《我们如何活着：人类中心主义时代的伦理》How are We to Live？ Ethics in an Age of Self-Interest（Peter.Singer）

How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest Peter Singer was born in Australia in 1946 and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. He has aught at the University of Oxford, New York University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of California at Irvine, and La Trobe University. He is now Professor of Philosophy, Co-Director of the Institute of Ethics and Public Affairs, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University, Melbourne Professor Singer has written and edited more than twenty books on ethics and related areas of philosophy. He is best known for his book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, which spawned the international animal liberation movement. He is the author of the major article on ethics in the current edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and co-editor of the journal Bioethics

How are we to live? Ethics in an age of self-interest Peter Singer was born in Australia in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. He has taught at the University of Oxford, New York University, the University of Colorado at Boulder, the University of California at Irvine, and La Trobe University. He is now Professor of Philosophy, Co-Director of the Institute of Ethics and Public Affairs, and Deputy Director of the Centre for Human Bioethics at Monash University, Melbourne. Professor Singer has written and edited more than twenty books on ethics and related areas of philosophy. He is best known for his book Animal Liberation: A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals, which spawned the international animal liberation movement. He is the author of the major article on ethics in the current edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and co-editor of the journal Bioethics

Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viIi PREFACE A Mandarin Random House Australia australia CHAPTER I The ultimate choice 1 20 Alfred Street, Milsons Point, NSW 2061 p-l/www.randomhouse.com.au Ivan Boesky's choice I The Ring of Gyges 9 First published in Australia in 1993 by the Text Publishing Company What in the hell are we doing this for? 11 This Mandarin edition reprinted by Random House Australia, 1997 Ethics and self-interest 21 Copyright e Peter Singer 1993 CHAPTER 2 What's in it for me? 26 A failing social experiment 26 transmitted in any form or by any means(electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright The loss of community 34 and the publisher of this book. CHAPTER 3 Using up the world 4 Printed and bound in Ar australian Print Group Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Adam Smith? 45 Cataloguing-in-Publication data Living on our inheritance 49 How an overflowing sink makes Adam Smith obsolete 55 When are we well oft? 57 CHAPTER 4 How we came to be living this way 65 ISBN1863304312 A perverse instinct 65 Aristotle on the art of making money 67 L. Ethics. 2 Self-interest- Moral and ethical aspects. L. Title. Can a merchant be pleasing to God? 69 Luthers calling and Calvins grace 77 The religious and the secular converge 8 A withered greening 90

A Mandarin book Published by Random House Australia Australia 20 Alfred Street, Milsons Point, NSW 2061 http://www.randomhouse.com.au First published in Australia in 1993 by the Text Publishing Company Reprinted 1993, 1994 This Mandarin edition reprinted by Random House Australia, 1997 Copyright © Peter Singer 1993 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright above, no part of this publication shall be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. Typeset in Garamond by Bookset Pry Ltd, Melbourne Printed and bound in Australia by Australian Print Group National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication data Singer, Peter. How are we to live? Bibliography. Includes index. ISBN 1 86330 431 2 1. Ethics. 2. Self-interest - Moral and ethical aspects. I. Title. 170 Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S viii « PREFAC E i x CHAPTE R 1 The ultimate choice 1 Ivan Boesky's choice 1 The Ring of Gyges 9 'What in the hell are we doing this for?' 11 The end of history or the beginning of secular ethics? 14 Ethics and self-interest 21 CHAPTE R 2 'What's in it for me?' 26 A failing social experiment 26 The loss of community 34 CHAPTE R 3 Using up the world 45 Jean-Jacques Rousseau or Adam Smith? 45 Living on our inheritance 49 How an overflowing sink makes Adam Smith obsolete 55 When are we well off? 57 CHAPTE R 4 How we came to be living this way 65 A perverse instinct 65 Aristotle on the art of making money 67 Can a merchant be pleasing to God? 69 Luther's calling and Calvin's grace 77 The religious and the secular converge 80 The consumer society 88 A withered greening 90 The Reagan years: 'Enrich thyself 93

ve to live nts v CHAPTER 5 Is selfishness in our genes? 99 CHAPTER II The good life The biological case for selfishness 99 Pushing the peanut forward Caring for our children 103 The escalator of reason 268 Caring for our kin 108 Toward an ethical life 277 Caring for our group 115 NOTES 281 CHAPTER 6 How the Japanese live 125 Japan: A successful social experiment? 125 NDEX 303 The corporation as an ethical community 127 The self and the group 141 CHAPTER 7 Titfor Tat 152 Caring for those who care for us 152 Self-interest and ethics: An interim conclusion 180 CHAPTER Living ethically 182 A green shoot 189 Why do people act ethically? 198 ChaPTer 9 The nature ofethics 202 a broader perspective 202 The gender of ethics 207 Jesus and Kant: Two views on why we ought to live Beyond Jesus and Kant: The search for an ultimate answer 220 CHAPTER 10 Living to some purpose 230 The myth of Sisyphus and the meaning of life 230 Of housewives, Aboriginal Australians and caged hens 232 The struggle to win 23 The inward turn 244 A transcendent cause 253

