When Is Good Enough, Good Enough?

When Is Good Enough, Good Enough?

The deep questions are often not the technical, complex ones, but the simple ones that challenge the technical complex answers that arose from earlier "simple" questions. In grad school, I was very lucky to study ethics with Susan Wolf, a philosopher who made a reputation by considering a "simple" question, "how good is good enough?"

Consider two of the most famous attempts to work out what we mean by an act being morally right. Immanuel Kant's duty-based notion rests on the rule that rules over all rules, what he calls "the categorical imperative:"
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.
Act ALWAYS so that you NEVER...

Or the "principle of utility" that plays the central role in the systems of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill:
Always act so that you maximize the overall good.
Maximize? Suppose I create an overall balance that produces lots and lots of good, but not quite as much as possible?

Do we always have to be perfect to be good? Is there an ethical version of "good enough for government work"?

On the one hand, the line is, "no, the purpose of ethics is to define 'ought,' to set out the ultimate picture of perfect human behavior, of what a human life could be at its best." To lower the bar would be to undermine the very purpose of ethics, we want to know how to live a good human life not just a good enough human life.

On the other hand, the argument is that ought needs to entail can. If we are talking about how people should live, then it must be possible for people to actually live that way. If not, then what is the point of ethics? If everyone begins by knowing that they can't live up to expectations, then there is no sense in condemning anyone's actions since they had to fail to meet moral muster. Morality loses its teeth.

So is there an ethical sense of good enough where it would be nice if we did more, but are not require to do so?

- Ethical/moral, Corporate Personhood, And Same-sex Muppet Nuptuals
C. Ewing asks, "Is there a difference between moral and ethical? If so, what is it? Why do we make the distinction? Should we? Is it helpful?"I've always found it odd when people say that something has "moral AND ethical ramifications" since I always...

- Do You Have To Do Something To Do Something Good?
Whenever I teach ethics, one point in Kant's discussion that always gives rise to an interesting conversation is his claim that for an act to be of moral worth, it cannot serve any positive purpose for the person who does it. Even if it just makes...

- What Are The Most Pressing Moral Issues Today?
Regular readers know I've been working on a book called Was It Morally Good for You, Too?: A How-To Guide to Ethics in Sex, Politics, and Other Dirty Words. The idea is to present a readable, funny, but robust framework in which to meaningfully discuss...

- Somebody Please Explain Situational Ethics To Me
One of the bogeymen of the right is "situational ethics." I will admit that I haven't a clue what it is they mean. Some mean ethical relativism, and that has its own set of problems, but others clearly intend something else and I'm not sure what...

- Consequentialism, Deontology, And The Aretaic Turn
One debate that has dominated the attention of ethicists in the history of the modern era has been between consequentialism (the idea that the consequences of a particular action form the basis for any valid moral judgement about that action) and deontology...