
It’s 2 AM, your head is pounding, your hands are shaking, and the world outside is nothing more than a cold, indifferent blur.
You’ve got no answers to the chaos inside you or the mess the world has become. Nothing feels right. People hurt each other, lie to each other, and yet we keep on spinning in this sick, twisted dance.
And then, on a whim, you pick up What We Owe to Each Other by Thomas Scanlon, expecting some dry philosophical mumbo-jumbo, the usual bullshit.
Instead, you feel something shift in you, deep down, like a gear clicking into place. Maybe there’s something more to this life than just stumbling through it without any clue what you’re doing.
Scanlon’s book isn’t some lifeline tossed to you by some smug academic—nah, it’s a bloody knife, cutting through the mess, and you’re left with the painful reality that, despite everything, there’s a way to make sense of this absurd existence.
A Quick Trip Through History’s Hellhole
Before we get into Scanlon’s groundbreaking ideas, let’s take a moment to acknowledge the trainwreck that is moral philosophy.
Philosophers have spent centuries chewing on ethics, trying to make sense of what we owe each other. It wasn’t always a pretty sight.
First, we had the ancient Greeks, those high-minded folks who believed in virtue and divine purpose. Socrates and Plato were all about the pursuit of the good, shoving their abstract ideals down the throats of anyone who’d listen. But that’s not the world we live in anymore, is it?
By the time the 20th century rolled around, the world had been through two world wars, a Depression, and the shattering of any pretense that there was some higher moral truth guiding our lives.
The existentialists—Camus, Sartre, Nietzsche—walked onto the stage like a dark storm cloud, ripping apart those fragile structures that once gave us meaning.
Sartre told us that existence precedes essence, and Camus scoffed at the idea of an inherent purpose. Life, according to Camus, was absurd, and the only choice we had was to keep on living despite it.
So, yeah, nihilism took over, and the world felt like a cold, empty void. What’s the point of trying to live morally when the universe doesn’t give a damn about you?
But here’s the thing—Scanlon comes along in this mess of confusion and says, “Wait, there’s another way to think about this.”
And if you’re like me, a person constantly searching for some shred of meaning, you’ll grab onto it like a lifeline.
Scanlon’s Big Idea: Reason, Not Just Action
Scanlon’s ethics aren’t based on some mystical belief in a universal moral law handed down from on high.
Nah, this isn’t some divine commandment. Scanlon doesn’t want to take us back to the days when philosophers were busy pretending to know what’s best for everyone.
Instead, he argues that what we owe each other isn’t blind obedience to some abstract set of moral laws, but rather reasons. We owe each other reasons for what we do, and those reasons need to be justifiable.
Look, it’s pretty damn simple when you break it down. When you treat someone like garbage—when you screw them over, lie to them, or hurt them in some way—you don’t just get to walk away with a shrug and a “Hey, I did what I wanted.”
No. You’ve got to explain yourself. You’ve got to have a damn good reason for why you acted the way you did. And not just any excuse—your reason has to make sense.
It has to be something that, if you’re honest with yourself, you can justify in a way that the other person could understand, even if they don’t agree with you.
This is where Scanlon’s ethics gets interesting. He doesn’t say we all have to agree on everything. Hell, that’s not even possible. But what he does say is that we have to respect each other enough to at least try to understand each other’s reasons.
You can’t just hurt people without thinking about the consequences or without considering their point of view. It’s a brutal honesty that shakes you awake and makes you realize just how much responsibility you have in this messed-up world.
Shared Reasons: More Than Just a Good Argument
The real kicker of Scanlon’s theory is the idea of shared reasons.
What’s that? It’s the idea that when we act, we’re not just presenting our own private interests and justifications.
We’re engaging in a social contract of sorts, where the reasons we give for our actions need to be something that others can accept.
That doesn’t mean they’ll agree with you—it just means that, at the very least, you’re able to present your reasoning in a way that doesn’t just come off as self-serving or arbitrary.
In other words, it’s not just about what you think. It’s about how your actions fit into the world of others, how they can see your reasons and either accept them or challenge them.
This is where Scanlon’s ethics completely rejects the my way or the highway mentality. It’s a call for dialogue, for understanding, for giving a damn about other people’s perspectives.
Table 1: Traditional Ethics vs. Scanlon’s Ethics
Aspect | Traditional Ethics | Scanlon’s Ethics |
---|---|---|
Source of Obligation | Divine command or universal law | Shared, justifiable reasons |
Moral Framework | Fixed, rigid rules | Contextual, flexible reasoning |
View on Human Nature | Universal principles | Acknowledges diversity of thought |
Accountability | Based on authority or law | Based on reason and mutual respect |
Explaining It to a Kid (Or Anyone Who Needs a Break from Philosophy)
Alright, let’s slow down for a second. Let’s say you’re playing a game of basketball with your buddy. You both want to win, but you also want to play fair.