vi How ar e we to live ? CHAPTE R 5 Is selfishness in our genes? 99 The biological case for selfishness 99 Caring for our children 103 Caring for our kin 108 J Caring for our group 115 CHAPTE R 6 How the Japanese live 125 Japan: A successful social experiment? 125 The corporation as an ethical community 127 The self and the group 141 CHAPTE R 7 Tit for Tat 152 Caring for those who care for us 152 Doing better with Tit for Tat 167 Self-interest and ethics: An interim conclusion 180 CHAPTE R 8 Living ethically 182 Heroes 182 A green shoot 189 Why do people act ethically? 198 CHAPTE R 9 The nature of ethics 202 A broader perspective 202 The gender of ethics 207 Jesus and Kant: Two views on why we ought to live ethically 212 Beyond Jesus and Kant: The search for an ultimate answer 220 CHAPTE R 10 Living to some purpose 230 The myth of Sisyphus and the meaning of life 230 Of housewives, Aboriginal Australians and caged hens 232 The struggle to win 238 The inward turn 244 A transcendent cause 253 Content s vii CHAPTE R 11 The good life 260 Pushing the peanut forward 260 The escalator of reason 268 Toward an ethical life 277 NOTE S 281 INDE X 303

Acknowledgements Preface I owe thanks to many people. Di Gribble of Text Publishing Is there still anything to live for? Is anything worth pursuing, uggested that the time was right for a book on this theme and part from money, love, and caring for ones own family? If so, Michael Heyward of the same firm advised me after the book what could it be? Talk of something to live for has a faintly reached the draft stage. An Australian Research Council Grant eligious flavour, but many people who are not at all religious made it possible for Margaret Parnaby to provide part-time have an uneasy feeling that they may be missing out on some- research assistance, gathering materials, checking references and thing basic that would give their lives a significance it now lacks providing critical comments at every stage of the work. Her Nor do these people have a deep commitment to any political work has helped to put flesh on the bare bones of the outline I creed. Over the past century political struggle has often filled had planned. Various drafts were read by Aaron Asher, Stephen the place that religion once held in other times and cultures. No Buckle, Paola Cavalieri, Lori Gruen, Helga Kuhse, Shunici one who reflects on recent history can now believe that politics Noguchi, Julian Savulescu, Renata Singer, Henry Spira an alone will suffice to solve all our problems. But what else can we Tomasaburo Yamauchi. Each gave me helpful comments and live for? In this book I give one answer. It is as ancient as the collectively, they have made the book- whatever faults it may dawn of philosophy, but as much needed in our circumstances still have - much better than it would have been otherwise today as it ever was before. The answer is that we can live an ethical life. By doing so we make ourselves part of a great, cross- cultural tradition. Moreover. we will find that to live an ethical fulfillment If we can detach ourselves from our own immediate preoccu pations and look at the world as a whole and our place in it, there is something absurd about the idea that people should have trouble finding something to live for. There is, after all, so much that needs to be done. As this book was nearing completion, United Nations troops entered Somalia in an attempt to ensure that food supplies reached the starving population there Although this attempt went badly wrong, it was at least a hope ul sign that affluent nations were prepared to do something about hunger and suffering in areas remote from them. We may learn from this episode, and future attempts may be more suc cessful. Perhaps we are at the beginning of a new era in which

Acknowledgements I owe thanks to many people. Di Gribble of Text Publishing suggested that the time was right for a book on this theme, and Michael Heyward of the same firm advised me after the book reached the draft stage. An Australian Research Council Grant made it possible for Margaret Parnaby to provide part-time research assistance, gathering materials, checking references and providing critical comments at every stage of the work. Her work has helped to put flesh on the bare bones of the outline I had planned. Various drafts were read by Aaron Asher, Stephen Buckle, Paola Cavalieri, Lori Gruen, Helga Kuhse, Shunici Noguchi, Julian Savulescu, Renata Singer, Henry Spira and Tomasaburo Yamauchi. Each gave me helpful comments and, collectively, they have made the book — whatever faults it may still have — much better than it would have been otherwise. Preface Is there still anything to live for? Is anything worth pursuing, apart from money, love, and caring for one's own family? If so, what could it be? Talk of 'something to live for' has a faintly religious flavour, but many people who are not at all religious have an uneasy feeling that they may be missing out on some￾thing basic that would give their lives a significance it now lacks. Nor do these people have a deep commitment to any political creed. Over the past century political struggle has often filled the place that religion once held in other times and cultures. No one who reflects on recent history can now believe that politics alone will suffice to solve all our problems. But what else can we live for? In this book I give one answer. It is as ancient as the dawn of philosophy, but as much needed in our circumstances today as it ever was before. The answer is that we can live an ethical life. By doing so we make ourselves part of a great, cross￾cultural tradition. Moreover, we will find that to live an ethical life is not self-sacrifice, but self-fulfillment. If we can detach ourselves from our own immediate preoccu￾pations and look at the world as a whole and our place in it, there is something absurd about the idea that people should have trouble finding something to live for. There is, after all, so much that needs to be done. As this book was nearing completion, United Nations troops entered Somalia in an attempt to ensure that food supplies reached the starving population there. Although this attempt went badly wrong, it was at least a hope￾ful sign that affluent nations were prepared to do something about hunger and suffering in areas remote from them. We may learn from this episode, and future attempts may be more suc￾cessful. Perhaps we are at the beginning of a new era in which

