Philosophy as Lenses

I just finished reading “Justice” a book on philosophy by Harvard professor Michael J. Sandel. It was quite good! Sandel ran through many of the most common schools of ethical thought from Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism, to Aristotle’s virtue ethics and provided examples where they succeeded and failed, before eventually providing his own explanation for how to be just. The book was well written and brought a lot of nuance for it’s short length.

However, what really got me excited was my realization that none of the proposed ethics are useful in every situation. While these old guys created a lot of different frameworks they wanted to be all encompassing, in reality they all fail in certain situations. Kant’s exclamation that you shouldn’t lie to the murderer trying to find your friend is obviously lame. Aristotle’s acceptance of slavery is repugnant. This really frustrated me for a while! What philosophy is right for me? How can I be a morally consistent person if no philosophy seems to work universally?

Then I had a thought I was very proud of! These philosophers provide excellent lenses for examining difficult moral questions. In relationships I always want to be treated as an “end” rather than a “means” as Kant proposes. I think Aristotle is right that when we are making laws about voting rights its important to have discussions about what the purpose of voting is. I might not get answers to life, the universe, and everything, but every time I study philosophy I come away with another set of ideas to help me understand the world around me.

This step really helped me understand why it is so fun to learn new philosophies even when I disagree with them! Every new philosopher and idea is a new lens to go into my moral tool box. Some lenses might be better or more useful in more situations, however, it is the expansiveness of my moral toolbox that allows me to respond to any scenario with confidence (and occasionally grace).