While in his trial, Socrates posited that the "unexamined life is not worth living for man" which meant not living the "good life." According to Socrates, examined life is the one that is aimed at attaining knowledge and wisdom over material possessions. When Socrates was on trial for sharing wisdom to the youths and not believing in the gods of his country, he did not give apologies even if it would cost his life as his stand was that it is better to die than live unexamined life. Just as the debate between living unexamined life and examined life has provoked arguments among philosopher over centuries, another interesting one is about whether it is better to play to win or live the good life? According to the opinion of some philosophers such as Kant, those who perform an action that is a means to some end are immoral. Therefore such action will be against the principle of living a good life as Socrates "good life" is living a morally upright life. I, therefore, argue that it is better to live the good life rather than playing to win as virtue is important than personal glory.
Living a good life allows for someone to uphold virtue and good morals. For those living a good life, they are bound by duty that requires them to be ethical in their actions. According to Kant, individuals who act based on their moral obligation or duty are moral. The same sentiments were echoed earlier by Socrates who believed that the examined life which is based on morality is much important than a life motivated by a means to an end such as going in pursuit of wealth or praise. Therefore in Socrates trial, Anytus the main accuser view of life is unethical as he wants his son to pursue business because of the material benefits associated with it other than the philosophy which encourages us to have virtues. In real life, the issue of climate change is a perfect example that portrays well the argument of playing to win over living a good life. As noted by Al gore countries such as USA and China are the leading producers of carbon dioxide that leads to climate change because of the magnitude of industries they have. The emitters of carbon dioxide argue that the morality of their activities is based on deontology. To them, the "benefits" associated with the use of fossil fuel such as increase revenue and industrialization validates their action. However, we should consider living a good as advocated by al gore where in his speech he reminded us that “We have a purpose" which is to protect the environment and save it for our future generations. Even if we go with the argument that the morality of an action depends on its consequences as in Foot’s doctrine of the double effect the impacts of climate change are more dangerous than its benefits.
Personal interest motivates an individual who plays to win. Kant noted that a person who acts out of sympathy or to be happy is immoral as their actions are driven by what they will gain in doing what they perceive as "good." Such an individual focus is on end and not the means which can encourage the use of tricks or immoral means just to win. Kant second categorical imperative states that the focus on end encourages exploitation of others for one to benefit (win) which is immoral. Since "living good' implies that one performs his moral obligations while playing to win is motivated by individual interests, then the former is the best way of living.
Critics of my thesis will point out that the use of Kant theory implies that only action done out of duty is ethical is flawed. They may provide an example such as an executioner directed to take a criminals life it moral while a physician who helps in euthanasia out of pity has committed murder. Some will argue that Kant theory allows for one to may change their duties to suit them in what he termed as a maxim. According to the argument of the critics living, a good life is abstract and impractical unless one uses maxim to avoid the moral duties required of them. However, their claim can be refuted with the help of universal law as proposed by Kant. With the universal law, a person should ask them self if changing the maxim for his advantage will also work for the general population without leading to other ethical issues. When an individual plays to win they will probably change the maxim so that they can win at all cost. However, with the universal law, it will mean that everyone is entitled to using the same tricks raising ethical questions on the validity of such a life/game. The argument of my critics are similar to Plato's dilemma on the "allegory of the cave." When one play to win they do not what the truth that they may not win and as a result, they will blanket themselves in "caves." Plato uses the character of Socrates because he was persecuted for telling people the truth. Glaucon who represents the opinion of other prisoners agrees that the person who is trying to show them the truth (that they cannot win) will “certainly” be killed.
In conclusion, living a good life is better than playing to win because we should always be motivated by virtue other than our desires as noted by Socrates. Other philosophers theories such as Kant’s also supports Socrates stand. If all of us can live a “good life," then challenges such as global warming could be averted easily.
Works cited
"Al Gore - Nobel Lecture". Nobelprize.org. Nobel Media AB 2014.
www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/gore-lecture_en.html. Accessed 14 March. 2018.
Foot, Philippa. "The problem of abortion and the doctrine of double effect." (1967).
Kant, Immanuel. "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated and edited by Mary
Gregor, with an introduction by Christine M. Korsgaard." (1998).
Plato. “Plato: The Apology of Socrates, translated by Harold N. Fowler and edited by with
introduction notes by E. E. Garvin” (2013).
Plato. “Plato THE ALLEGORY OF THE CAVE translated by Thomas Sheehan”
web.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/cave.pdf. Accessed 14 March. 2018.