How are we to live we will no longer simply sit in front of our television sets watch- world really were full of people who take so little care of their ing small children die and then continue to live our affluent lives wn lives, never mind the lives of others, there would be nothing without feeling any incongruity. It is not only the dramatic and that anyone could do, and our species would probably not be newsworthy major crises that require our attention, though; there around for very much longer. But the ways of evolution tend to are countless situations, on a smaller scale, that are just as bad eliminate those who are that crazy. There may be a few around and are preventable. Immense as this task is, it is only one of t any one time; no doubt big American cities shelter more than many equally urgent causes to which people in need of a worth- their fair share of them. What is truly disproportionate, though, while objective could commit themselves. the prominence that such behaviour has in the media and in The problem is that most people have only the vaguest idea he public mind. It is the old story of what makes news. A of what it might be to lead an ethical life. They understand million people doing something every day that shows concern ethics as a system of rules forbidding us to do things. they do for others is not news. rooftop sniper is. This book is not not grasp it as a basis for thinking about how we are to live blind to the existence of vicious, violent and irrational They live largely self-interested lives, not because they are born people, but it is written in the conviction that the rest of us selfish, but because the alternatives seem awkward, embarrass- should not live our lives as if everyone else is always inherently ing, or just plain pointless. They cannot see any way of making likely to be vicious, violent and irrational an impact on the world, and if they could, why should they In any case, even if I am wrong, and crazy people are much bother? Short of undergoing a religious conversion, they see more common than I believe. what alternative is left to us? The nothing to live for except the pursuit of their own material self- onventional pursuit of self-interest is, for reasons that I shall interest. But the possibility of living an ethical life provides us lore in a later chapter, individually and collectively self- ith a way out of this impasse. That possibility is the subject of defeating. The ethical life is the most fundamental alternative to this book. the conventional pursuit of self-interest. Deciding to live ethi erely to broach this possibility will be enough to give rise to cally is both more far-reaching and more powerful than a politi- accusations of extreme naivity. Some will say that people are cal commitment of the traditional kind. Living an ethically naturally incapable of being anything but selfish. Chapters 4, 5, reflective life is not a matter of strictly observing a set of rules 6 and 7 address this claim, in varying ways. Others will claim hat lay down what you should or should not do. To live ethi- hat whatever the truth about human nature. modern Western ally is to reflect in a particular way on how you live, and to try ociety has long passed the point at which either rational or to act in accordance with the conclusions of that reflection. If ethical argument can achieve anything. Life today can seem so the argument of this book is sound then we cannot live an crazy that we may despair of improving it. One publisher who unethical life and remain indifferent to the vast amount of read the manuscript of this book gestured at the New York necessary suffering that exists in the world today. It may be street below his window and told me that, down there, people that a ly small number of people who are ad taken to driving through red lights, just for the hell of it. living in a reflective, manner could prove to be a critical How, he was saying, can you expect your kind of book to mak mass that changes the climate of opinion about the nature of a difference to a world full of people like that? Indeed, if the self-interest and its connection with ethics but when we look

How ar e we to live ? Prefac e xi we will no longer simply sit in front of our television sets watch￾ing small children die and then continue to live our affluent lives without feeling any incongruity. It is not only the dramatic and newsworthy major crises that require our attention, though; there are countless situations, on a smaller scale, that are just as bad and are preventable. Immense as this task is, it is only one of many equally urgent causes to which people in need of a worth￾while objective could commit themselves. The problem is that most people have only the vaguest idea of what it might be to lead an ethical life. They understand ethics as a system of rules forbidding us to do things. They do not grasp it as a basis for thinking about how we are to live. They live largely self-interested lives, not because they are born selfish, but because the alternatives seem awkward, embarrass￾ing, or just plain pointless. They cannot see any way of making an impact on the world, and if they could, why should they bother? Short of undergoing a religious conversion, they see nothing to live for except the pursuit of their own material self￾interest. But the possibility of living an ethical life provides us with a way out of this impasse. That possibility is the subject of this book. Merely to broach this possibility will be enough to give rise to accusations of extreme naivity. Some will say that people are naturally incapable of being anything but selfish. Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7 address this claim, in varying ways. Others will claim that whatever the truth about human nature, modern Western society has long passed the point at which either rational or ethical argument can achieve anything. Life today can seem so crazy that we may despair of improving it. One publisher who read the manuscript of this book gestured at the New York street below his window and told me that, down there, people had taken to driving through red lights, just for the hell of it. How, he was saying, can you expect your kind of book to make a difference to a world full of people like that? Indeed, if the world really were full of people who take so little care of their own lives, never mind the lives of others, there would be nothing that anyone could do, and our species would probably not be around for very much longer. But the ways of evolution tend to eliminate those who are that crazy. There may be a few around at any one time; no doubt big American cities shelter more than their fair share of them. What is truly disproportionate, though, is the prominence that such behaviour has in the media and in the public mind. It is the old story of what makes news. A million people doing something every day that shows concern for others is not news; one rooftop sniper is. This book is not blind to the existence of vicious, violent and irrational people, but it is written in the conviction that the rest of us should not live our lives as if everyone else is always inherently likely to be vicious, violent and irrational. In any case, even if I am wrong, and crazy people are much more common than I believe, what alternative is left to us? The conventional pursuit of self-interest is, for reasons that I shall explore in a later chapter, individually and collectively self￾defeating. The ethical life is the most fundamental alternative to the conventional pursuit of self-interest. Deciding to live ethi￾cally is both more far-reaching and more powerful than a politi￾cal commitment of the traditional kind. Living an ethically reflective life is not a matter of strictly observing a set of rules that lay down what you should or should not do. To live ethi￾cally is to reflect in a particular way on how you live, and to try to act in accordance with the conclusions of that reflection. If the argument of this book is sound, then we cannot live an unethical life and remain indifferent to the vast amount of unnecessary suffering that exists in the world today. It may be naive to hope that a relatively small number of people who are living in a reflective, ethical manner could prove to be a critical mass that changes the climate of opinion about the nature of self-interest and its connection with ethics; but when we look •HI

