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 ultimate4 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