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 pollut6 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