xll How are we to ive? Preface xi around the world and see what a mess it is in, it seems worth ethics and I-can now draw on a solid background giving that optimistic hope the best possible chance of success. as well as on the research and writings of Every book reflects personal experience, no matter how many why anyone should act morally or ethi layers of scholarship the reflection may be filtered through. My cally, I can give a bolder and more positive response than I did interest in the topic of this book began when I was a graduate in my earlier thesis. I can point to people who have chosen to student in philosophy at the University of Melbourne. I wrote live an ethical life, and have been able to make an impact on the my Masters thesis on the topic 'Why Should I Be Moral? "The world. In doing so they have invested their lives with a signifi thesis analyzed this question, and examined the answers that cance that many despair of ever finding. They find, as a result, have been offered by philosophers over the past two and half that their own lives are richer, more fulfilling, more exciting thousand years. I reluctantly concluded that none of these answers even, than they were before they made that choice as really satisfactory. Then I spent twenty-five years studying Peter Singer and teaching ethics and social philosophy at universities in Eng land, America and Australia. In the early part of that period I lanuary 1993 took part in opposition to the war in Vietnam. This formed the ackground to my first book, Democracy and Disobedience, about the ethical issue of disobedience to unjust laws. My second book Animal Liberation. argued that our treatment of animals is eth cally indefensible. That book played a role in the birth and growth of what is now a worldwide movement. I have worked in that movement not only as a philosopher but also as an active member of groups working for change. I have been involved, again both as an academic philosopher and in more everyday ways, in a variety of other with a strong ethical basis: aid for developing nations, support for refugees, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, wilderness preservation and more general environmental concerns. All of this has given me the chance to get to know people who give up their time, their money and and it has given me a deeper sense of what it is to try to livea sometimes much of their private lives for an ethically based ca ethical life Since writing my Masters thesis I have written about the question 'Why act ethically? ' in the final chapter of Practical Ethics. and I have touched on the theme of ethics and selfishness in The Expanding Circle. In turning once again to the link between

xii Ho w ar e we t o live ? around the world and see what a mess it is in, it seems worth giving that optimistic hope the best possible chance of success. Every book reflects personal experience, no matter how many layers of scholarship the reflection may be filtered through. My interest in the topic of this book began when I was a graduate student in philosophy at the University of Melbourne. I wrote my Master's thesis on the topic 'Why Should I Be Moral?' The thesis analyzed this question, and examined the answers that have been offered by philosophers over the past two and half thousand years. I reluctantly concluded that none of these answers was really satisfactory. Then I spent twenty-five years studying and teaching ethics and social philosophy at universities in Eng￾land, America and Australia. In the early part of that period I took part in opposition to the war in Vietnam. This formed the background to my first book, Democracy and Disobedience, about the ethical issue of disobedience to unjust laws. My second book, Animal Liberation, argued that our treatment of animals is ethi￾cally indefensible. That book played a role in the birth and growth of what is now a worldwide movement. I have worked in that movement not only as a philosopher but also as an active member of groups working for change. I have been involved, again both as an academic philosopher and in more everyday ways, in a variety of other causes with a strong ethical basis: aid for developing nations, support for refugees, the legalization of voluntary euthanasia, wilderness preservation and more general environmental concerns. All of this has given me the chance to get to know people who give up their time, their money and sometimes much of their private lives for an ethically based cause; and it has given me a deeper sense of what it is to try to live an ethical life. Since writing my Master's thesis I have written about the question 'Why act ethically?' in the final chapter of Practical Ethics, and I have touched on the theme of ethics and selfishness in The Expanding Circle. In turning once again to the link between Prefac e xiii ethics and self-interest, I -can now draw on a solid background of practical experience, as well as on the research and writings of other scholars. If asked why anyone should act morally or ethi￾cally, I can give a bolder and more positive response than I did in my earlier thesis. I can point to people who have chosen to live an ethical life, and have been able to make an impact on the world. In doing so they have invested their lives with a signifi￾cance that many despair of ever finding. They find, as a result, that their own lives are richer, more fulfilling, more exciting even, than they were before they made that choice. Peter Singer January 1993

