🎭 Live Mentor Debate

What makes a good life?

Happiness Debate: Confucius and Aristotle debate whether a good life comes from social harmony and duty or from individual flourishing and virtue.

Debaters:ConfuciusAristotleModerated by Stella Sharpe

Penn6

Welcome to this Happiness debate. Our central question: "What makes a good life?" Confucius, you've said "A good life is found in harmonious relationships and fulfilling your role" — but I want specifics. Give us an example from your own experience where this principle was tested.

Confucius

When I was offered a high position in the state of Lu, I believed I could effect great change and bring order to the realm. However, the ruler was distracted by frivolous pursuits, neglecting his duties. Though it pained me to leave, remaining would have compromised my integrity and hindered the possibility of establishing virtue. It was better to wander and continue teaching, seeking a ruler who valued righteousness. Though the path was fraught with hardship, remaining true to my principles was paramount.

Aristotle

I must concur that the pursuit of virtue is paramount, even when faced with hardship, as my esteemed colleague suggests. A life devoted to ethical excellence, as I detail in my *Nicomachean Ethics*, is the cornerstone of *eudaimonia*, or human flourishing. It is not merely about holding a position of power, but about exercising wisdom and moral rectitude, regardless of external circumstances. True happiness, after all, resides in the consistent practice of virtue, guided by reason.

Penn6

Aristotle, your concept of *eudaimonia* sounds suspiciously solitary. Confucius, you left the court when you couldn't "effect great change." But isn't there a potential contradiction? You value harmonious relationships, but you walked away. Can one truly fulfill their role if the environment resists virtue? What happens when your pursuit of "ethical excellence" requires you to, say, *disrupt* a relationship or role?

Confucius

A sharp question, indeed. Harmony does not necessitate blind obedience or the sacrifice of one's principles. When the Way is not practiced, it is permissible, even necessary, to withdraw. Remaining in a corrupt environment only lends legitimacy to wrongdoing. Disruption, though regrettable, may be the only path to eventually restoring order. One must discern when to yield and when to stand firm, always guided by righteousness.

Aristotle

That's a fair question. While Confucius makes a salient point about the necessity of withdrawing from corrupting environments, it is crucial to emphasize that *eudaimonia* is not achieved in isolation. As I argue in my writings, humans are inherently social creatures, and our capacity for virtue is cultivated through interaction and participation in a well-ordered *polis*. Therefore, while ethical excellence may at times necessitate disrupting certain relationships, the ultimate aim must be to foster virtuous connections within a broader community, contributing to the common good.

Penn6

That's an insightful observation, Confucius. It seems we're touching on the tension between individual integrity and communal obligation. Aristotle, how do you reconcile your emphasis on the *polis* with the reality that some communities are, well, *toxic*? If *eudaimonia* depends on a "well-ordered" society, what's the virtuous person to do when order itself is the problem? Does one prop up a flawed system for the sake of social harmony, or risk disruption in pursuit of a higher good? Confucius seems willing to wander. What's your threshold for walking away?

Aristotle

Indeed, a *polis* riddled with injustice presents a formidable challenge. My view is that the virtuous individual must strive to reform the community from within, employing reason and persuasion to guide it towards justice. However, if the corruption is so deeply entrenched that any attempt at reform is futile, then withdrawal becomes a justifiable option. The threshold lies where one's participation actively contributes to injustice, thereby compromising one's own virtue. In such dire circumstances, seeking or even founding a more virtuous community may be the only path that aligns with *eudaimonia*.

Confucius

An astute observation. I must concur with my esteemed colleague's sentiment on withdrawal. However, the decision to depart should not be taken lightly. It is a last resort, considered only when all avenues for reform have been exhausted. One's responsibility extends to actively seeking opportunities for positive influence. Only when faced with systemic, unyielding corruption that actively harms others, may withdrawal be the virtuous course, preserving one's integrity while seeking a more receptive environment for the Way.

Penn6

Aristotle, you speak of reforming from within, and Confucius, you advocate for exhausting all avenues before leaving. But what *are* those avenues? What specific actions constitute a genuine effort to reform a toxic environment before one throws in the towel? Furthermore, Aristotle, how much injustice must one tolerate in the name of maintaining social order? And Confucius, how does one balance the need for personal integrity with the potential harm caused by abandoning a community in need? It sounds like you both agree on the *what* (withdraw as a last resort) but not the *how* or *when*. Let's get concrete.

Confucius

Before departing, one must first exhaust the means of *li* – proper conduct and ritual. This involves respectfully advising those in power, offering guidance rooted in virtue and tradition. Educating the people, so that they may recognize righteousness, is also essential. If these efforts are met with resistance and the ruler remains deaf to reason, then one must consider whether their presence enables further corruption. The balance lies in discerning whether one's actions contribute to the greater good or merely prolong the suffering of the people.

Aristotle

An astute observation. For me, the avenues of reform involve reasoned discourse, ethical persuasion, and participation in civic life. One must strive to exemplify virtue in their actions, thereby inspiring others to emulate it. Regarding the extent of injustice one must endure, it is a matter of prudence and judgment. A degree of imperfection is inherent in any human institution, yet when injustice becomes systemic and actively undermines the pursuit of *eudaimonia*, one must take a stand, even if it means risking disruption.

Want to join the conversation?