe duty is

more important than well-being why is

that correct does that account for how

we live our lives in the most basic

sense of what we take to be most

important most essential to our

existence

foreign

speaking of ethical philosophy but it

can also be referred to oftentimes as

moral philosophy and in fact many people

use the terms morality and ethics

interchangeably and perhaps it is

possible as long as it's defined by

someone that that's what they want to do

but what Williams points out is a

difference has arisen in using the term

morality and we can see this originating

from the Latin taking up the Greek and

how that changes in Translation where

originally the word used to speak about

ethics change to morality but both were

responding in a different way to

disposition or custom

the question is how is morality

understood now

so William says the word morality has by

a now taken on a more distinctive

content and I am going to suggest that

morality should be understood as a

particular development of the ethical

one that has a special significance in

modern Western culture

it peculiarly emphasizes certain ethical

Notions rather than others developing in

particular a special notion of

obligation and it has some peculiar

presuppositions

so according to Williams we can see

morality as almost a kind of

um an interpretation of Ethics but one

where morality gives itself sharp

boundaries in comparison to ethics that

when we ask the question how one to live

in an ethical sense we're talking in a

base sense of living

but with morality we're talking about

obligations particular things that are

involved in living

now again in the last chapter of his

book it's titled morality The Peculiar

Institution

and what Williams wants to

critique in Morality is whether or not

moral philosophy the theories that come

out of morality

actually are at odds are incoherent with

ethical life itself

but again we'll have to put that to the

side for this lecture video

now some domains of morality William

says Look Backwards or sideways so one

might be obligations so a kind of

deontology might have certain

obligations that we have to fulfill but

you can also have a certain kind of

virtue ethics like maybe uh Confucian or

mungxian

uh virtue ethics which focus on family

obligations whereby in that case uh what

it means to be moral is to First

privilege uh your immediate family

then your friends and then the wider

society and then perhaps all of humanity

such that there's privilege given to the

closer uh beings around you in a kind of

web of existence

but another kind of morality that looks

backwards or sideways is Duty so duties

can be things that pertain to a

particular station one occupies now this

can be a particular station in the sense

of I have a certain Duty as a teacher I

have a certain Duty as a parent

but also we can talk about having Duty

as a human being perhaps again in the

case of deontology it could be the case

that I have a certain Duty

uh to never tell a lie because I possess

reason and if I use reason to work out

what the Supreme principle of morality

is it shows me that I would be misusing

reason if I lie to other human beings

who also possess reason because I would

be

violating them by taking them as a kind

of mere means for my own wishes

now some domains of morality look

forward like consequentialism so

consequentialism is concerned with the

consequences what effects do your

actions uh promote and some kinds of

consequentialism want to promote certain

kinds of actions over others the most

prominent form of consequentialism is

utilitarianism with utilitarianism there

is a promotion of pleasure or happiness

so that's the specific effect we want to

produce and we judge whether or not

we're on a good person whether or not we

are a good person based on whether or

not the actions we produce now or the

actions we perform now produce in the

future good outcomes and good outcomes

for utilitarianism are those that

produce pleasure or happiness

now some domains of morality are based

actually on a character not necessarily

consequences not necessarily focused on

looking for forward but the development

of yourself as a human being in terms of

how you act

so this would be for example the domain

of virtue ethics and William says the

importance of an ethical concept need

not lie in its being itself an element

of first personal deliberation the

deliberations of people who are trying

to be more generous or braver are

different from the deliberations of

those who are not like that but the

difference does not mainly lie and

they're thinking about themselves in

terms of generosity or courage so in the

case of virtue ethics for example it is

not necessarily the case that let's say

utilitarianism I can know in all play in

all times and places what the correct

correct action is uh to perform because

I've used reason to determine that the

principle of utility is the Supreme

principle of morality but with virtue

ethics you don't have this kind of

um deliberation in a kind of

theoretically removed sense from the

practical

there's a greater emphasis in virtue

ethics on practical wisdom such that in

the development of my character I should

just almost have Instinct knowing what

to do what is the correct action to

perform in any given instance

other kinds of ethical considerations

are ethical egoism now this says that

each person ought to pursue their own

self-interest such that it doesn't mean

that everyone necessarily does always do

what is in their boasts uh what is in

their best self-interest but everyone

ought to do what they think is in their

best self-interest and some cases like

psychological egoism say that's actually

what people do is they always act and

what they think is their best own

self-interest

that's not necessarily immoral some

other ethical and moral theories might

say that ethical ethical egoism is

immoral or unethical

but it can still be an ethical theory

that says perhaps this is uh the

teleological reason this is what human

beings ought to do what they were born

to do or this is actually what produces

the best outcomes many times

um ethical egoists uh like maybe Ein

Rand or

um Mandeville might say something like

this

another kind of ethical consideration is

that of relativism is the relativity of

moral Goods

we can distinguish at least two kinds so

subjective relativism is where we have

uh the claim that what is morally

correct is according to each individual

person but cultural relativism says what

is morally correct is dependent on the

society that one person lives in

we also have counter-ethical motivations

in some cases someone might say we need

to promote malevolence but we would say

well that is not an ethical thing to

promote so we can see a difference in

let's say counterethical motivations

from ethical egoism where we're saying

each person ought to pursue their own

self-interest and that's for the good of

both that individual and everyone