CHAPTER I The ultimate e choice Ivan Boesky,s choice In 1985 Ivan Boesky was known as 'the king of the arbitra ge ries that were the target of takeover offers. He made profits a specialized form of investment in the shares of com- of $40 million in 1981 when Du Pont bought Conoco: S80 million in 1984 when Chevron bought Gulf Oil. and in the ame year, $100 million when Texaco acquired Getty Oil There were some substantial losses too, but not enough to stop Boesky making Forbes magazine's list of America's wealthiest 400 people. His personal fortune was estimated at between $150 million and $200 million Boesky had achieved both a formidable reputation, and substantial degree of respectability. His reputation cam part, from the amount of money that he controlled. 'lvar said one colleague, 'could get any Chief Executive Officer in the country off the toilet to talk to him at seven o'clock in the morning. But his reputation was also built on the belief that he had brought a newscientific' approach to investment, based on an elaborate communications system that he claimed was like NASAs. He was featured not only in business maga- s. but also in the Ney york Times living section. He watch chain was prominently displayed. He owned a twelve bedroom Georgian mansion set on 190 acres in Westchester

CHAPTE R 1 The ultimate choice Ivan Boesky's choice In 1985 Ivan Boesky was known as 'the king of the arbitra￾gers', a specialized form of investment in the shares of com￾panies that were the target of takeover offers. He made profits of $40 million in 1981 when Du Pont bought Conoco; $80 million in 1984 when Chevron bought Gulf Oil; and in the same year, $100 million when Texaco acquired Getty Oil. There were some substantial losses too, but not enough to stop Boesky making Forbes magazine's list of America's wealthiest 400 people. His personal fortune was estimated at between $150 million and $200 million.1 Boesky had achieved both a formidable reputation, and a substantial degree of respectability. His reputation came, in part, from the amount of money that he controlled. 'Ivan', said one colleague, 'could get any Chief Executive Officer in the country off the toilet to talk to him at seven o'clock in the morning'.2 But his reputation was also built on the belief that he had brought a new 'scientific' approach to investment, based on an elaborate communications system that he claimed was like NASA's. He was featured not only in business maga￾zines, but also in the New York Times Living section. He wore the best suits, on which a Winston Churchill-style gold watch chain was prominently displayed. He owned a twelve￾bedroom Georgian mansion set on 190 acres in Westchester

2 How are we to live The ultimate choice 3 County, outside New York City. He was a notable member In the same year that this autobiography was published, at of the Republican Party, and some thought he cherished the height of his success, Boesky entered into an arrangement political ambitions. He held positions at the American Ballet for obtaining inside information from Dennis Levine. Levine Theater and the Metropolitan Museum of Art who was himself earning around $3 million annually in sala Unlike other arbitragers before him, Boesky sought to pub- and bonuses, worked at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the phe licize the nature of his work, and aimed to be recognized as nomenally successful Wall Street firm that dominated the expert in a specialized area that aided the proper function- junk bond market. Since junk bonds were the favoured way 085 he published a book about arbi- of raising funds for takeovers, Drexel was involved in almo trage entitled Merger Mania. The book claims that arbitrage every major takeover battle, and Levine privy to infor contributes to 'a fair, liquid and efficient market' and states nation that, in the hands of someone with plenty of capital, that undue profits are not made: there are no esoteric tricks could be used to make hundreds of millions of dollars vir- that enable arbitragers to outwit the system.. profit oppor tually without risk tunities exist only because risk arbitrage serves an important The ethics of this situation are not in dispute. When Boesky market function. Merger Mania begins with a toucher was buying shares on the basis of the information Levine gave dedication him, he knew that the shares would rise in price. The share holders who sold to him did not know that. and hence sold the shares at less than they could have obtained for them Dedication later, if they had not sold. If Drexel,s client was someone who My father, my mentor, William H. Boesky (1900-1964),of wished to take a company over, then that client would have beloved memory, whose courage brought him to these shores to pay more for the company if the news of the intended from his native Ykaterinoslav, Russia, in the year 1912. My takeover leaked out, since Boesky's purchases would push up life has been profoundly influenced by my father's spirit and the price of the shares. The added cost might mean that the strong commitment to the well-being of humanity, and by his bid to take over the target company would fail; or it might mean that, though the bid succeeded after the takeover more emphasis on learning as the most important means to justice, mercy, and righteousness. His life remains an example of of the companys assets would be sold off, to pay for the increased borrowings needed to buy the company at the higher ommunity the benefits he had received price. Since Drexel, and hence Levine, had obtained the infor- hrough the exercise of God-given talents. mation of the intended takeover in confidence from their With this inspiration I write this book for all who wish to clients, for them to disclose it to others who could profit from learn of my specialty, that they may be inspired to believe that it, to the disadvantage of their clients, was clearly contrary to confidence in one s self and determination can allow one to all accepted professional ethical standards. Boesky has never become whatever one may dream. May those who read my suggested that he dissents from these standards. or believed book gain some understanding for the opportunity which exists that his circumstances justified an exception to them. Boesky niquely in this great land. 3 also knew that trading in inside information was illegal