So, what happens if you cheat? Your friend’s gonna ask you why you did it, right? You can’t just shrug and say, “Because I felt like it.”
That’s not good enough. You’ve got to explain yourself in a way that makes sense. Maybe you were desperate to win, maybe you thought it was okay to bend the rules just this once.
Whatever it is, it’s gotta be a reason your friend can understand. If you don’t have a good reason, if you can’t explain yourself, then you’ve messed up.
And that’s what Scanlon’s ethics is all about—having reasons that others can accept, no matter how much you screw up in the end.
Nihilism and the Fight Against the Void
We live in a cruel world, and it’s easy to fall into nihilism. Everything seems meaningless, especially when you look around and see how messed up people are.
The existentialists had a point—life is absurd. But Scanlon gives us something to hold onto. Not an answer to the void, but a way to navigate it.
He doesn’t promise us an easy road, but at least he gives us a map. Instead of throwing our hands up and saying, “Screw it, nothing matters,” Scanlon’s philosophy says, “You matter. The people around you matter. And the reasons you give for what you do matter.”
That’s a tough pill to swallow, but it’s one we need to chew on. Because if we don’t, we’ll keep living in a world where we treat each other like shit and wonder why everything feels so hollow.
Table 2: Nihilism vs. Scanlon’s Ethics
Aspect | Nihilism | Scanlon’s Ethics |
---|---|---|
View on Meaning | Life is meaningless, absurd | Meaning comes from shared reasons |
Moral Framework | None, everything’s random | Justifiable, shared moral reasons |
Role of Individuals | Powerless in a meaningless world | Empowered to create meaning through actions |
Accountability | No moral obligations | Accountability through reason and respect |
Kant and Mill Do Not Agree
Immanuel Kant doesn’t care about your reasons. Doesn’t care about the mess you’re in. All he cares about is the categorical imperative, this cold, lifeless rule that says you should do what’s right because, well, it’s right.
No exceptions. No excuses. If you screw up, it’s on you, and there’s no reasoning your way out of it.
So, let’s say you hurt someone. Maybe you didn’t mean to, but there you are, in the middle of a drama. Kant doesn’t want to hear about your reasons. He doesn’t care if you were just trying to survive or make sense of a fucked-up world.
No. You follow the rules, or you don’t, and if you don’t, you’re a moral failure. Simple as that. Doesn’t matter if you’re a broken human just trying to scrape by.
Scanlon? He’d tell you that doesn’t work. The cold, hard rules don’t cut it. What matters is why you did what you did. And if you can’t justify that to the person you’ve hurt? Well, you’ve got a problem.
Kant? He’s not interested in that mess. He just wants you to do the right thing, no questions asked. Doesn’t care about the chaos inside you.
Then there’s John Stuart Mill—Mr. “Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number,” who wants to turn morality into a damn math equation.
Mill says if cheating, lying, or betraying a friend will make the world a little bit happier, then hell, go for it. Just do the math and figure out if the happiness adds up.
The greater good is all that matters. If one person has to get stomped on so the rest of us can be happy, then that’s the moral choice.
Scanlon’s looking at Mill’s ethics and calling bullshit. Sure, you might make a lot of people happy by stepping on a few necks along the way, but at what cost?
You can’t justify your actions just by calculating happiness points like you’re adding up your paycheck. What matters isn’t just the numbers, it’s why you’re doing what you’re doing and if you can stand by that reason when it’s put under the spotlight.
Table 3: Kant, Mill, and Scanlon: The Difference
Aspect | Kant’s Ethics | Mill’s Ethics | Scanlon’s Ethics |
---|---|---|---|
Source of Obligation | Follow the rules, no questions asked | Do what makes the most people happy | Justifiable reasons, shared respect |
Moral Framework | Rigid, universal duty | Outcome-driven, maximize happiness | Context-driven, flexible reasoning |
Human Nature | Be a moral robot, no excuses | Weigh the happiness of the masses | Rational beings, with differing views |
Accountability | Based on duty, period | Based on results | Based on mutual respect and understanding |
The Final Word
So here we are, sitting at the edge of the abyss. The world is falling apart, and we’ve all got one foot in the grave.
Scanlon’s ethics won’t save us. Hell, it won’t even fix your shitty day. But it offers something better than nothing.
It tells us that, in the face of all the darkness and chaos, we still have the power to make choices that matter.
It’s just us, trying to make sense of a world that doesn’t make sense. And that, my friend, is where the hope lies.
We can’t change the world, but we can damn well change how we treat each other.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.