As a humanist I find it annoying when people claim that a life of creative activity and supportive relationships, taking on a determinate shape over time, is not enough because it lacks the essential element. It leaves out “spirituality” and has no room for God. What basis do they have for the claim that it’s not enough?

To enjoy life is to be pleased, delighted, and satisfied with it; to live with relish, to savour and take pleasure especially in parts of it we regard as important, and to want the life to continue by and large in the way it has been going. The most important thing we can do is live in a way that reflects what we most deeply care about.

Clearly some parental aims get the parent-child relationship started on the wrong foot. It’s not OK to have a child so you’ll later have a tennis partner. It is OK to want responsibility, focus, bonding with a partner, and the pleasures of daily life with children.

We should see a very close connection between two fields of philosophy which are nowadays kept well apart, namely ethics and epistemology. Indeed, if the good life and virtue consist in knowledge, then the study of knowledge just is the study of ethics.

Being moral sometimes handicaps decent people in their pursuit of worthwhile goals. This is especially likely to happen when those with power in society have badly mistaken ideas about what morality requires. A good person might not last long in a bad society.

The hero might do something that he or she may regret later, but since the action is so boldly and decisively undertaken, we can’t help but be impressed. We may even find ourselves awed by the magnificence of an action that is ethically abhorrent.

“Socrates spent many of his prime years fighting the most vicious, pitiless wars. I think that has a huge impact. I wonder if his central interest in the good is because actually he saw a lot that was very bad all around him.”