2 How ar e we to live ? County, outside New York City. He was a notable member of the Republican Party, and some thought he cherished political ambitions. He held positions at the American Ballet Theater and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Unlike other arbitragers before him, Boesky sought to pub￾licize the nature of his work, and aimed to be recognized as an expert in a specialized area that aided the proper function￾ing of the market. In 1985 he published a book about arbi￾trage entitled Merger Mania. The book claims that arbitrage contributes to 'a fair, liquid and efficient market' and states that 'undue profits are not made: there are no esoteric tricks that enable arbitragers to outwit the system . . . profit oppor￾tunities exist only because risk arbitrage serves an important market function'. Merger Mania begins with a touching dedication: Dedication My father, my mentor, William H. Boesky (1900-1964), of beloved memory, whose courage brought him to these shores from his native Ykaterinoslav, Russia, in the year 1912. My life has been profoundly influenced by my father's spirit and strong commitment to the well-being of humanity, and by his emphasis on learning as the most important means to justice, mercy, and righteousness. His life remains an example of returning to the community the benefits he had received through the exercise of God-given talents. With this inspiration I write this book for all who wish to learn of my specialty, that they may be inspired to believe that confidence in one's self and determination can allow one to become whatever one may dream. May those who read my book gain some understanding for the opportunity which exists uniquely in this great land.3 T h e ultimat e choic e 3 In the same year that this autobiography was published, at the height of his success, Boesky entered into an arrangement for obtaining inside information from Dennis Levine. Levine, who was himself earning around $3 million annually in salary and bonuses, worked at Drexel Burnham Lambert, the phe￾nomenally successful Wall Street firm that dominated the 'junk bond' market. Since junk bonds were the favoured way of raising funds for takeovers, Drexel was involved in almost every major takeover battle, and Levine was privy to infor￾mation that, in the hands of someone with plenty of capital, could be used to make hundreds of millions of dollars, vir￾tually without risk. The ethics of this situation are not in dispute. When Boesky was buying shares on the basis of the information Levine gave him, he knew that the shares would rise in price. The share￾holders who sold to him did not know that, and hence sold the shares at less than they could have obtained for them later, if they had not sold. If Drexel's client was someone who wished to take a company over, then that client would have to pay more for the company if the news of the intended takeover leaked out, since Boesky's purchases would push up the price of the shares. The added cost might mean that the bid to take over the target company would fail; or it might mean that, though the bid succeeded, after the takeover more of the company's assets would be sold off, to pay for the increased borrowings needed to buy the company at the higher price. Since Drexel, and hence Levine, had obtained the infor￾mation of the intended takeover in confidence from their clients, for them to disclose it to others who could profit from it, to the disadvantage of their clients, was clearly contrary to all accepted professional ethical standards. Boesky has never suggested that he dissents from these standards, or believed that his circumstances justified an exception to them. Boesky also knew that trading in inside information was illegal

4 How are we to live? The ultimate choice 5 Nevertheless. in 1985 he went so far as to formalize the rainforests, you join a coalition to raise public awareness of arrangement he had with Levine, agreeing to pay him 5 per- the continuing destruction of the forests. Another person wants cent of the profits he made from purchasing shares about well-paid and interesting career, so she studies law. In each which Levine had given him information of these choices, the fundamental values are already Why did Boesky do it? Why would anyone who has $150 and the choice is a matter of the best means of achieving what ty, and- as is evader is valued. In ultimate choices, however, the fundamental val- from the dedication to his book- values at least the appear ues themselves come to the fore. We are no longer choosing ance of an ethical life that benefits the community as a whole, ithin a framework that assumes that we want only to maxi- risk his reputation, his wealth, and his freedom by doing mize our own interests. nor within a framework that takes it omething that is obviously neither legal nor ethical? Granted, for granted that we are going to do whatever we consider to Boesky stood to make very large sums of money from his be best, ethically speaking. Instead, we are choosing between arrangement with Levine. The Securities and Exchange Com- different possible ways of living: the way of living in which was later to describe several transactions in which self-interest is paramount, or that in which ethics is para Boesky had used information obtained from Levine; his profits mount,or perhaps some trade-off between the two. (I take on these deals were estimated at $50 million. Given the pre- ethics and self-interest as the two rival viewpoints because vious track record of the securities and Exchange commis- they are, in my view, the two strongest contenders. Other sion, Boesky could well have thought that his illegal insider possibilities include, for example, living by the rules of eti- trading was likely to go undetected and unprosecuted. So it quette, or living in accordance with ones own aesthetic stand- was reasonable enough for Boesky to believe that the use of ards, treating one's life as a work of art; but these possibilities inside information would bring him a lot of money with little are not the subject of this book.) chance of exposure. Does that mean that it was a wise thing Ultimate choices take courage. In making restricted choices, for him to do? In these circumstances, where does wisdom our fundamental values form a foundation on which we can lie? In choosing to enrich himselffurther, in a manner that he stand when we choose. To make an ultimate choice we must justify ethically, Bo making a choice put in question the foundations of our lives. In the fifties, between fundamentally different ways of living. I shall call French philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre saw this kind of this type of choice an 'ultimate choice. When ethics and self- hoice as an expression of our ultimate freedom. We are free Interest to be in conflict. we face an ultimate choic to choose what we are to be. because we have no essential How are we to choose? nature, that is, no given purpose outside ourselves. Unlike, Most of the choices we make in our everyday lives are say, an apple tree that has come into existence as a result of restricted choices, in that they are made from within a given someone else's plan, we simply exist, and the rest is up to us framework or set of values. Given that I want to keep reason- (Hence the name given to this group of thinkers: existential- ably fit, I sensibly choose to go for a walk rather than slouch ists. )Sometimes this leads to a sense that we are standing on the sofa with a can of beer, watching the football on before a moral void. We feel vertigo, and want to get out of television. Since you want to do something to help preserve that situation as quickly as possible. So we avoid the ultimate

