Dying Well

[Belacqua]

We live in an extremely liberal time, in which living one's own way is seen as the best thing. People will assert this as if it is dogmatically true.

Hi, Belacqua. Thanks for the thoughtful reply. 

I can't shake the suspicion that, regardless of time or place, living our own way is our only option. The reckless narcissistic hedonist and the devout religious ascetic live substantially different lives outwardly, but each one has inwardly answered the how-shall-I-live question in the same way: I live in the manner that seems best (or in the words you used above, is seen as the best). 

The religious man can (and often will) claim that he lives a life founded upon a set of principles that are objectively and unalterably true, but he has come to that conclusion in an entirely subjective manner: via his own experiences and understanding. This to me seems synonymous with "living one's own way."

My pleasure! You've posed a fascinating question.

It's true that we choose. As the Existentialists teach us, everything we do is something we choose to do, although choosing NOT to do it may have unpleasant results. That is, (for example) you do have the choice of whether or not you follow police commands, though choosing not to might well get you shot. "Do this or die" isn't a very nice choice, but it is a choice. 

So let's say that in every time and place, a person has the option to follow his society's main dogma or not. The question in the OP was: will this dogma inhibit a person's ability to live well? 

Now, the dogma may originate in different ways. People may claim that it is revealed from a higher source. Or they may argue that their beliefs are just self-evidently good, even though every set of "how to live" principles has a history, and dissenters, and will probably fade in the future. But the origin or supposed origin of the dogma doesn't determine whether or not this is a good set of principles to live by. Principles which people say come from a god might in fact be good healthy principles. 

I can see two ways in which following the accepted norms of a society would lead to a good life:

1) if the norms in question are actually helpful. That is, if our societal dogma does promote human flourishing. Dante's ethics, for example, argue such radical social rules as: don't eat too much and don't eat too little. Get the money that you need but don't be miserly or wasteful, and don't live your life just for money. Good old fashioned stuff like that. 

People can make bad choices. They can harm themselves or others. If a culture's dogma reduces those things, then it can help us to live well. 

2) The second is more practical and situational: following a culture's norms helps you get ahead in that culture. If you want enough money to be comfortable, and you want to avoid conflict with your neighbors, and you want to get access to the good stuff the city has to offer, you have to play the game -- at least to some extent. If you want to play for the Yankees, you have to wear the uniform. Choosing not to follow the rules is also a choice, but this means you give up things. 

So getting a certain amount of money and social status requires following the dogma, at least to some extent. In our culture, you have to have these things in order to enjoy certain freedoms. We are free to travel, or example, but you need money to do that. If you choose not to play the game and not make money, then you limit your options. 

Now, what of the current dogma, which tells us that the good life is to live however you want as long as you don't hurt anybody. This is our liberal bourgeois culture's golden rule. If the argument is that before gay people couldn't get married and now they can, then sure, it looks like a good rule. But gay marriage isn't the only choice that people make. And a whole society of people who place their own personal happiness first may not end up being the kind of culture which encourages the flourishing of most. 

One example: suppose you really want to spend your time smoking weed and playing video games your whole life, but you accidentally make a child. I think that assuming responsibility for that child, and giving up your personal preferences is a good thing to do. Granted, you have the choice: you can run for it, and if you get far enough away the courts can't even force child support payments. But I question whether the avoidance of such duty would really be a good life. So there are cases where duty, responsibility to others, making the payments that the court orders, doing what your society expects of you rather than what you'd like to do, make a good life. 

Other people may be making the argument that dogma always and only prevents us from doing what would actually make us most satisfied in life. I am skeptical that this is the case. There may be social norms in place for good reasons.