whereas in the case of counter-ethical

motivations like malevolence uh just

wanting to perform uh uh yet to commit

harm on others this might uh you know is

it going to be the best thing to do for

others and it might not even be the best

thing to do for oneself so there are

important differences between these

kinds of considerations

finally we can also think about the kind

of uh constituent constituencies that

ethics and morality is concerned with

some of these have already mentioned

might be the case of the family or of

community of nation whether we privilege

certain constituencies or whether a

specific moral theory is only relevant

to one kind of constituency such that

you can have different ethical theories

maybe one for the family one for the

community one for the nation

you might run into problems if they

don't cohere or you might seek different

ethical theories that respond to the

different uh particular constituencies

in a way that seeks a kind of reflective

equilibrium where the theory still

cohere

but what Williams says again in his uh

wanting to point out how morality is

different from Mere ethics

is that in the case of morality the only

ethical constituency is the universal

constituency that immorality again

there's this emphasis on the impersonal

that what is moral is so in the sense

for everyone

and no one because it's not for any

particular individual it is for all

human beings but not just all human

beings that exist now

it is just the good perhaps for all

sentient beings perhaps for all rational

beings right whatever the ethical Theory

might say is the case

so some of these um moral theories might

be some like deontological theories so

uh you know in the case of Kant we might

say well uh or or in the case of

actually a Hindu ethics like we can see

in the bhagavad-gita where you might

want to say well uh all ethical

considerations should be reduced to duty

and in the case that we see in the

bhagavad-gita it says what is morally

correct is always what your caste duty

is maybe in the case of uh we might want

to say

um uh Khan's ethics we're going to

reduce uh all that ethical

considerations to duty but your duty

comes from Reason Not Your caste status

teleological theories are those which

take the primary concern of Ethics to be

the production of the best possible

State of Affairs

oftentimes the kind of Chief

teleological theory is virtue ethics

because virtue ethics says there's a

purpose for how uh there's a purpose for

human beings and their purpose is to

flourish in their existence such that

when one flourishes they achieve a case

of Aristotle you diemonia a kind of

um a happiness that is of a life well

lived

but a question that Williams wants to

ask is is morality correct to reduce all

ethical considerations to only maybe one

or two kinds say Duty or happiness

pleasure states of Affairs

he says perhaps we need as many Concepts

to describe it as we find need and no

fewer

what if it's the case that

existence itself

all the different ways we find ourselves

thrown into situations

there's a multiplicity of different

considerations that we have to take up

is morality correct then in wanting to

downplay most of those considerations

and say Well they're not really moral

considerations maybe they're some kind

of consideration but there's something

else

so getting back to socrates's question

foreign

says that socrates's question is an

example of an ambitious personal

practical question because it is even

though it's impersonal it is for each

individual to realize

it is for each individual to put into

action

that we can think of some personal

practical questions as what am I to do

right we often think of moral dilemmas

we would ask that question what am I to

do in this situation or what shall I do

maybe in the future looking forward

Williams says when the time for Action

is immediate there is less room for

these Alternatives so it is paradoxical

if I come out with an answer of this

kind and immediately fail to do what I

said I was immediately going to do the

question what should I do allows rather

more space between thought and action

so William says what Socrates really

means even though it's an example an

ambitious example of a personal

practical question is something more

reflective something more philosophical

how has one most reason to live

so when we ask how should I live we're

really asking

what is the most rational way one can

live

there are two ways I think we can see

this

um one is the famous Socratic quote the

unexamined life is not worth living from

Plato's apology right

that one does not live a truly worthy

life if they do not examine the beliefs

they hold if they do not question

whether or not they believe the right

things whether or not they're doing the

right things that there's this sense of

to live a good life is to always in a

sense be

reflectively humble to always be willing

to consider that one has not actually

grasped the truth that one should always

be open to further pursuing the truth

and in this case ethical truth and an

ethical moral life

but also by asking how has one most

reason to live we're searching for

normativity we are searching for that

which says

this is the case that I ought to do X

right when we talk about perhaps a

custom

we say well this is just how one lives

but when we talk about something that's

normative we say one ought to do this

and in this case

the idea is

reason can provide us that normativity

foreign

this quote from Williams and two

questions that he leaves us with

he says socrates's question is a general

question about what to do because it

asks how to live and it is also in a

sense a Timeless question since it

invites me to think about my life from

no particular point in it these two

facts make it a reflective question

that does not determine the answer but

it does affect it answering a practical

question at a particular time in a

particular situation I shall be

particularly concerned with what I want

then

but socrates's question I ask at no

particular time or rather the time when

I no doubt ask it has no particular

relation to the question

so I am Bound by the question itself to

take a more General indeed a longer term

perspective on life

this does not determine that I give the

answers of long-term prudence the answer

to the question might be the best way

for me to live is to do to do at any

given time what I most want to do at

that time

but if I have a weakness for Prudence

the nature of socrates's question is

likely to bring it out touch that then I

will notice you know hey I'm acting too

prudently

but Williams asks

how far does reflection commit us

and why should we be committed to

reflection

is there something presupposed about the

normativity of reflection

and is

reflection

something that

goes beyond

the basic questions of what it means to

to live ethically the basic questions of

life

perhaps not

but maybe

and the only way to know

is to engage the question

philosophically