4 How ar e we to live ? Nevertheless, in 1985 he went so far as to formalize the arrangement he had with Levine, agreeing to pay him 5 per￾cent of the profits he made from purchasing shares about which Levine had given him information. Why did Boesky do it? Why would anyone who has $150 million, a respected position in society, and — as is evident from the dedication to his book - values at least the appear￾ance of an ethical life that benefits the community as a whole, risk his reputation, his wealth, and his freedom by doing something that is obviously neither legal nor ethical? Granted, Boesky stood to make very large sums of money from his arrangement with Levine. The Securities and Exchange Com￾mission was later to describe several transactions in which Boesky had used information obtained from Levine; his profits on these deals were estimated at $50 million. Given the pre￾vious track record of the Securities and Exchange Commis￾sion, Boesky could well have thought that his illegal insider trading was likely to go undetected and unprosecuted. So it was reasonable enough for Boesky to believe that the use of inside information would bring him a lot of money with little chance of exposure. Does that mean that it was a wise thing for him to do? In these circumstances, where does wisdom lie? In choosing to enrich himself further, in a manner that he could not justify ethically, Boesky was making a choice between fundamentally different ways of living. I shall call this type of choice an 'ultimate choice'. When ethics and self￾interest seem to be in conflict, we face an ultimate choice. How are we to choose? Most of the choices we make in our everyday lives are restricted choices, in that they are made from within a given framework or set of values. Given that I want to keep reason￾ably fit, I sensibly choose to go for a walk rather than slouch on the sofa with a can of beer, watching the football on television. Since you want to do something to help preserve The ultimat e choic e 5 rainforests, you join a coalition to raise public awareness of the continuing destruction of the forests. Another person wants a well-paid and interesting career, so she studies law. In each of these choices, the fundamental values are already assumed, and the choice is a matter of the best means of achieving what is valued. In ultimate choices, however, the fundamental val￾ues themselves come to the fore. We are no longer choosing within a framework that assumes that we want only to maxi￾mize our own interests, nor within a framework that takes it for granted that we are going to do whatever we consider to be best, ethically speaking. Instead, we are choosing between different possible ways of living: the way of living in which self-interest is paramount, or that in which ethics is para￾mount, or perhaps some trade-off between the two. (I take ethics and self-interest as the two rival viewpoints because they are, in my view, the two strongest contenders. Other possibilities include, for example, living by the rules of eti￾quette, or living in accordance with one's own aesthetic stand￾ards, treating one's life as a work of art; but these possibilities are not the subject of this book.) Ultimate choices take courage. In making restricted choices, our fundamental values form a foundation on which we can stand when we choose. To make an ultimate choice we must put in question the foundations of our lives. In the fifties, French philosophers like Jean-Paul Sartre saw this kind of choice as an expression of our ultimate freedom. We are free to choose what we are to be, because we have no essential nature, that is, no given purpose outside ourselves. Unlike, say, an apple tree that has come into existence as a result of someone else's plan, we simply exist, and the rest is up to us. (Hence the name given to this group of thinkers: existential￾ists.) Sometimes this leads to a sense that we are standing before a moral void. We feel vertigo, and want to get out of that situation as quickly as possible. So we avoid the ultimate

