This book by Jean Kazez grapples with the fundamentally important topic of how we should live so that we have "good" lives. This topic is so challenging that any author who comes across as reasonable and makes even a small contribution should be commended. Kazez does much better than that, and I would say that I definitely grew as a result of reading this book, despite having explored this topic myself for more than two decades.



One of her most basic points is that lives can indeed be better or worse, everyone doesn't have equal access to a good life, and luck may play a role. Moreover, even for those who can attain a good life, many will be satisfied with a life which is "good enough" rather than aiming for the best possible life. And contrary to what many people believe, she argues that many elements of Western consumer societies work against having a good life.



But what does it mean to have a good life? Kazez argues that there's no single sufficient condition for a good life, but there are several necessary conditions. Perhaps the combination of these necessary conditions could be taken as a sufficient condition, though she doesn't explicitly say that. These necessary conditions include happiness, avoidance of pain, autonomy (which means an open future entailing uncertainty and risk), a sense of self (though it may be open and flexible), at least minimal progress, basic reason and knowledge, external goods, and moral virtue. In looking at this list, it's important to emphasize that Kazez doesn't simply equate the good life with happiness, nor does she endorse the opposite extreme of asceticism.



While these are all necessary conditions, the extent to which they're needed varies across individuals, and passion can help find the right balance, though passion shouldn't be carried to a counterproductive extreme. Kazez doesn't accept moral relativism and she argues that, among the necessities, moral virtue tends to be of greater importance for everyone, partly because it enables some transcendence of the self. But she doesn't consider moral virtue to trump everything else, and she views morality as tending to involve prohibitions more than injunctions.



In addition to the necessary conditions, Kazez also describes "optional" elements which can make a life better, but aren't absolutely necessary. They include relationships, parenting, work, advanced knowledge, artistic expression, fulfilling one's potential, leaving a (good) mark on the world, and experiencing beauty. Perhaps, like me, your intuition will suggest that some of these elements seem more necessary than optional (eg, relationships), but you can judge for yourself.



On the topic of religion, Kazez argues convincingly that exclusivist conventional religious views are untenable. This still leaves the possibility of some form of spiritual transcendence and associated immortality, but it's not at all clear what such transcendence would be like. Moreover, even if such transcendence was possible and desirable, would it be equally accessible to everyone? To animals? Other lifeforms? Kazez doesn't pretend to have the answers to such mysteries, though she notes that she leans towards a naturalistic view. In any case, she argues that even if death is the end and makes our lives transient, our lives can still have value and be good. For example, the specter of death may at least give our lives a useful sense of immediacy.



Considering all of this, Kazez argues that there's no simple or universal formula for the good life, other than the general framework of necessary and optional conditions she presents. And indeed, we need to talk about good lives rather than "the" good life (different strokes for different folks). In coming up with our own recipes, we need to balance seeing from an inner perspective which causes us to feel engaged, versus an outer perspective which causes us to feel detached and possibly also pessimistic or even nihilistic. Both perspectives are necessary, and the tension between them seems unavoidable. We can formulate life plans, balancing short versus long-term considerations, but we should prepare for the possibility of changing our plans along the way, either because we want to or need to. And, ironically, it seems that a good life may be a sort of byproduct of what we do, so that directly pursuing a good life may actually hinder attaining it.



I think that Kazez offers many useful insights, and her views are well reasoned, with arguments and examples which are often subtle and worthy of careful attention. However, as I noted, some of her optional elements seem closer to necessary conditions from my vantage point. I'm also more open to the possibility of a spiritual dimension than she is, and of course the existence of such a dimension could radically change the conclusions we should draw regarding how to live our lives. Related to this point, other than occasional reference to Buddhism, the book is almost entirely written from a Western perspective, and it would have been interesting to see how other philosophical and cultural traditions would have reshaped it.



Nevertheless, Kazez has offered a very worthwhile exploration of this topic, and I highly recommend it.