ethic and religion

In Ethinc and Religion, the author argues “that ethics, in general, is concerned with elucidating the principles for living well, that is, for living a good life” (6). He gives chess as an example to show how people who took time to learn and think are more likely to succeed.

I disagree that learning about ethics will always lead to a good life. First of all, chess and life is very different. In chess, the players want to win the game and that results in success. What is success in human life differs from person to person. It is not only a matter of winning or losing; it is a lot more complicated. Therefore, the equation the author makes for chess (study = success) does not apply to human life.

The author may argue that since human life is complicated, human beings should study ethics. He mentions that ethics is “the attempt to determine in some reasonable manner how one should answer the basic questions posed above, and thereby to develop an approach to difficult situations” (5). However, ethics is related to moral values, and learning about what action one should make based on morality can make a person feel guilty about their lifestyle. At the same time, changing their lifestyle may not be what they would think equates to living a good life. The man who learned about the starving children in Africa is now living with a sense of guilt. Before he encountered the starving children’s poster, he believed he could lead a good life simply by taking guitar lessons. Once he sees the poster, he is faced with the ethical decision of whether to send money and whether that would make a difference. He would probably still have a sense of guilt since he would live a much better life than those children even after sending the money. Therefore, as harsh as it might sound, for people who are living a good life (meaning not starving to death), the only way to continue that good life may be not learn about other suffering people, which is unavoidable when learning ethics.