The ultimate choice 7 choice by carrying on as we were doing before. That ourselves, we will admit that, at least sometimes, where self- the simplest and safest thing to do. but we do not reall interest and ethics clash, we choose self-interest, and this is making the ultimate choice in that way. We make it by not just a case of being weak-willed or irrational. We are default, and it may not be safe at all. Perhaps Ivan Boesky genuinely unsure what it is rational to do, because when the continued to do what would make him richer because to do clash is so fundamental, reason seems to have no way of anything else would have involved questioning the founda solving it. tions of most of his life. He acted as if his essential nature was We all face ultimate choices, and with equal intensity, to make money. But of course it was not: he could have whether our opportunities are to gain, by unethical means, chosen living ethically ahead of money-making $50 or $50 million. The state of the world in the late twen- Even if we are ready to face an ultimate choice, however tieth century means that even if we are never tempted at all by unethical ways of making money, we have to decide to choice situations we know how to get expert advice. There what extent we shall live for ourselves. and to what extent for are financial consultants and educational counsellors and health others. There are people who are hungry, malnourished, lack care advisers, all ready to tell you about what is the best for I, or care. a your own interests. Many people will be eager to offer you ganizations that raise money to help these people. True, the their opinions about what would be the right thing to do, problem is so big that one individual cannot make much too. But who is the expert here? Suppose that you have the impact on it; and no doubt some of the money will be swal- opportunity to sell your car, which you know is about to need ed up in administrat major repairs, to a stranger who is too innocent to have th other reason will not reach the people who need it most ar checked properly. He is pleased with the cars appearance Despite these inevitable problems, the discrepancy between and a deal is about to be struck, when he casually asks if the the wealth of the developed world and the poverty of the car has any problems. If you say, just as casually, 'No, nothing poorest people in developing countries is so great that if only that I know of, the stranger will buy the car, paying you at a small fraction of what you give reaches the people who need east $1,000 more than you would get from anyone who that fraction will make a far greater difference to the peo- knew the truth. He will never be able to prove that you were ole it reaches than the full amount you give could make to lying. You are convinced that it would be wrong to lie to your own life. That you as an individual cannot make an him, but another $1,000 would make your life more comfort mpact on the entire problem seems scarcely relevant, since able for the next few months. In this situation you don't see ou can make an impact on the lives of particular families. So d to ask anyone for advice about what is in your best will you get involved with one of these organizations? Will nor do you need to ask what it would be right to do you yourself give, not just spare change when a tin is rattled you still ask what to do? under your nose, but substantial amounts that will reduce Of course you can. Some would say that if you know that your ability to live a luxurious lifestyle? it would be wrong to lie about your car, that is the end of the Some consumer products damage the ozone layer, contrib matter, but this is wishful thinking. If we are honest with ute to the greenhouse effect, destroy rainforests, or pollut

6 Ho w ar e we to live ? T h e ultimat e choic e 7 choice by carrying on as we were doing before. That seems the simplest and safest thing to do. But we do not really avoid making the ultimate choice in that way. We make it by default, and it may not be safe at all. Perhaps Ivan Boesky continued to do what would make him richer because to do anything else would have involved questioning the founda￾tions of most of his life. He acted as if his essential nature was to make money. But of course it was not: he could have chosen living ethically ahead of money-making. Even if we are ready to face an ultimate choice, however, it is not easy to know how to make it. In more restricted choice situations we know how to get expert advice. There are financial consultants and educational counsellors and health care advisers, all ready to tell you about what is the best for your own interests. Many people will be eager to offer you their opinions about what would be the right thing to do, too. But who is the expert here? Suppose that you have the opportunity to sell your car, which you know is about to need major repairs, to a stranger who is too innocent to have the car checked properly. He is pleased with the car's appearance, and a deal is about to be struck, when he casually asks if the car has any problems. If you say, just as casually, 'No, nothing that I know of, the stranger will buy the car, paying you at least $1,000 more than you would get from anyone who knew the truth. He will never be able to prove that you were lying. You are convinced that it would be wrong to lie to him, but another $1,000 would make your life more comfort￾able for the next few months. In this situation you don't see any need to ask anyone for advice about what is in your best interest; nor do you need to ask what it would be right to do. So can you still ask what to do? Of course you can. Some would say that if you know that it would be wrong to lie about your car, that is the end of the matter; but this is wishful thinking. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that, at least sometimes, where self￾interest and ethics clash, we choose self-interest, and this is not just a case of being weak-willed or irrational. We are genuinely unsure what it is rational to do, because when the clash is so fundamental, reason seems to have no way of resolving it. We all face ultimate choices, and with equal intensity, whether our opportunities are to gain, by unethical means, $50 or $50 million. The state of the world in the late twen￾tieth century means that even if we are never tempted at all by unethical ways of making money, we have to decide to what extent we shall live for ourselves, and to what extent for others. There are people who are hungry, malnourished, lack￾ing shelter, or basic health care: and there are voluntary or￾ganizations that raise money to help these people. True, the problem is so big that one individual cannot make much impact on it; and no doubt some of the money will be swal￾lowed up in administration, or will get stolen, or for some other reason will not reach the people who need it most. Despite these inevitable problems, the discrepancy between the wealth of the developed world and the poverty of the poorest people in developing countries is so great that if only a small fraction of what you give reaches the people who need it, that fraction will make a far greater difference to the peo￾ple it reaches than the full amount you give could make to your own life. That you as an individual cannot make an impact on the entire problem seems scarcely relevant, since you can make an impact on the lives of particular families. So will you get involved with one of these organizations? Will you yourself give, not just spare change when a tin is rattled under your nose, but substantial amounts that will reduce your ability to live a luxurious lifestyle? Some consumer products damage the ozone layer, contrib￾ute to the greenhouse effect, destroy rainforests, or pollute